Talk:1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector - Revision history

Nitpicking: Space Vampires

2022-03-06T03:38:00Z

Space Vampires

173.245.48.195: Significant Omission and One Error

2020-02-24T08:42:40Z

Significant Omission and One Error

162.158.88.254 at 14:11, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T14:11:08Z

172.68.90.46 at 01:48, 31 January 2017

2017-01-31T01:48:47Z

162.158.89.43 at 12:26, 30 January 2017

2017-01-30T12:26:22Z

Anthony11 at 07:05, 30 January 2017

2017-01-30T07:05:51Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: Fixed missing space between words

2017-01-29T01:21:52Z

Fixed missing space between words

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For at 01:20, 29 January 2017

2017-01-29T01:20:27Z

Davidy22 at 23:59, 28 January 2017

2017-01-28T23:59:01Z

ExternalMonolog at 09:59, 28 January 2017

2017-01-28T09:59:11Z

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Aren't there Space Vampires in Lovecraft somewhere? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.34|162.158.214.34]] 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 Not as such, but there are in the classic ''Queen of Blood'' [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060877/] and in the unfortunate "Lifeforce" [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089489/] .  A refractor though should be able to see their interstellar umbrella [https://pluckyoutoo.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/lf17.jpg] [[User:Anthony11|Anthony11]] ([[User talk:Anthony11|talk]]) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 An important advantage of refractors that keeps them popular is the very tiny amount of internal scattered light compared to reflectors. This really stands out when viewing planets and bright objects. Everybody loves that velvety black background field that refractors can provide. [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 24 February 2020
Line 33:		Line 33:

	These days, Chernobog may be better known as Czernobog, from Neil Gaiman's novel [[American Gods]]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254\|162.158.88.254]] 14:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Paul		These days, Chernobog may be better known as Czernobog, from Neil Gaiman's novel [[American Gods]]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254\|162.158.88.254]] 14:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Paul
		+
		+	It is odd that apochromatic refractors are not mentioned. These have much better color correction than achromatic telescopes. Further, contrary to the article's claims, refractors ARE widely used by amateur astronomers--especially for photography. There are several reasons for this, including that refractors are physically more compact, generally have give higher contrast images, and do not require collimation. Most important, though, is that they generally have shorter focal lengths than reflecting or catadioptric designs. This results in lower magnification and a wider field of view. This is helpful not only because many deep sky objects have a large angular size, but because highly accurate tracking is required to prevent star trails at higher magnifications. A google search will confirm that many experts in astrophotography recommend refractors (esp. for beginners). Cheers.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 1 February 2017
Line 31:		Line 31:
	There can be no doubt that the original comic contains a mirror, not a prism. And a porro prism would not even work, because it reflects the projection by 180 degrees! Porro prisms are always used in pairs, to upright an image without changing the viewing direction! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.43\|162.158.89.43]] 12:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)		There can be no doubt that the original comic contains a mirror, not a prism. And a porro prism would not even work, because it reflects the projection by 180 degrees! Porro prisms are always used in pairs, to upright an image without changing the viewing direction! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.43\|162.158.89.43]] 12:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
	::The lens of a refractor flips the image, so having a single prism would render it upright.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.46\|172.68.90.46]] 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)		::The lens of a refractor flips the image, so having a single prism would render it upright.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.46\|172.68.90.46]] 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	These days, Chernobog may be better known as Czernobog, from Neil Gaiman's novel [[American Gods]]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254\|162.158.88.254]] 14:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Paul

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 31 January 2017
Line 30:		Line 30:

	There can be no doubt that the original comic contains a mirror, not a prism. And a porro prism would not even work, because it reflects the projection by 180 degrees! Porro prisms are always used in pairs, to upright an image without changing the viewing direction! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.43\|162.158.89.43]] 12:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)		There can be no doubt that the original comic contains a mirror, not a prism. And a porro prism would not even work, because it reflects the projection by 180 degrees! Porro prisms are always used in pairs, to upright an image without changing the viewing direction! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.43\|162.158.89.43]] 12:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
		+	::The lens of a refractor flips the image, so having a single prism would render it upright.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.46\|172.68.90.46]] 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 30 January 2017
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Strictly speaking, bokeh is the "quality" of the OOF areas, not the areas themselves. [[User:Anthony11\|Anthony11]] ([[User talk:Anthony11\|talk]]) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)		Strictly speaking, bokeh is the "quality" of the OOF areas, not the areas themselves. [[User:Anthony11\|Anthony11]] ([[User talk:Anthony11\|talk]]) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	There can be no doubt that the original comic contains a mirror, not a prism. And a porro prism would not even work, because it reflects the projection by 180 degrees! Porro prisms are always used in pairs, to upright an image without changing the viewing direction! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.43\|162.158.89.43]] 12:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 29 January 2017
Line 24:		Line 24:
	An important advantage of refractors that keeps them popular is the very tiny amount of internal scattered light compared to reflectors. This really stands out when viewing planets and bright objects. Everybody loves that velvety black background field that refractors can provide. [[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)		An important advantage of refractors that keeps them popular is the very tiny amount of internal scattered light compared to reflectors. This really stands out when viewing planets and bright objects. Everybody loves that velvety black background field that refractors can provide. [[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

−	Another issue with reflecting telescopes (though not pertinent to the joke) is that when used as a lens in photography, the bokeh, or unfocused highlights beyond the depth of field in an image, are rendered as circular 'doughnut'shapes, instead of the fuzzy points of light created by refracting lens systems. Run-on sentences, FTW. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 01:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)	+	Another issue with reflecting telescopes (though not pertinent to the joke) is that when used as a lens in photography, the bokeh, or unfocused highlights beyond the depth of field in an image, are rendered as circular 'doughnut' shapes, instead of the fuzzy points of light created by refracting lens systems. Run-on sentences, FTW. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 01:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:20, 29 January 2017
Line 23:		Line 23:

	An important advantage of refractors that keeps them popular is the very tiny amount of internal scattered light compared to reflectors. This really stands out when viewing planets and bright objects. Everybody loves that velvety black background field that refractors can provide. [[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)		An important advantage of refractors that keeps them popular is the very tiny amount of internal scattered light compared to reflectors. This really stands out when viewing planets and bright objects. Everybody loves that velvety black background field that refractors can provide. [[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	Another issue with reflecting telescopes (though not pertinent to the joke) is that when used as a lens in photography, the bokeh, or unfocused highlights beyond the depth of field in an image, are rendered as circular 'doughnut'shapes, instead of the fuzzy points of light created by refracting lens systems. Run-on sentences, FTW. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For\|talk]]) 01:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 28 January 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Nitpick: The refracting telescope, drawn correctly, has a mirror in the optical path (image inverter), but it is made with a special vampire reflecting material Ichorium.	+	Nitpick: The refracting telescope, drawn correctly, has a mirror in the optical path (image inverter), but it is made with a special vampire reflecting material Ichorium. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.74.219}}
	:Doesn't the one in this image have a mirror too? at the bottom to make the image come out at the side instead of the end? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.187\|162.158.89.187]]		:Doesn't the one in this image have a mirror too? at the bottom to make the image come out at the side instead of the end? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.187\|162.158.89.187]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 28 January 2017
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Aren't there Space Vampires in Lovecraft somewhere? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.34\|162.158.214.34]] 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)		Aren't there Space Vampires in Lovecraft somewhere? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.34\|162.158.214.34]] 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

−	An important advantage of refractors that keeps them popular is the very tiny amount of internal scattered light compared to reflectors. This really stands out when viewing planets and bright objects. Everybody loves that velvety black background field that refractors can provide.	+	An important advantage of refractors that keeps them popular is the very tiny amount of internal scattered light compared to reflectors. This really stands out when viewing planets and bright objects. Everybody loves that velvety black background field that refractors can provide. [[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)