Aperture Effects: Explaining Brightness & Dimming

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert Burdge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Effects
AI Thread Summary
Viewing a distant object through a small circular aperture close to the eye results in a dimmed center image with a bright perimeter, enhancing depth of field but complicating visibility. The proximity of the aperture causes defocusing, while the size suggests that diffraction is not the primary cause of the observed effects. Using a cross-slot aperture instead eliminates the dimming at the center but reduces depth of field. Discussions reference the Fresnel Zone Plate effect, indicating that the phenomenon may relate to diffraction principles, despite the aperture's distance from the eye. The conversation highlights the complexities of light behavior through apertures and the interplay between defocus and diffraction.
Robert Burdge
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If a distant object is viewed through a small ciruclar aperture that is placed close to the eye, there is an apparent "shadowing" of the center of the viewed image, while the inner perimeter of the aperture is bright.

The small aperture enhances the depth of field for good focus, but the dimming of the center of the image makes viewing more difficult. The aperture is defocused because of its proximity to the eye, and because the point of focus is intentionally at a distance. If a pair of short slits in the form of a cross (with width equal to the original circular aperture) is used instead of the circular aperture, the center of the aperture image is bright.

The aperture size (~ 1.0mm) is large compared to the wavelength of light which would suggest that diffraction is not the cause of this phenomena. Defocus can account for the general dimming of the image, but not the brightness around the perimeter. The cross-slot aperture appears to solve the problem of dimming at the expense of depth of field. Can anyone explain what causes these effects?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sounds very much like a Fresnel Zone Plate effect. Search for that on Google and you'll find all you need!

P.S. A pinhole camera focuses the image by being, essentially, the central circle of a Fresnel zone plate.

P.P.S. It is diffraction. What do you think makes shadows 'blurry' the further they are from the object blocking the light? That's diffraction too!
 
James,

I thought about that, but the effect seems to be fairly indifferent to the distance of the aperture from the eye. If I understand the Fresnel Zone effect it should pass through several different patterns in short order as the observation point is moved relative to the aperture, with the ring pattern and number of rings changing noticeably.

The far-field/near-field boundary for light through a 1.0 mm aperture is about 1.8 m . With the eye about 3 cm from the aperture this would definitely qualify as Fresnel near-field. I have also read, though, that the focusing effect of the eye will tend to produce Fraunhofer diffraction even at close distances. Lenses are used in this way in experiements to produce far-field effects at finite distances.

Robert
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top