Imaging Distant Objects: Exploring the Possibility of a Close-up Apparatus

  • Thread starter japam
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Imaging
In summary: I'm not sure if that makes sense or not.In summary, while using a telescope magnification decreases the resolution of an image, taking a picture of the same object with the same magnification from a closer distance would have a higher resolution.
  • #1
japam
39
0
A telescope takes an image of a distant terrestrial object,lets say a tree, and amplifies and broadens it; however i ask myself if is not posible to build with some combination of lenses an apparatus where you will see an image of the distant object as IF YOU WERE NEAR OR CLOSE TO IT, this app would be different from a telescope i think ;does such artifact exists or can be built?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Isn't that what a telescope does?
 
  • #3
The only difference I can think of between being closer and using a telescope is perspective, and if that's what you are getting at, no, it isn't possible to manipulate perspective with lenses.
 
  • #4
I am not really sure of your question.

A telescope really does not 'amplify' a distant object. It take the apparent area and expands it over the area you are viewing.
This is why as you increase the 'magnification' the object seems to become dimmer.

You can not add more light or detail into a distant object than already exists. As for perspective. as all ready pointed out it can not be manipulate with a lens.

Perhaps you could be more explicative in you question. :-)
 
  • #5
japam said:
an image of the distant object as IF YOU WERE NEAR OR CLOSE TO IT, ... can be built?

Suppose you would remove the restriction that it be done entirely with lenses and allow digital optics, or virtual reality goggles.

The idea might be to make it seem as if the planet Jupiter, or the Whirlpool Galaxy filled an entire wall at an airport or other public building. And you could walk around and view it from different perspectives.

Is this not what you had in mind? If not, could you say more explicitly?
 
  • #6
well,let me change the question to: ¿how can you differentiate an image from a distant object ( ex a tree) taked with a telescope, and an image of the same tree taked with a normal camera but taked from a near distance , in such a way that the tree image size in both cases is the same?
 
  • #7
OK , I think I understand now. Someone may correct me on this, but I think the difference would be in the resolution.

If I point my scope at a terrestrial object and capture a picture under magnification I am narrowing down the field of view. In doing this I loose information. The resolution of the picture decreases proportional to the magnification.

However, if I am near the same object and take a photo, more of the actual area of the picture is resolved. Good old three dimensional space.

An analogous instance would be if you took a picture of let's say of a news paper at 3 meters. The picture would be a relative good representation of the news paper. How if at 3 meters I took the photo through the scope, the resolution wold be substantially less because of the field of view.
In fact if the magnification was enough I may resolve the photo into the individual ‘dots’

Also, if the field of view is decreased the available light is also ‘spread out’.

This is why dim objects are much better viewed through a large apatura instruments rather that using high magnification.

The same rule applies to your visual of a tree being at the point or through magnification.
 
  • #8
For a two dimensional scene there is no difference.
If you stand 1m from an object and take a picture with a scene 1m*1m, then step back to 10m and with a longer focal length take a picture of the same 1m*1m at the object then (assuming no intervening atmospheric effects) there is no difference.

In a 3 dimensional scene (with depth) then the perspective and depth of field (how much in front and behind the object are in focus) do depend on the focal length (ie magnification) of the lens. You use this effect in photography to allow you to isolate an object from a confusing background.
 
  • #9
mgb_phys said:
For a two dimensional scene there is no difference.
If you stand 1m from an object and take a picture with a scene 1m*1m, then step back to 10m and with a longer focal length take a picture of the same 1m*1m at the object then (assuming no intervening atmospheric effects) there is no difference.

Quick question here. I could be interrupting this wrong (would by no means be the first time).

If I stand 1 meter from an object and take picture, then step back 10 meters and take the same picture. The two picture would look relatively the same. However, I am under the impression the 10 meter picture would contain less resolution. Simply because the use of a longer focal length has in essence expanded the space I was photographing in the first place thus reducing the resolution.

My knowledge of photographic optics are somewhat limited so this is not an argumentative point. Just a bit more explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks
Ron
 
  • #10
Assuming the lens was what limited the resolution (as opposed to the film/ccd), a zoom lens that is zoomed-out at 1 meter and set to magnify 10x at 10m would, in fact, produce a lower resolution image. The resolution (angular) of a lens is a function of its aperature.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Assuming the lens was what limited the resolution (as opposed to the film/ccd), a zoom lens that is zoomed-out at 1 meter and set to magnify 10x at 10m would, in fact, produce a lower resolution image. The resolution (angular) of a lens is a function of its aperature.



The lens (and quality of) will always be the limiting factor angular or other wise., whether 20 - 35 mm, or 20 -200 mm or X - X mm, even a 'T' ring adapting to the scope, irrespective of the focal length.

The aperture is always an integral factor in resolution;( don't want to get into a 'bunch' of math here).

To coin a phrase " Bigger is better' as aperture goes.
There is no argument here.
Basic physics in optics.

Merci, I much appreciate your comment russ_watters.
 
  • #12
Surely what japam is looking for is a stereo camera. He's only talking of terrestrial objects
 

FAQ: Imaging Distant Objects: Exploring the Possibility of a Close-up Apparatus

What is imaging distant objects?

Imaging distant objects is the process of capturing images of objects that are located far away from our current position. This can include objects in space, such as planets and galaxies, or objects on Earth that are far from us, such as mountains or buildings.

Why is it important to explore the possibility of a close-up apparatus for imaging distant objects?

A close-up apparatus would allow us to see objects with much greater detail and clarity, providing us with a better understanding of their structure and composition. This could lead to new discoveries and advancements in fields such as astronomy and geology.

What are some challenges involved in imaging distant objects?

One of the main challenges is the vast distance between the object and the observer, which results in a very small image size. Another challenge is the interference of atmospheric conditions, such as turbulence and light pollution, which can distort the image and make it difficult to obtain a clear picture.

How do scientists currently image distant objects?

Scientists use a variety of instruments, such as telescopes and space probes, to capture images of distant objects. These instruments often have advanced technology, such as adaptive optics and digital imaging, to overcome the challenges of imaging distant objects.

What advancements in technology could aid in the development of a close-up apparatus for imaging distant objects?

Advancements in technology such as high-resolution cameras, powerful lenses, and adaptive optics systems could greatly improve our ability to capture detailed images of distant objects. Additionally, advancements in remote sensing and image processing techniques could also aid in the development of a close-up apparatus.

Back
Top