Astronomy Technical, physical text on (astro)photography & telescopes?

AI Thread Summary
Many amateur astrophotography resources lack the mathematical depth needed for practical calculations, leading to a demand for comprehensive texts covering essential topics such as magnification, image scale, focal length, focal ratios, field of view, resolution, and diffraction limits. There is a call for a book that consolidates these practical calculations, with some suggesting that a full geometrical optics textbook may be necessary, along with additional resources on lens and mirror design. A notable recommendation is "Physics of Digital Photography" by Andy Rowlands, though it may not suffice as a standalone guide. Another suggested resource is "Modern Optical Engineering" by Warren Smith, which is considered suitable for those seeking the mathematical aspects of optics. The discussion emphasizes the need for accessible materials that bridge theoretical knowledge with practical applications in astrophotography.
yucheng
Messages
232
Reaction score
57
It appears that many texts on astrophotography and telescopes for amateurs tend to avoid mathematical formulas, as such, they are of little use to do some practical calculations.

What I am interested in is:
Magnification
Image scale
Focal length
Focal plane and sensor plane! (CCDs!)
Focal-ratio and its physical significance
Field of view
Resolution
Diffraction limit?
etc
Extra: find focal length of telescope from radius of curvature?...

Essentially, a book that covers all practical calculations one can find.

Do you know of any such book? I have the eerie feeling that a full-blown geometrical optics textbook is required, but then one still need to read about lens design... And another for mirrors and telescope. Indeed mirrors! Do they call that mirror design?

Or is basic knowledge just enough for practical applications?

A relevant book is:
Physics of Digital Photography, Andy Rowlands (actually, 2nd ed is out)

Judging from the first chapter (freely available on publisher website), it is indeed fairly technical. Though, it appears to be insufficient as a standalone text. Readers it seems are referred to the more than 5 textbooks listed at the reference (I'm not sure about 2nd ed though, plus I have to look at the ensuing chapters.)

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yucheng said:
Do you know of any such book? I have the eerie feeling that a full-blown geometrical optics textbook is required, but then one still need to read about lens design... And another for mirrors and telescope.
If you're looking for the math, then yes, an optics-focused textbook is just what you need.
One possibility:
Modern Optical Engineering by Warren Smith (whatever edition is cheapest)
 
Drakkith said:
If you're looking for the math, then yes, an optics-focused textbook is just what you need.
One possibility:
Modern Optical Engineering by Warren Smith (whatever edition is cheapest)
Optics, my greatest fear. Yup, I'll look into this book. Thanks!
 
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...
TLDR: is Blennow "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" a good follow-up to Altland "Mathematics for physicists"? Hello everybody, returning to physics after 30-something years, I felt the need to brush up my maths first. It took me 6 months and I'm currently more than half way through the Altland "Mathematics for physicists" book, covering the math for undergraduate studies at the right level of sophystication, most of which I howewer already knew (being an aerospace engineer)...

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
128
Views
43K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top