Understanding Angular Magnification for Objects at Different Distances

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Magnification
Click For Summary
Angular magnification increases when an image is focused at the near point of the eye compared to when it is at infinity. Although measuring an angle at infinity seems challenging, it is possible to perceive and measure angles for distant objects, such as stars. The discussion highlights that while linear magnification increases as objects approach focus, this does not guarantee greater angular magnification, as the subtended angle can be smaller for images further back. A visual representation was created to clarify the relationship between angular and linear magnification. The accuracy of measuring angles from different rays in the context of magnification was also questioned.
pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
In my textbook when talking about magnification, said "You will notice that there is slightly greater magnification when the image is focussed at the near point of the eye [i.e 25cm] than when the eye is relaxed and the image is at infinity."

I assume they are talking about angular magnification.

How is this true?

The first question is how do you get a magnification if the image is at infinity? Because you can't locate where the image is hence can't measure an angle either?
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
pivoxa15 said:
how do you get a magnification if the image is at infinity? Because you can't locate where the image is hence can't measure an angle either?

Look up at a constellation tonight. The image you see (scorpio or orion say) is effectively an infinite distance from you, and yet you can measure an angle. You can look at the seven sisters, then pull out your binoculars and actually count (uh... is it seven?) them.
 
cesiumfrog said:
Look up at a constellation tonight. The image you see (scorpio or orion say) is effectively an infinite distance from you, and yet you can measure an angle. You can look at the seven sisters, then pull out your binoculars and actually count (uh... is it seven?) them.

okay. But the closer the object is to the focus, the greater the linear magnification. This also implies greater angular magnification wouldn't it. So it would be contray to the information in the book.
 
Linear magnification does not necessarily imply angular magnification (if the image is slightly taller than the original, but much further back, then it will subtend a smaller angle).
 
cesiumfrog said:
Linear magnification does not necessarily imply angular magnification (if the image is slightly taller than the original, but much further back, then it will subtend a smaller angle).

Good point. I have created a picture to show what is happening which matches what the textbook say. That is there is greater angular magnification for objects not at the focus.

Ironically, in the textbook they measured the angle from the top ray which is identical for both objects. Is my way of measuring the angle from the bottom ray correct?
 

Attachments

  • angular magnification.JPG
    angular magnification.JPG
    6.2 KB · Views: 479

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K