From: "Chuck Taylor" 
To: "ATM Archives" 
Reply-To: "Chuck Taylor" 


> > The trick here is that for a given star only a tiny spot of the diagonal
is
> > used.   Surface errors beyond the boundaries of that spot are
meaningless.
>
> When looking at stars, I'm not much concerned with detail. ;-)  What
> about extended objects?

But extended objects are effectively a collection of points, if those
points are not smeared (smeared=highly technical term), the detail in the
extended object is not smeared. If those points are smeared, then the
detail in the extended object is smeared.

Although I suppose someone could argue that a point is not smeared, but has
been moved by a small area deformation in the diagonal. But even then, it
would have smeared any point that was only half imaged through that small
deformation area.

Chuck Taylor

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP