Talk:Physics of optical holography

Untitled

I am proposing to remove the section Physics of holography from the main Holography page, and set it up as a page on its own. The comment about the page being "too technical might then be removable.

I wrote the original, but I think I need to start again from scratch. Each section needs to be referenced from one or more sources, and the mathematics can be more detailed. External comments and contributions welcome.

The article has now been published. No dount, it will need improvements and amendments. Epzcaw (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on finally getting this out the (virtual) door!

One quibble - there's always a quibble :( - is that in the first section you have "This is known as an on-axis hologram" which isn't a term I recognise, but that doesn't mean it isn't used; have you a cite for it? I've always seen that geometry referred to as either "in-line holography" or less often "Gabor holograms". I've managed to dig out my copy of "Practical Holography" by Graham Saxby which I think is both authoritative and much more accessible than the academic style of Hariharan (which I don't have) and similar. (Still not defeated my time management/availability gremlins though.) Louis Knee (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Only just seen this now. I've changed "on-axis" to "in-line". Epzcaw (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://drrajivdesaimd.com/2017/09/17/hologram/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Pbrks (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

All the material which has been removed from here for "copyright reasons" is currently in the Holography article, and I wrote most of it in 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holography&direction=prev&oldid=453253607

I proposed to add this new article to Wikipedia, and remove the more complex stuff from the original article to here in response to criticism that it was too technical.

I've looked at the article which you claim has copyright, and it looks as if it has taken material from the holography article. It has certainly taken photos from there including one I added as well as others.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Broken_hologram.jpg

I know there is no problem with anyone copying and publishing material from Wikipedia, but it is hardly reasonable to then claim copyright. Epzcaw (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)