Thank you

sometimes I can't put my thoughts into words as well as other people ;P

https://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/Images/Learn-Explore/Photography-Techniques/2009/Focal-Length/Media/Focal-Length-Field-of-view.jpg

Think of the light coming to your eye geometrically like a pair of scissors

The rayleigh criterion being a limit is a property of diffraction from a ciruclar aperture. Cameras can (and often do) have non circular apertures that can resolve beyond the rayleigh criterion.

ooo, I didn't know that!

That's cool :o

😃

scissors

back to what Z was saying

When the scissors close it becomes unresolvable

A flat plane cannot obscure half of an object

One of the biggest differences for instance is axicon lenses which can produce non-diffractive beams.

The angle the light is coming to your eye dictates that closure

For a gaussian beam on a circular lens*

For other waveforms and other lenses, no

If you are closer to something...it will start to blend sooner than something further

Height can cause this

Or distance

Imagine the vertical lines are say light post and the point on the left is where the observers eyes would be

on a flat plane, we should still be able to see the whole ship

yet half of it is obscured.

Your not doing it right

Oh? please fix my diagram then haha

I could be wrong :v
So if you can diagram the picture

then by all means

You're not taking into account how light works at great distances

I just explained it to youm

how light works at great distances? the photon thing?

see how in this picture you're closer to the left side hallway and you start to lose the left first

perspective, you can only see so far, the sun is going in a circle covering all the land masses in a day, traveling in a circle, you can only see so far so you see it going over the see-able view in your area

how correct is this then

Dude

Are u seriously this dense?

I'm using the top of the bottom part of the arch as the plane

That's rude :(