XPost: sci.physics, sci.optics   
      
   In sci.physics Skywise  wrote:   
   > I think there is a misunderstanding, perhaps on my part, of what   
   > is being "imaged". Can we go back to that and describe what is meant   
   > to make sure we are on the same page? I thought we were talking   
   > about an almost literal "image" in the sense of optics and light,   
   > except using sound to convey the information, and that we would   
   > end up with a "picture" on a screen. In that sense I see each pixel,   
   > for example, representing the intensity of sound in a specific   
   > direction, just as in a picture each pixel represents the brightness   
   > in a specific direction.   
      
   Direction has little to nothing to do with it.   
      
   Each pixel in an image represents the amplitudes of some set of frequencies   
   of the image.   
      
   An image is an image, whether it is formed from the visiable spectrum,   
   IR, UV, microwave, or sound.   
      
   > BTW, could you please leave the crossposts on the followup?   
      
   Nope.   
      
   > It   
   > appears you are hailing from sci.physics,   
      
   Yep.   
      
   > crossposted, there are now participants from other groups such   
   > as myself.   
      
   So ignore the Followup-To: header.   
      
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   Remove .spam.sux to reply.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)