Talk:Dichroic prism

Untitled

Excellent. This is exactly what I wanted to know. So the three beams are actually just bandpass-filtered versions of the original image, with reddish, blueish, and greenish center frequencies, right? It doesn't convert it to three specific frequencies... Maybe we could make a graph of that? - Omegatron 19:10, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

the light isn't being filtered, each surface act as a dichroic reflector, it reflects light of a certain wavelenght (and within a certain band) and the rest passes through, no light is absorbed (ideally)

High pass or low pass?

"...high-pass filter coating (F1) that reflects blue light (high-frequency), but transmits longer wavelengths (lower frequencies)."

Shouldn't that be low pass? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That would typically be called "long-pass", and frequencies would not be mentioned. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to merge.

The article at Three-CCD camera should be merged with this article.

The "Three-CCD camera" article is almost exclusively about the dicroic prism assembly. Although the article refers to CCD sensors throughout, the article is equally valid for MOS sensors or any future development. Redirects for "Three-CCD camera", 3CCD, 3MOS et. etc should be made to this article to avoid broken wikilinks. 109.157.161.93 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – the Three-CCD camera article is about cameras that use such prisms, where of course the prisms are very important. But it's not a bad article, with some references, and more than twice the size of the unreferenced stub Dichroic prism. The latter should be improved to better cover the more economically significant use of such prisms, which is in projectors. See this article for example. And it should be expanded to better cover how dichroic prisms actually work, as opposed to expanding by merging in an article on an application. In general moving a fairly mature article into a stub-like article is not a great move. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The Three-CCD camera is not about a 3 CCD camera at all. Whilst I agree, that is not a bad article as such, it basically solely describes the prism assembly used to separate the colours. Although it refers to CCD sensors throughout the text, this is only due to the fact that the prism will inevitably have sensors attached to it in a camera application, though these could be any type of sensor and not just CCD as the article title suggests. There are also a couple of very short, essentially throw away camera specific paragraphs, one of which covers the entire history of three sensor cameras (and that in just one sentence!). Whilst I agree that the scope of the coverage could profitably be expanded, I note that Dicklyon's suggestions will take the article further away from the specific coverage of use in cameras (a projector is, after all not a camera). I note also that 'Dichroic prism' is in fact a subset of the 'three-CCD camera' article and thus a merger would eliminate the pointless duplication that currently exists. The current 'dichroic prism' article should, in my view, be replaced with the current 'Three-CCD camera', which I agree has a good coverage of the subject of dichroic prisms, but as noted, minimal coverage of cameras. It should then be made less CCD specific and more generic as far as the actual sensors used are concerned. The resultant article can then be expanded to include the use of dichroic prisms in other applications (such as the suggested projectors) without compromising the actual subject line (which is currently camera specific - and then only CCD cameras). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted my suggestion of where to add the projector material. And you seem to be saying merge into the other article (or delete this one and rename Three-CCD camera to be Dichroic prism; it would not be appropriate to do as you say and copy the contents of that one into this one (that's called an improper move, which is essentially what this merge proposal is suggesting). And there are about 900 books mentioning "dichroic prism", but the majority of them, by far, do not mention it in the context of a camera. Someone should write the prism article first, before arguing for this move. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Merger proposals are not normally a vote, but rather a discussion. But if a vote it is then as proposer, I guess I have to vote as well. 109.157.161.93 (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - 3CCD, 3MOS and other trademarks, brand names and abbreviations can be mentioned in the article as applications of technology. Neither 3CCD nor 3MOS deserves a separate article. Mikus (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The the camera article is primarily about the prism, then the camera article needs to be expanded. That article should be about the product, this article is about a technology or method. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that was rather the point. I'm not sure what you can say about a 3-CCD camera that is not about the optical assembly. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A 3-CCD camera generally uses a group of dichroic prisms, but the overlap between that and this article is more the fault of this article. A 3-CCD camera is a very specific application of a dichroic prism, so this article should only touch on it if at all. I see very little difference between a dichroic prism and a dichroic filter. I wonder if dichroic prism shouldn't redirect to dichroic filter and leave 3-CCD camera explain that particular relevant, useful application of the technology. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I just returned to revisit this proposal. Currently 3 say do: 3 say don't. I therefore propose to leave the merger tags in place a while longer to see if anyone else has any thoughts (or suggestions). My only observation on Mr FrantzDale's contribution is: that although you may be right, nevertheless, the dichroic prism article solely concentrates on the prism assembly for a 3 sensor camera at present. Maybe this article needs an overhaul to make it less specific and to address dichroic prisms in general. The overlap would therefore be removed and a merge would then be superfluous. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on the technology than myself would care to have a crack. 86.157.170.163 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. AFAIK, these types of beam splitters are used not only used in 3 CCD cameras, but as well for beam merging (e.g. in projection systems). If anything, the content from Dichroic Prism should be merged into Beam splitter. Then 3 CCD article should be reworked to be about the types of cameras in general, with a short description, for all the articles that link to 3 CCC. The rest of the 3 CCD article should be also merged into Beam Splitter. Paul Pot (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

* Oppose. I second the suggestion by Paul Pot. I came across this article, specifically because I wanted to know what was happening when 3CCD was mentioned by video camera manufacturers. My question was answered - and with remarkable clarity; not in an ultra-scientific description that might have resulted from a discussion on a particular prism. Just take a quick peek at the CCD article. Try reading that three times. Makes your head hurt.

Thumbs up to Dichroic prism merger into Beam splitter and Three-CCD camera expanded to types of cameras in general. --J.C. Martinez-Sifre (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.