1945
DOI: 10.1119/1.1990716
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Imaging of Underwater Objects

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

1970
1970
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, light rays are refracted as they pass from water to air (5). This refraction displaces the optical image and causes distortions in the apparent size, distance, and direction of the object.…”
Section: S M Luria and Jo Ann S Kinneymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, light rays are refracted as they pass from water to air (5). This refraction displaces the optical image and causes distortions in the apparent size, distance, and direction of the object.…”
Section: S M Luria and Jo Ann S Kinneymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If its depth is assumed to be 2 m below the panel elevation on the riverbank (an increase in distance of a factor 17/15), then its true length would be increased by about 1.13 without refraction (119 ± 9 cm). Furthermore, accounting for the refractive index differences between freshwater and air (Kinsler 1945), the true size of the fish is next reduced by the factor (4/3) −1 . Therefore, the true estimated length of the fish seen in Figure 3 is 89 ± 6 cm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If its depth is assumed to be 2 m below the panel elevation on the riverbank (an increase in distance of a factor 17/15), then its true length would be increased by about 1.13 without refraction (119 ± 9 cm). Furthermore, accounting for the refractive index differences between freshwater and air (Kinsler 1945 ), the true size of the fi sh is next reduced by the factor (4/3) −1 . Therefore, the true estimated length of the fi sh seen in Figure 3 is 89 ± 6 cm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%