Talk:Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor

Common usage seems to disagree with the statement that "Hartmann-Shack" is the proper term and that "Shack-Hartmann" is only used in the US: of all the links on this page to companies selling wavefront sensors, only one uses "Hartmann-Shack". One calls it simply a "wavefront sensor" and the other six (not only US companies but including German, French, Japanese, and Russian companies) use "Shack-Hartmann".

"Shack-Hartmann" gets 35400 hits on Google and "Hartmann-Shack" only 18600. The very first hit on "Hartmann-Shack" is from the University of Indiana (in the US).

In summary, I have removed the statement that "Shack-Hartmann" is only used in the US, as it seemed suspect at first glance (I do not live in the US and the only version I had heard of was "Shack-Hartmann"), and a cursory inspection showed it to be untrue. Ptomato (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference 3 (JOSA 1971)
Ref 3 (Shack and Platt "Production and use of a lenticular Hartmann screen," JOSA 61 656, 1971) is often cited in articles, but it is in fact the abstract of an oral presentation at the 1971 Spring Meeting of the Optical Society of America, about 1/8th of a page, with very few details. Believe-me it is not worth the hassle of retrieving it.

So, I think that this citation should be reformulated as being an oral presentation (establishing a point in time) and the JOSA article just an abstract of it.

Bruvi (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a link to the abstract of the meeting and a note that this is an oral presentation. 2pem (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Shack-Hartmann sensor
Shouldn't the title be Shack-Hartmann sensr; that would give the reader a sense of what it's about. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, in fact 'Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor' is even more appropriate, this is the term used in literature and dominates the web (see Google). Could somebody move this page? 2pem (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)