Cheers for that.
Goodman is great, Hecht and Zajac covers more fun with optics at an intro level.
Some more info here
Miles V. Klein, Thomas E. Furtak - Optics 2nd ed, Wiley
Joseph W. Goodman - Introduction to Fourier optics, W.H. Freeman
It was a single spatial point of ray intersection with your sensor or eye. You’d need color filters/retinal cells to pick apart the frequencies in the complex waveform.
After rainbow separation, the components are spread across multiple sensors giving you a frequency domain view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9FZ4igNxNA
Adding that, again, optics is a difficult and frustrating field. Don't worry that you're struggling to connect it. It took me a few years in an optics lab working hands on with light every day to really come around.
Can you expand on that? Or have some reading for that?
I guess it makes sense, light is a wave and anything even vaguely to do with waves seems to end up with Fourier transforms, but still I'm curious about the details
If you break up the Nobel Prizes a bit differently, then the filed of Optics becomes the most dominant. So very many breakthroughs in science are because of some new optics method. Mostly in the bio/chem fields, it's about gaining a new form of 'contrast' (very broadly defined).
People have spent decades trying to align some little crystal just the right way. Or they did it in their living room with cardboard in a weekend. It's a frustrating field.
One fun thing to remember about lenses are that they aren't really light bending thingys, but more accurately a lens is a Fourier transformer. Of a sort. Again, optics s frustrating.
One fun thing for the more matrix-ly minded are Mueller Matrices. Most modern optics SW is based on this calculus, though it goes a lot further nowadays. Also, most developments in optics are all about the little exceptions that Mueller matrices have.
Still, a good little thing to read about, if interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_calculus