Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"

Henry Olson wrote:
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.

I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense of.

On 10-02-26 18:04 , Paul Furman wrote:
Henry Olson wrote:
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.

I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense of.

Don't you realize that ending a sentence with a preposition makes his
whole argument right?


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:04:07 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

Henry Olson wrote:
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.

I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense of.

Yes, it would appear as nonsense to something as amazingly incognizant as
you are. You seem to forget that we've all seen your snapshooter's results
to prove every bit of that. Do continue on, just as you always have.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill



Oh, just for the hell of it, let's see if we can drag this moron up out of
its gutter of supreme ignorance and stupidity that it just loves to
flounder and flop around in, just one more time. I'm getting so tired of
laughing at its online antics.


You have one light-ray that hits the target dead center. You have another
light ray differing from the first path by 0.001 degrees angle of
divergence.

Using both light-rays you shoot at a target 10 meters away. How far apart
from each other do those two light-rays hit on the target?

Using both light-rays you shoot at a target 100 meters away. How far apart
from each other do those two light-rays hit on the target?

Now, can you bend your teeny tiny mind around the concept that target
distance is the lens focal-length? I bet you can't!

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-26 18:04 , Paul Furman wrote:
Henry Olson wrote:
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.

I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense
of.

Don't you realize that ending a sentence with a preposition makes his
whole argument right?

SMACK!

:-)

"Henry Olson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:57:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

"Henry Olson" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is
thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can
resolve
no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades
to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon
5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2
are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

How does it compare? It compares to prove that you're a moron.
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor. What's even more
interesting
is that smaller lenses can be figured to diffraction-limited quality,
the best there is, much more easily and inexpensively than for larger
lenses.

Fine. Say the cheap lens really can resolve 413 lines/mm wide open. It
doesn't, but who can tell? The system is diffraction limited at f/3.9.
Wide
open aperture at longest focal length is f/5.6. It can resolve as little
as
290 lines/mm and no one would know the difference. At that point, that 10
MP
sensor is resolving no more than 4.8 MP of detail.

There is not one DSLR lens in existence that can claim true "diffraction
limited quality" because they aren't figured that precisely. If they
could,
then they would be sharpest at full aperture, none of them are.

*Very few* are, which is still more than none. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L is
one
such lens. There are others. The fact of the matter is, it's sharper than
my
sensor can discern. That's the difference between your tiny lens and the
big
lens. The big lens goes in front of a large sensor that can make use of
the
detail and sharpness. The pixels are too large to resolve the diffraction
rings, and so it's happy and I'm happy. The tiny lens sits in front of a
tiny sensor with tiny pixels, which do resolve the diffraction rings.
Magnifying the details enough to see them also magnifies the airy disks
into
visible airy blobs. Blobby details; sad face.

The
converse is not true when using smaller lenses on smaller sensor. Many
of
them are sharpest at widest aperture. The only thing that limits their
sharpness is diffraction at smaller apertures, this is what "diffraction
limited" means.

A minor correction: "Diffraction limited" applies to the system -- image,
lens, and sensor -- not just the lens.

No, diffraction-limited applies to the optics only. Your whole system
applies to the principle of "the weakest link". Changing the photosite
size
does not change the diffraction. It only shows that you're trying to
measure 1 centimeter with either a 2cm rule with only 1 tic-mark on it or
a
2cm rule with 4 tic-marks on it. Your only available unit of measure has
no
effect on the diffraction coming from the optics. And it has absolutely
nothing to do at all with the image itself. The same rules will apply no
matter what you are trying to image. From stars to a building, they will
all be affected by the diffraction the same. Just because you can't see it
in one or the other doesn't mean it isn't there the same in both images.


Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2
photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths
required.

Focal length is already part of the f/N number, by definition. Unless you
have a different number to share, I'll hold with my calculation of f/3.9.

But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get
for
obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own.

I do my own thinking. You should do the same. From my point of view,
you're
too smug in your belief to see that which you already know. You're saying
the exact same things I'm saying, and still refuse to accept the truth of
their meaning. Tiny sucks, not because tiny of itself is bad, but because
tiny has to be magnified to be useful. Magnifying the good also magnifies
the bad. Because of that magnification, diffraction becomes a problem for
tiny pixels well before it becomes a problem for bigger pixels. (The same
could be said of gain noise, but who wants to trawl that old song?)

No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor
optics.
Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on
the
internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
fabrications or genuine information.

The minute they start using your apo 100x lens in a P&S, or you use the P&S
lens on your microscope, I'll acknowledge the relevance. Until then, let's
just figure that the Hubble isn't gratuitously big for big's sake, and that
its f/24 optics had some influence on the sensor array's 15 micron pixels.
OTOH, if small is good, smaller would be even better, and Hubble's optics
and 16k pixels would fit in a thimble, but only for convenience's sake so we
could find it if we should drop it.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:23:11 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:


"Henry Olson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:57:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

"Henry Olson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is
thus
diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can
resolve
no
more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades
to
about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
image.

How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
APS-C,
such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon
5D
Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2
are,
respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

How does it compare? It compares to prove that you're a moron.
Diffraction
size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
diffraction
as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor. What's even more
interesting
is that smaller lenses can be figured to diffraction-limited quality,
the best there is, much more easily and inexpensively than for larger
lenses.

Fine. Say the cheap lens really can resolve 413 lines/mm wide open. It
doesn't, but who can tell? The system is diffraction limited at f/3.9.
Wide
open aperture at longest focal length is f/5.6. It can resolve as little
as
290 lines/mm and no one would know the difference. At that point, that 10
MP
sensor is resolving no more than 4.8 MP of detail.

There is not one DSLR lens in existence that can claim true "diffraction
limited quality" because they aren't figured that precisely. If they
could,
then they would be sharpest at full aperture, none of them are.

*Very few* are, which is still more than none. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L is
one
such lens. There are others. The fact of the matter is, it's sharper than
my
sensor can discern. That's the difference between your tiny lens and the
big
lens. The big lens goes in front of a large sensor that can make use of
the
detail and sharpness. The pixels are too large to resolve the diffraction
rings, and so it's happy and I'm happy. The tiny lens sits in front of a
tiny sensor with tiny pixels, which do resolve the diffraction rings.
Magnifying the details enough to see them also magnifies the airy disks
into
visible airy blobs. Blobby details; sad face.

The
converse is not true when using smaller lenses on smaller sensor. Many
of
them are sharpest at widest aperture. The only thing that limits their
sharpness is diffraction at smaller apertures, this is what "diffraction
limited" means.

A minor correction: "Diffraction limited" applies to the system -- image,
lens, and sensor -- not just the lens.

No, diffraction-limited applies to the optics only. Your whole system
applies to the principle of "the weakest link". Changing the photosite
size
does not change the diffraction. It only shows that you're trying to
measure 1 centimeter with either a 2cm rule with only 1 tic-mark on it or
a
2cm rule with 4 tic-marks on it. Your only available unit of measure has
no
effect on the diffraction coming from the optics. And it has absolutely
nothing to do at all with the image itself. The same rules will apply no
matter what you are trying to image. From stars to a building, they will
all be affected by the diffraction the same. Just because you can't see it
in one or the other doesn't mean it isn't there the same in both images.


Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2
photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths
required.

Focal length is already part of the f/N number, by definition. Unless you
have a different number to share, I'll hold with my calculation of f/3.9.

But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get
for
obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own.

I do my own thinking. You should do the same. From my point of view,
you're
too smug in your belief to see that which you already know. You're saying
the exact same things I'm saying, and still refuse to accept the truth of
their meaning. Tiny sucks, not because tiny of itself is bad, but because
tiny has to be magnified to be useful. Magnifying the good also magnifies
the bad. Because of that magnification, diffraction becomes a problem for
tiny pixels well before it becomes a problem for bigger pixels. (The same
could be said of gain noise, but who wants to trawl that old song?)

No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor
optics.
Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on
the
internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
fabrications or genuine information.

The minute they start using your apo 100x lens in a P&S, or you use the P&S
lens on your microscope, I'll acknowledge the relevance. Until then, let's
just figure that the Hubble isn't gratuitously big for big's sake, and that
its f/24 optics had some influence on the sensor array's 15 micron pixels.
OTOH, if small is good, smaller would be even better, and Hubble's optics
and 16k pixels would fit in a thimble, but only for convenience's sake so we
could find it if we should drop it.

You're a moron.

"Bill W D" wrote in message
...
The ONLY reason diffraction is less visible at larger apertures (in
diffraction limited glass) is that the greater amount of light devoted to
the center of the airy-disk (the real information) overwhelms the dimmer
amount of light dispersed into the diffraction. That diffraction dispersal
width and intensity which never changes. Smaller apertures don't CAUSE
more
diffraction, they only allow it to become more visible because there is
less light to focus into the center of the airy-disk. It is the exact same
width of dispersion no matter how large or small the aperture if the
distance is retained.

I'll tell you what. I'll go dig out my college physics texts and review
them. Then I'll come back and we'll have this discussion. In the meantime,
none of the above changes anything, and none of it differs from naive
observation and measurement. When I make the hole smaller beyond a certain
point, and I do know with good precision where that point is, the image gets
progressively softer. Endless examples on the web with EXIF, and controlled
ISO lens chart shots confirm those numbers. I don't have to be an organic
chemist to light my Coleman stove. It lights just the same, and while it
illuminates my world, it seems to only darken yours.

MikeWhy wrote:
"Henry Olson" wrote in message
...
...
No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor
optics.
Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on
the
internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
fabrications or genuine information.

The minute they start using your apo 100x lens in a P&S, or you use the
P&S lens on your microscope, I'll acknowledge the relevance. Until then,
let's just figure that the Hubble isn't gratuitously big for big's sake,
and that its f/24 optics had some influence on the sensor array's 15
micron pixels. OTOH, if small is good, smaller would be even better, and
Hubble's optics and 16k pixels would fit in a thimble, but only for
convenience's sake so we could find it if we should drop it.

An oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective will get more
resolution at the expense of image accuracy, as explained he
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials...tialvariation/

That would be useful for a P&S, not.

Hubble? Obviously designed on the back of a cigarette packet and at the last
minute some kind company donated a 15 micron pitch sensor. The f/24 optical
path is just a coincidence :-)

Pete

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:59:35 -0000, "Pete"
wrote:

MikeWhy wrote:
"Henry Olson" wrote in message
...
...
No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor
optics.
Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on
the
internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
fabrications or genuine information.

The minute they start using your apo 100x lens in a P&S, or you use the
P&S lens on your microscope, I'll acknowledge the relevance. Until then,
let's just figure that the Hubble isn't gratuitously big for big's sake,
and that its f/24 optics had some influence on the sensor array's 15
micron pixels. OTOH, if small is good, smaller would be even better, and
Hubble's optics and 16k pixels would fit in a thimble, but only for
convenience's sake so we could find it if we should drop it.

An oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective will get more
resolution at the expense of image accuracy, as explained he
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials...tialvariation/

That would be useful for a P&S, not.


By referencing a principle distantly related to phase contrast microscopy
and then babbling nonsense about it? You're right, that's not helpful at
all to anything being discussed. But you go right ahead and juggle your
red-herrings. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance try to baffle
everyone with random-website bull****, right?

The point being made that small optics are not automatically "bad" just
because they are small nor are they prone to more diffraction. The shorter
focal-lengths being used for smaller sensors lessens any problems from
diffraction faced by lenses with longer focal-lengths on larger sensors.
Large optics are often bad just because they are large, due to the extra
expense needed to figure them accurately enough to provide an image with
the resolution needed for small photosites. None of which, in consumer
grade glass, will ever reach diffraction-limited quality. Add in the longer
focal-lengths required which spread the diffraction artifacts even wider
and you're back at square one. The opposite is true of smaller lenses where
they are easy to figure to diffraction-limited figures. Case in point being
my plan-apo microscope objective lens, its aperture being measured in under
5 millimeters diameter.


Hubble? Obviously designed on the back of a cigarette packet and at the last
minute some kind company donated a 15 micron pitch sensor. The f/24 optical
path is just a coincidence :-)

Pete


How much did it cost them to get the Hubble Telescope mirror
diffraction-limited? $450,000,000. When it costs that much in time and
manpower to create just ONE diffraction-limited curve on a 2.4 meter
diameter surface, then come and talk to me how that would be proportionally
priced to your multi-component lenses if all lens surfaces in them were
made to diffraction-limited curves. All your speculative measurements are
for naught if your lenses are not diffraction-limited. The best you can
hope for is trying to find what photosite-pitch will match the blur from
your badly figured lens surfaces. No diffraction problems are even involved
or worth considering. If your resolution becomes less at widest apertures
this automatically dictates that your lenses are not of diffraction-limited
quality anyway. Everything after that is just your mental-masturbation over
what could be possible if you had decent glass in your theoretical world.
Diffraction is not your problem.

I'm starting to understand now that you're a moron too. Pity. In one post
about a week ago you actually said something intelligent. Nothing since
then though. A one hit wonder, just a lucky string of words on your part. I
won't bother waiting and watching for that to ever happen again.

Henry Olson wrote:
I'm starting to understand now that you're a moron too. Pity. In one post
about a week ago you actually said something intelligent.

I said something intelligent? Oh ****! My mistake, completely unintentional.
Did you point it out at the time?

Nothing since
then though. A one hit wonder, just a lucky string of words on your part.
I
won't bother waiting and watching for that to ever happen again.

The probability of it happening again is very small especially in comedy
threads such as this. Whenever I post something that you find intelligent
let everyone know - I'll have made a factual error.

Lucky for some of us that you take the time to pass on your superior
knowledge and help us learn by assigning labels, although "moron" is getting
a bit boring - it shows a lack of dexterity. Perhaps your hobby is educating
morons, nothing wrong with it I guess. Mine's photography.

Whenever I require a derogatory label I'll ask for one. As I haven't asked,
it means I don't give a rat's arse what you call me.

Pete