If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Optical illusion?
Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't
ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. -Rich |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Air is the difference. The light has to pass through more air, dust and particulates that
effect the resultant picture. There are other optical aberrations that come into effect on long distance shots such as heat rising and temperature inversions. -- Dave "RichA" wrote in message news | Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't | ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? | It's got to be some kind of optical illusion | because lenses (I believe) are optimized for | infinity imaging. But, case in point; | When a friend was looking for a digital, | I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, | the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress | him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced | him to get the camera. | -Rich |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"RichA" wrote in message news Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. -Rich Interesting observation... I just decided to play around with panorama stich on my 20D. I also took the same shots with a GWS Fuji 120 roll film, pano camera. I don't think I'll be converting from film to digital for Panos just yet! It seems taht the further away you get, the less detail is recorded. Doug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"RichA" wrote in message news Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. Besides the atmospheric obscurants inherent in any image taken over long distances the simple fact remains that digital cameras still have a long way to go with regards to sensor and image resolution. Objects that are small in an image are represented my just a few pixels and you cannot get a lot of sharp detail when you have so few pixels to work with. A fascinating project that is being worked on to produce Giga-Pixel images can be found at the link below. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article4901.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:18:15 GMT, "Ken" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message news Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. Besides the atmospheric obscurants inherent in any image taken over long distances the simple fact remains that digital cameras still have a long way to go with regards to sensor and image resolution. Objects that are small in an image are represented my just a few pixels and you cannot get a lot of sharp detail when you have so few pixels to work with. A fascinating project that is being worked on to produce Giga-Pixel images can be found at the link below. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article4901.html But it's using a conventional film camera, big plates and it's converted to digital via a scanner. I thought it was something like this: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/ A true, 338 megapixel camera set-up. Taking advantage of the rapid evolution of optical electronic detectors (CCDs) over the past two decades, CFHT is now able to cover most of its useful field of view with a detector 40 times more sensitive than the photographic plates! The MegaPrime imager which includes the MegaCam camera, a mosaic of forty individual CCD detectors, is the largest close-packed array in use in the world today (~18,400 x 18,400 pixels). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 01:25:42 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
wrote: Air is the difference. The light has to pass through more air, dust and particulates that effect the resultant picture. There are other optical aberrations that come into effect on long distance shots such as heat rising and temperature inversions. I should have also said, objects no more than 30 feet away don't look as good as close-up shots in terms of subjective sharpness either. At 30ft, there should be no heat-wave problems and definitely no atmospheric extinction or "blue scattering" caused by oxygen molecules. I think possibly another reason for this is dynamic range of CCDs. With macro shots, you can control the lighting to maximize it, but you generally can't with long distance shots so you end up with blocky highlights (still!) residual chromatic aberration, etc, and both serve to kill details. What people generally don't understand about chromatic aberration is that it isn't just an "light-dark" edge problem; The defocussed blue and red light is suffused over the entire image, supressing contrast. -Rich |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
RichA wrote: On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:18:15 GMT, "Ken" wrote: "RichA" wrote in message news Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. Besides the atmospheric obscurants inherent in any image taken over long distances the simple fact remains that digital cameras still have a long way to go with regards to sensor and image resolution. Objects that are small in an image are represented my just a few pixels and you cannot get a lot of sharp detail when you have so few pixels to work with. A fascinating project that is being worked on to produce Giga-Pixel images can be found at the link below. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article4901.html But it's using a conventional film camera, big plates and it's converted to digital via a scanner. I thought it was something like this: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/ A true, 338 megapixel camera set-up. There are several Gigipixel image projects being discussed at various places on the 'net. One can be found at http://tawbaware.com ; another one is being done at a University in, IIRC, Copenhagen. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
John Francis wrote:
In article , RichA wrote: On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:18:15 GMT, "Ken" wrote: "RichA" wrote in message news Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. Besides the atmospheric obscurants inherent in any image taken over long distances the simple fact remains that digital cameras still have a long way to go with regards to sensor and image resolution. Objects that are small in an image are represented my just a few pixels and you cannot get a lot of sharp detail when you have so few pixels to work with. A fascinating project that is being worked on to produce Giga-Pixel images can be found at the link below. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article4901.html But it's using a conventional film camera, big plates and it's converted to digital via a scanner. I thought it was something like this: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/ A true, 338 megapixel camera set-up. There are several Gigipixel image projects being discussed at various places on the 'net. One can be found at http://tawbaware.com ; another one is being done at a University in, IIRC, Copenhagen. Delft, too. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? It's got to be some kind of optical illusion because lenses (I believe) are optimized for infinity imaging. But, case in point; When a friend was looking for a digital, I showed him two shots from mine, one a landscape, the other a macro. The landscape didn't impress him technically (sharpness, etc) but the macro convinced him to get the camera. Macro shots in particular show fine detail to a degree that we don't commonly see, so when we do see it, it is a fresh and often amazing experience. As a macro shot (typicaly 1:1) is of detail of an object the size of the image sensor, it is much finer than our daily experience. So the shot is perceived to be highly detailed. On a 'distant shot' there is less specific detail to look at so we don't 'see' the sharpnees in it. Atmospherics (convection, particulates) also soften the image a little to a lot, conditions depending. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Ryadia" wrote in message ... "RichA" wrote in message news Ever notice how a long distance shot doesn't ever look as sharp as a close-up shot? SNIP Interesting observation... I just decided to play around with panorama stich on my 20D. I also took the same shots with a GWS Fuji 120 roll film, pano camera. I don't think I'll be converting from film to digital for Panos just yet! It seems taht the further away you get, the less detail is recorded. That has to do with the absolute resolution limit a sensor poses on fine detail. The sensor cannot reliably resolve projected detail that's smaller than 2 pixels. Landscapes, or any subject at a distance for that matter, will result in a very small magnification factor and thus collide with the limitations of regularly sampled imaging. The only solution (within the scope of this forum) is a higher resolution sensor that still looks sharp at the intended output magnification (or one can output at a smaller size). Stitching panoramas will effectively simulate a larger sensor, thus requiring less output magnification, but it has other limitations. Bart |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
optical + digital zoom question | JW | Digital Photography | 15 | November 27th 04 05:56 PM |
Plustek OpticFilm 7200dpi (optical resolution) 35mm dedicated film scanner | Chris Street | Digital Photography | 6 | October 30th 04 06:41 PM |
Test shots with SIGMA 80-400 f4,5-5,6 EX OS (optical stabilizer) | Old-CAT | Digital Photography | 2 | October 12th 04 11:45 PM |
high optical vs. large megapixel ? | Andy | Digital Photography | 18 | August 1st 04 06:09 PM |
Best high optical Digital camera ? | Andy | Digital Photography | 16 | July 25th 04 12:44 AM |