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
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
"Bruce" wrote in message
... Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses. Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not pixel pitch. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses. Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not pixel pitch. 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. 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. 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. Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2 photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths required. But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get for obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
"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. 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?) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:06:17 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
wrote: On Feb 26, 7:29*am, "MikeWhy" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses. Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not pixel pitch. 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. It's wonderful to see there are those who understand this issue. While being diffraction-limited is not the only determining factor, it adds significantly to the burden that small sensors bear. Of course if all you ever do is post to the web, or print at 4"x6", it's not a biggie.... There's a rather nifty page he http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm It discusses the topic in relatively simple terms that even Bruce/Tony Polson, and NameHere/HenryOlson/Keoeeit/AntiDSLRTroll might be able to understand. Why it even has little interactive thingies where they can press buttons and watch what happens, so even if they don't understand, they can at least have fun. (O: Specifically designed for simpletons like you so you *might* start to grasp the issue, but nowhere advanced enough to encompass all the variables so as to confuse your tiny little mind even more. Not only that, but it is totally misleading and inaccurate. Yet because you are so pathetically stupid you don't even realize that. Every time someone refers to that page I can only think, "Wow, there's another idiot that isn't even bright enough to know when they are being fed complete bull****." Are you even aware that diffraction size is at a fixed spread, that is only dependent on the distance from the diffracting edge? It does NOT happen as represented in that page where they show large aperture dispersing the diffracting light at shallow angles and small apertures causing wider diffraction. That is total bull****. Even someone having taken Physics-101 would know this. Why anyone even allows them to keep up their page of stupidity and inexperience astounds me. Diffraction is in your images at all times at the same size for a given focal-length lens. The same angle of dispersion, dependant only on distance from edge to imaging plane. Provided of course that your optics are of high enough quality to be diffraction-limited at its widest aperture. This rules out all consumer-grade DSLR glass; which reveals it is not of diffraction-limited quality because the images get softer, not sharper at their widest apertures. 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. Unfortunately the "Cambridge-in-Ignorance" idiots don't even realize this, and are quite happy to confuse themselves and fools like you by using f-ratios as their way of trying to visualize and understand how diffraction is related to distance in optics. They put the cart before the horse and had a severe brain accident. This is what you all get for having an internet education, where you glean your knowledge from pages that don't even know what the hell they are talking about. Worse of all are you fool trolls who keep spewing those pages of misinformation to others. Making everyone else just as ignorant as yourself. Garbage in, garbage out. That be you. Is any of this sinking into that pile of **** that you have been erroneously taught to call your mind? No sense trying to educate something as amazingly stupid as you any further. With something as ignorant, stupid, and astoundingly confused as you are, this situation is the standard "pearls before swine", "can't make a silk-purse out of a sow's ear", and "never wrastle with a pig, you only get dirty and the pig has all the fun". You also need to edit your name-list that you use for your one and only career in life, that of being a psychotic net-stalking-troll. There's 3 wrong in even your condensed list this time. 50% wrong, that's standard chance. You're not even a decent psychotic net-stalker. Can't you do anything right?! Judging by your understanding of what diffraction means in optics, that's a clear and resounding "no". |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
MikeWhy wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses. Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not pixel pitch. 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. Thanks Mike. It took me years of learning and experiments to fully understand your illustrations. I conclude from some replies that Airy and Rayleigh were both hopelessly lost in their understanding of the behaviour of light in optical systems. Pete |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
"Pete" wrote in message
... MikeWhy wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses. Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not pixel pitch. 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. Thanks Mike. It took me years of learning and experiments to fully understand your illustrations. I conclude from some replies that Airy and Rayleigh were both hopelessly lost in their understanding of the behaviour of light in optical systems. Pete You're welcome, Pete. Close down that aperture ring and have at it. That's why it's there! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3"
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey idiots! Fuji sensor is 1/2.3" | Rich[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 42 | March 2nd 10 05:34 AM |
Sony Exmor R ("back illuminated") sensor in production | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 31 | August 21st 09 08:40 AM |
Nov Foveon wants the..."pill" camera sensor market.....no jokes! | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | November 17th 07 06:02 PM |
Differences in sensor "quality" | mrsgator88 | Digital Photography | 15 | March 19th 06 12:00 AM |
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS-Like Ray Fischer | Dennis D. Carter | Digital Photography | 0 | February 5th 05 12:36 PM |