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
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
There was a recent thread about how many mexapixels of resolution various
lenses could support. Without getting into the specifics of any brand of camera or lenses, I would like to share some relevant math, and look at this problem from a different angle. Dawes' Limit for the resolution of any optical system is: R = 116/D Where the resolution is in arcseconds and D is the diameter of the aperture in mm. Converting to radians for convenience, I get: R = 5.62E-4mm/D Where 5.62E-4mm is 0.000562mm, or about the size of a wavelength of yellow light. Remember, the is the ideal limit for a lens limited only be diffraction. Now, angular sizes in radians can also be converted to sizes on the camera's sensor by multiplying by the focal length, which I will call F for now: s = R*F or R = s/F If we set s equal to the spacing between pixels of the camera's sensor, the situation where the finest detail you can resolve with a perfect diffraction limited lens is the same size as the resolution of the camera's sensor is: s/F = 5.62E-4mm/D Doing a little algebra, this becomes: F/D = s/5.62E-4mm Now F/D, the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter, is what we are used to calling the f number, so I will substitute lower case f: f = s/5.62E-4mm In other words, the pixel spacing on the camera's sensor translates into a maximum f number beyond which the camera will be limited by diffraction. For less-than-perfect real world lenses, the limit will be even more restrictive. Likewise, red light with its longer wavelength will diffract worse than yellow light. Plugging in the numbers for the sensor in an Olympus OM-D (3456 pixels in a sensor 13mm high), I get f/6.7; this camera is not diffraction limited for low f numbers, but it really can't make use of any more pixels than it currently has; I hope Olympus gives up the megapixel arms race and just concetrates on ISO, lens quality, and autofocus speed. Looking up the specs for a Canon 700D, I get a little better, f/7.7, but it looks like they should stop trying for more megapixels as well. Using the math the other way around, it looks like a full frame sensor and a perfect f/8 lens could make use of up to 42 megapixels, in theory. Since real world lenses and images containing red light can't even approach this limit, it looks to me like we are getting close to the end of the useful megapixels even for full frame. We may already be there. If anyone can find a flaw in my math, please point it out. -- Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate." | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
On 29/05/2013 04:33, Paul Ciszek wrote:
There was a recent thread about how many mexapixels of resolution various lenses could support. Without getting into the specifics of any brand of camera or lenses, I would like to share some relevant math, and look at this problem from a different angle. Dawes' Limit for the resolution of any optical system is: R = 116/D Where the resolution is in arcseconds and D is the diameter of the aperture in mm. Converting to radians for convenience, I get: R = 5.62E-4mm/D Where 5.62E-4mm is 0.000562mm, or about the size of a wavelength of yellow light. Remember, the is the ideal limit for a lens limited only be diffraction. Now, angular sizes in radians can also be converted to sizes on the camera's sensor by multiplying by the focal length, which I will call F for now: s = R*F or R = s/F If we set s equal to the spacing between pixels of the camera's sensor, the situation where the finest detail you can resolve with a perfect diffraction limited lens is the same size as the resolution of the camera's sensor is: s/F = 5.62E-4mm/D Doing a little algebra, this becomes: F/D = s/5.62E-4mm Now F/D, the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter, is what we are used to calling the f number, so I will substitute lower case f: f = s/5.62E-4mm In other words, the pixel spacing on the camera's sensor translates into a maximum f number beyond which the camera will be limited by diffraction. For less-than-perfect real world lenses, the limit will be even more restrictive. Likewise, red light with its longer wavelength will diffract worse than yellow light. Plugging in the numbers for the sensor in an Olympus OM-D (3456 pixels in a sensor 13mm high), I get f/6.7; this camera is not diffraction limited for low f numbers, but it really can't make use of any more pixels than it currently has; I hope Olympus gives up the megapixel arms race and just concetrates on ISO, lens quality, and autofocus speed. Looking up the specs for a Canon 700D, I get a little better, f/7.7, but it looks like they should stop trying for more megapixels as well. Using the math the other way around, it looks like a full frame sensor and a perfect f/8 lens could make use of up to 42 megapixels, in theory. Since real world lenses and images containing red light can't even approach this limit, it looks to me like we are getting close to the end of the useful megapixels even for full frame. We may already be there. If anyone can find a flaw in my math, please point it out. I've not checked the maths, but would ask what should be considered as a "pixel". Is it the size on the sensor, the size of an RGBG quad (which make up one full-colour pixel), or something in between? How does the AA filter affect the effective size of the pixel? Just two point so consider. My own feeling on this is that there is no problem in having the sensor out-resolve the lens by a moderate amount, as long as the overall noise in the full image doesn't suffer. As has been discussed previously, resolution is not a hard limit, but the point at which the MTF reaches some arbitrary value. There will be some information beyond a resolution limit defined in that way. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
In article , David Taylor
wrote: I've not checked the maths, but would ask what should be considered as a "pixel". Is it the size on the sensor, it's the size of one pixel on the sensor (more accurately called a sensel). the size of an RGBG quad (which make up one full-colour pixel), or something in between? an rgbg quad does *not* make up a full colour pixel. bayer doesn't work that way. How does the AA filter affect the effective size of the pixel? it doesn't. it band limits the maximum resolution though. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
nospam wrote:
In article , David Taylor wrote: I've not checked the maths, but would ask what should be considered as a "pixel". Is it the size on the sensor, it's the size of one pixel on the sensor (more accurately called a sensel). the size of an RGBG quad (which make up one full-colour pixel), or something in between? an rgbg quad does *not* make up a full colour pixel. bayer doesn't work that way. How does the AA filter affect the effective size of the pixel? it doesn't. it band limits the maximum resolution though. That is to say, if affects "the effective size of the pixel" for calculating maximum resolution. The AA filter makes a difference. And the Bayer filter does too, though the "size of an RGBG quad" isn't a direct proportion due to the unequal spatial sampling for red and blue compared to green. Regardless, the problem with the calculations were that they showed when the image should become diffraction limited. But we don't use lenses only at f/8, nor is diffraction the only limiting factor. It also did not account for potential processing to reduce effects of diffraction. It also assumed resolution would be the only reason to increase the pixel density. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
Paul Ciszek wrote:
Where 5.62E-4mm is 0.000562mm, or about the size of a wavelength of yellow light. Green light is more important. If we set s equal to the spacing between pixels of the camera's sensor, the situation where the finest detail you can resolve with a perfect diffraction limited lens is the same size as the resolution of the camera's sensor is: s/F = 5.62E-4mm/D [...] In other words, the pixel spacing on the camera's sensor translates into a maximum f number beyond which the camera will be limited by diffraction. [...] If anyone can find a flaw in my math, please point it out. How about the flaws in your assumptions? (The fact that cameras don't have full RGB-pixels has already been named.) Do you think that oversampling gives no advantages? -Wolfgang |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
In article , David Taylor wrote: I've not checked the maths, but would ask what should be considered as a "pixel". Is it the size on the sensor, the size of an RGBG quad (which make up one full-colour pixel), or something in between? How does the AA filter affect the effective size of the pixel? Just two point so consider. Well, what I meant was pixel *spacing*--there is no point in "sampling" the focal plane at points closer together than the optical resolution. Obviously it is nice to have the pixels take up as much of that space as possible, to get the best signal to noise, but the size of the pixels did not figure into my math. But you bring up a good point about the color quads. You could say "I don't have a bunch of pixels spaced 3.75um apart; Rather, I have an array of red sensing pixels spaced 7.5um apart, another array of blue sensing pixels spaced 7.5um apart, and another array of green sensing pixels spaced 5.3um apart. The fact that these pixels are all 3.75um away from each other is totally irrelevant." -- Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate." | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
On Thu, 30 May 2013 01:20:33 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On May 28, 11:33*pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote: There was a recent thread about how many mexapixels of resolution various lenses could support. *Without getting into the specifics of any brand of camera or lenses, I would like to share some relevant math, and look at this problem from a different angle. Dawes' Limit for the resolution of any optical system is: R = 116/D Where the resolution is in arcseconds and D is the diameter of the aperture in mm. *Converting to radians for convenience, I get: R = 5.62E-4mm/D Where 5.62E-4mm is 0.000562mm, or about the size of a wavelength of yellow light. *Remember, the is the ideal limit for a lens limited only be diffraction. *Now, angular sizes in radians can also be converted to sizes on the camera's sensor by multiplying by the focal length, which I will call F for now: s = R*F or R = s/F If we set s equal to the spacing between pixels of the camera's sensor, the situation where the finest detail you can resolve with a perfect diffraction limited lens is the same size as the resolution of the camera's sensor is: s/F = 5.62E-4mm/D Doing a little algebra, this becomes: F/D = s/5.62E-4mm Now F/D, the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter, is what we are used to calling the f number, so I will substitute lower case f: f = s/5.62E-4mm In other words, the pixel spacing on the camera's sensor translates into a maximum f number beyond which the camera will be limited by diffraction. *For less-than-perfect real world lenses, the limit will be even more restrictive. *Likewise, red light with its longer wavelength will diffract worse than yellow light. *Plugging in the numbers for the sensor in an Olympus OM-D (3456 pixels in a sensor 13mm high), I get f/6.7; this camera is not diffraction limited for low f numbers, but it really can't make use of any more pixels than it currently has; I hope Olympus gives up the megapixel arms race and just concetrates on ISO, lens quality, and autofocus speed. *Looking up the specs for a Canon 700D, I get a little better, f/7.7, but it looks like they should stop trying for more megapixels as well. *Using the math the other way around, it looks like a full frame sensor and a perfect f/8 lens could make use of up to 42 megapixels, in theory. *Since real world lenses and images containing red light can't even approach this limit, it looks to me like we are getting close to the end of the useful megapixels even for full frame. *We may already be there. If anyone can find a flaw in my math, please point it out. Blue light? http://www.picturescolourlibrary.co....go/2552962.jpg -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
On 31/05/2013 04:07, RichA wrote:
[] The problem with absolute calculations on resolution is that they don't work, except for high-contrast point sources, hence the "Dawes Limit." Under different circumstances, Dawes Limit (separation of two points) has been exceeded (I've seen it) and under others, it is never reaches (low contrast scenes) what it prescribes. Also, ultra high contrast can cause things to be visible up to 50 times smaller than resolution dictates they should because of scattering, either in the human eye, or on a sensor. Please see: J.B. Sedgwick, "The Amateur Astronomer's Handbook." Maybe thinking in MTF terms, rather a simple fixed number for resolution would help understanding? -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Resolution limits of cameras
On 31/05/2013 07:21, David Taylor wrote:
On 31/05/2013 04:07, RichA wrote: [] The problem with absolute calculations on resolution is that they don't work, except for high-contrast point sources, hence the "Dawes Limit." Under different circumstances, Dawes Limit (separation of two points) has been exceeded (I've seen it) and under others, it is never reaches (low contrast scenes) what it prescribes. Also, ultra high contrast can cause things to be visible up to 50 times smaller than resolution dictates they should because of scattering, either in the human eye, or on a sensor. Please see: J.B. Sedgwick, "The Amateur Astronomer's Handbook." You can rely on the RichA troll to post misleading apparently authoritative junk. The Dawes/Rayleigh limit does what it says on the tin - namely the separation at which two equally bright point sources can be separated with a just visible minimum in between them. You can tell that there are two point sources from the non-round shape. Dawes limit is a pretty good criterion for resolution which is why it gets used. He accepted a 5% dip minima whereas Rayleigh chose 26%. You can obviously resolve slightly tighter with a smaller dip in the middle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_limit#Explanation (isn't perfect but it is a lot less misleading than RichA) Iff you have enormously high signal to noise and a very well characterised point spread function then you can in practice do about 3x better than the classical limit on point sources using non-linear positive constrained deconvolution techniques like maximum entropy. It is also worth pointing out that on the Earth Dawes limit is usually hammered by poor atmospheric seeing for larger apertures and it is only with the advent of cheap webcams and lucky seeing techniques that the true performance for even 8" and 10" amateur scopes has been realised. In a few special theoretical cases in Fourier optics you can in principle get an infinite resolution improvement but they are irrelevant to real observations with measurement noise. A simple example knowing that the sky is everywhere positive and having measured: DC = 1 cos(wt) = 1 There is only one unique solution to the problem that can match the required positivity constraint - a delta_function at the origin. You can see or detect much finer very high contrast linear structures than the Dawes limit would imply because they are not dots! Basically if there is enough signal to noise then you get a one pixel wide faint feature with a slightly different intensity to its neighbours. Rilles (canyons) on the moon are the classic example. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the eye is rather good at detecting linear detail and in some cases inventing it as happened with the "canals on Mars" debacle. The human observer is not objective. Maybe thinking in MTF terms, rather a simple fixed number for resolution would help understanding? The problem for camera lenses are that with a handful of exceptions they are not diffraction limited for apertures wider than about f5.6 -- Regards, Martin Brown |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Limits of my Equipment | Robert Coe | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | June 27th 10 02:21 AM |
The Limits of my Equipment | Noons | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | June 21st 10 05:27 PM |
Diffraction limits | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 16 | February 28th 10 04:23 PM |
Up sample without limits | Scott W | Digital Photography | 24 | April 3rd 06 06:39 AM |
miniaturization limits for digital cameras? | HanbB | Digital Photography | 34 | March 3rd 05 02:15 PM |