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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
"David Littlewood" wrote: When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. I would just like to jump in hear and indicate that almost nobody reliably works at 100 l/mm and very few get over 50 l/mm reliably. That's why I called it a theoretical limit. But that is due to the film. I haven't calculated it for the new tiny-pixel cameras, but the Sony F717 resolves 96 lp/mm with quite reasonable contrast (so it's limiting resolution is somewhat higher). I suspect that if you had a 3-micron pixel pitch APS-C size sensor, you'd see that level of resolution. However, you'd probably only see it with the best lenses at f/8. Also, you'd only see it with flash or when the camera's on a much heavier tripod than any of us actually own. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
"David Littlewood" wrote: When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. I would just like to jump in hear and indicate that almost nobody reliably works at 100 l/mm and very few get over 50 l/mm reliably. That's why I called it a theoretical limit. But that is due to the film. I haven't calculated it for the new tiny-pixel cameras, but the Sony F717 resolves 96 lp/mm with quite reasonable contrast (so it's limiting resolution is somewhat higher). I suspect that if you had a 3-micron pixel pitch APS-C size sensor, you'd see that level of resolution. However, you'd probably only see it with the best lenses at f/8. Also, you'd only see it with flash or when the camera's on a much heavier tripod than any of us actually own. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
"David Littlewood" wrote: When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. I would just like to jump in hear and indicate that almost nobody reliably works at 100 l/mm and very few get over 50 l/mm reliably. That's why I called it a theoretical limit. But that is due to the film. I haven't calculated it for the new tiny-pixel cameras, but the Sony F717 resolves 96 lp/mm with quite reasonable contrast (so it's limiting resolution is somewhat higher). I suspect that if you had a 3-micron pixel pitch APS-C size sensor, you'd see that level of resolution. However, you'd probably only see it with the best lenses at f/8. Also, you'd only see it with flash or when the camera's on a much heavier tripod than any of us actually own. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
In article , David J. Littleboy
writes "David Littlewood" wrote: When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. I would just like to jump in hear and indicate that almost nobody reliably works at 100 l/mm and very few get over 50 l/mm reliably. That's why I called it a theoretical limit. But that is due to the film. I haven't calculated it for the new tiny-pixel cameras, but the Sony F717 resolves 96 lp/mm with quite reasonable contrast (so it's limiting resolution is somewhat higher). I suspect that if you had a 3-micron pixel pitch APS-C size sensor, you'd see that level of resolution. However, you'd probably only see it with the best lenses at f/8. Also, you'd only see it with flash or when the camera's on a much heavier tripod than any of us actually own. I doubt any lens at f/8 would do better than 4 microns resolution (diffraction limit). You might see it at f/5.6 though (at which really good lenses would be at their best). -- David Littlewood |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
In article , David J. Littleboy
writes "David Littlewood" wrote: When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. I would just like to jump in hear and indicate that almost nobody reliably works at 100 l/mm and very few get over 50 l/mm reliably. That's why I called it a theoretical limit. But that is due to the film. I haven't calculated it for the new tiny-pixel cameras, but the Sony F717 resolves 96 lp/mm with quite reasonable contrast (so it's limiting resolution is somewhat higher). I suspect that if you had a 3-micron pixel pitch APS-C size sensor, you'd see that level of resolution. However, you'd probably only see it with the best lenses at f/8. Also, you'd only see it with flash or when the camera's on a much heavier tripod than any of us actually own. I doubt any lens at f/8 would do better than 4 microns resolution (diffraction limit). You might see it at f/5.6 though (at which really good lenses would be at their best). -- David Littlewood |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum pixel size
In article , David J. Littleboy
writes "David Littlewood" wrote: When do we reach this point? Well, figures I saw a couple of weeks ago suggest we are there about now. I can't remember where I saw them, it may have been here. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that for a lens at f/2 the theoretical limit for resolving detail is about 750 lp/mm. Ignoring all the sophisticated aspects of MTF, sampling theory, Nyquist limits and the like, this implies at most 1500 pixels/mm, i.e. 670nm per pixel. Taking the complex sampling issues into account, this is going to come out to 1 micron (1000 nm) or worse. I would just like to jump in hear and indicate that almost nobody reliably works at 100 l/mm and very few get over 50 l/mm reliably. That's why I called it a theoretical limit. But that is due to the film. I haven't calculated it for the new tiny-pixel cameras, but the Sony F717 resolves 96 lp/mm with quite reasonable contrast (so it's limiting resolution is somewhat higher). I suspect that if you had a 3-micron pixel pitch APS-C size sensor, you'd see that level of resolution. However, you'd probably only see it with the best lenses at f/8. Also, you'd only see it with flash or when the camera's on a much heavier tripod than any of us actually own. I doubt any lens at f/8 would do better than 4 microns resolution (diffraction limit). You might see it at f/5.6 though (at which really good lenses would be at their best). -- David Littlewood |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
max print size with 6.3 MPixel camera ?? | Beowulf | Digital Photography | 35 | July 31st 04 06:25 AM |
how big is a pixel? | geepeetee | Digital Photography | 61 | July 5th 04 01:13 AM |
Anyone kindly let me have pixel to size calculations ? | UKitnewsfroupie²ºº¾ | Digital Photography | 6 | June 30th 04 10:57 PM |
Largest B&W Neg Film Size Available? | Nelson Win | Large Format Photography Equipment | 4 | May 30th 04 05:19 AM |