Michael's recent megapixel shootout has provided us with a lot of useful information and the raw files are available for further analysis. When comparing perceived sharpness between two cameras, one method is to view the file in Photoshop at a very large size (up to 400%) and compare the rendering of fine details, such as the engraving lines on the currency. In the context of MTF analysis, this shows resolution at high frequency and relatively low contrast. However, perceived sharpenss in the print viewed at normal distances is more closely related to MTF at lower frequencies. For a dramatic example, view this post:
http://www.wellsresearch.com/technical_lib...ons_learned.htmThe picture on the left looks better to most observers, but the picture on the right has more resolution when the USAF test target is view at high magnification in the picture on the right. Part two of the analysis, gives another example. One could argue that the examples are not that realistic, since high resolution and low contrast are easily seen on the USAF target at high magnification.
Studies at Kodak by Ed Grainger have shown that subjective quality Factor (SQF) is the average MTF in a photo from 0.5 to 2 cycles per mm when view at a normal distance (13.5 inches). For an 8 by 12 inch print, the image is enlarged 8x with a 35mm negative or full frame 35mm type sensor, and the corresponding critical resolutions on the film or sensor would be 4 to 16 cycles/mm. The above print resolution (0.5 to 2 cycles per mm) is far less than the eye can resolve; an individual with 20/20 vison can resolve about 10 cycles/mm under these conditions (cycles/mm = line pairs/mm).
Bob Atkins provides additonal information on his web site and considers larger pictures where the critical MTFs must be shifted upward. He is apparently associated with Popular Photography magazine, but I wouldn't necessarily hold this against him.
http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf4.htmlIf you use Norman Koren's Imitest program, you can perform MTF analysis with your own camera or download pictures taken by others for analysis. One good source is from the DPReview tests. I downloaded the results for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and plotted them with the x-axis as a log scale as suggested. The MTF is shown unsharpened and with standardized sharpening. Since the log scale is hard to read, the triangles towards the bottom shows the 4, 8, 12, 16, 32, 48, and 64 lp/mm values.
[attachment=808:attachment]
Here is an an analysis for an an 8 by 12 inch print, magnification = 8, with and without sharpening. SQF is represented by the colored areas under the curve.
[attachment=809:attachment]
and for a 24 by 36 inch print, mag = 24
[attachment=810:attachment]
The graphs show that for an 8 by 12 inch print, the camera gives nearly maximal SQF. For a 24x enlargement, SQF with sharpening is still very good. At larger enlargements, SQF falls and one would have to use a medium format back or a scanning back such as the Better Light for optimum results. Popular Photography claims to use SQF in their tests, but this is questioned by David Jacobson in his lens FAQ:
http://www.photo.net/photo/optics/lensFAQThe point of all this is that, in additon to viewing the test photo on the screen at high magnification in order to check MTF at high frequency (which is good, of course, but not the primary determinant of percieved sharpness), one must also view the the photo at lower resolution in order to get some impression of the MTF at the critical lower frequencies. I do not know what screen resolution would be best for this purpose, but it seems to me like one should start with a resolution similar to the size of the intended print. Of course, it would best to view an actual print or at least a cropped area of the print at the same resolution.