Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: MTF  (Read 4171 times)

coolmatt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
MTF
« on: August 29, 2011, 12:04:03 pm »

Hi,

First time on this forum. Excuse my poor english...

I found good material on this site regarding MTF and I think I get it... but :
MTF charts give "lens performance" for 2 apertures : wide open and f/8. What about higher apertures ? f/11, f/16, ... ?

Thanks for your comments...
matt
Logged

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: MTF
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2011, 03:52:18 am »

What about higher apertures ? f/11, f/16, ... ?

Are you asking "why don't manufacturers also publish MTF for narrower apertures?"

If so, I think the reason is because it would be extra work. I think the primary difference between f/8 and f/16 would be diffraction, which affects all lenses in the same manner, so it wouldn't be as informative as a different type of MTF chart. Therefore, if they were going to expend effort on something, I would think it'd be something their Marketing Department thinks is useful.

For example, I'm amazed that Canon still publishes 10 lp/mm MTF charts, because it's so out of touch with the world of 24 MP (or even 6 MP) APS-C sensors that it's funny they even bother. If their Lies (er, "Marketing") Department was a little smarter, they would go a step further and add 5 lp/mm. That would give all their MTF numbers a needed boost, and would be just as useful as their 10 lp/mm numbers (that is, not at all). The 30 lp/mm are more useful of course, but I'd really rather see 60+ lp/mm.
Logged
--Daniel

coolmatt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: MTF
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2011, 08:12:41 am »

Are you asking "why don't manufacturers also publish MTF for narrower apertures?"

If so, I think the reason is because it would be extra work. I think the primary difference between f/8 and f/16 would be diffraction, which affects all lenses in the same manner

Thank you for the answer Daniel.
Diffraction... hmmm... a new subject I now have to learn ;-)

In fact, my questioning is : I observed on MTF charts that the f/8 curves are always (?) above the wide open ones (regardless of 10/30l/mm or sagitterian/meridian parameters). So I was telling myself : "the narrower the aperture, the better the lens sharpness !". But is this sentence true ? Or more likely, is f/8 the "middle aperture" where the lens gives its most sharpness/contrast ?

matt.
Logged

degrub

  • Guest
Re: MTF
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2011, 09:05:32 am »

In my experience, somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8 is the "sweet spot" for a lens. That is one reason you will see the advice to shoot on "aperture priority".

here is one discussion -
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 09:30:18 am by degrub »
Logged

coolmatt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: MTF
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2011, 10:23:22 am »

Thank you. Very useful discussion.

And that is the point : it would be great to have results of such tests on the MTF charts, including the DISTANCE TO SUBJECT parameter.

But i made my up my mind : sharpness is somewhere between f/5,6 and f/11... ;-)
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: MTF
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2011, 10:53:24 am »

Hi,

Theoretically, for a perfect lens MTF would be highest at maximum aperture. But, there is no perfect lens. Stopping down generally reduces aberrations. So stopping down increases MTF. On the other hand achievable MTF is limited by diffraction, the bending of light around small openings. So a very well corrected lens (like Leica, on axis) may reach optimum at f/4 while a lesser lens may reach optimum at f/8. It's often said that a lens turns apertue limited at a certain aperture. That mean that diffraction equals the sum of uncorrected aberrations at that aperture.

Now, diffraction is characterised by a central peak surround by several "diffraction rings". An old definition of diffraction limited design is that the first of these rings is visible on a spot image, like a star at infinite distance.

Best regards
Erik
 

Thank you for the answer Daniel.
Diffraction... hmmm... a new subject I now have to learn ;-)

In fact, my questioning is : I observed on MTF charts that the f/8 curves are always (?) above the wide open ones (regardless of 10/30l/mm or sagitterian/meridian parameters). So I was telling myself : "the narrower the aperture, the better the lens sharpness !". But is this sentence true ? Or more likely, is f/8 the "middle aperture" where the lens gives its most sharpness/contrast ?

matt.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 01:52:07 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: MTF
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2011, 11:01:26 am »

... I'm amazed that Canon still publishes 10 lp/mm MTF charts, because it's so out of touch with the world of 24 MP (or even 6 MP) APS-C sensors that it's funny they even bother... just as useful as their 10 lp/mm numbers (that is, not at all)...

Interesting. What makes you say 10 lp/m are "so out of touch" and "not useful at all"?

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: MTF
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2011, 11:51:23 am »

Great post, Erick. One nit:

diffraction, the bending of light around small openings.

That is only true when the leading order (Fraunhofer) approximation vanishes, such as in the rarely supernumeraries in rainbows, not in typical circumstances such as optics, photography, etc., so in our case: Diffraction is a range of field intensities from the superimposition of propagating waves. In fact, diffraction occurs even without an aperture, such as when of multiple radio antennas (even without a parabolic dish) are spread out over a large area, and used for radar or imaging distant galaxies, etc. In that case, there are no edges to bend around, but the diffraction still occurs the same.

Another way to think of it is that diffraction is as an effect of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The principle says that there is a limit to the precision with which you can simultaneously know both the position and the momentum of a particle. When you reduce the size of the lens aperture, you are increasing the knowledge of the position of the photons: you know even more accurately what space they went through, because the opening is smaller. But the price you pay is you now know less about their direction: they go in more random directions.
Logged
--Daniel

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: MTF
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2011, 12:05:59 pm »

Interesting. What makes you say 10 lp/m are "so out of touch" and "not useful at all"?

Because it corresponds to an APS-C pixel count of 0.19 megapixels (using 2.4 pixels/lp); about one fifth of one megapixel. The pixel count on the 7D is a full two orders of magnitude higher. Mobile phone optics manufacturers provide MTF charts as high as 400 lp/mm, as you would expect, but Canon doesn't.
Logged
--Daniel

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: MTF
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2011, 01:23:41 pm »

That is only true when the leading order (Fraunhofer) approximation vanishes, such as in the rarely supernumeraries in rainbows, not in typical circumstances such as optics, photography, etc., so in our case: Diffraction is a range of field intensities from the superimposition of propagating waves.

Hi Daniel,

But doesn't the wavefront change as it passes the aperture, creating a new direction and thus source for interference?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: MTF
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2011, 01:33:28 pm »

Because it corresponds to an APS-C pixel count of 0.19 megapixels (using 2.4 pixels/lp); about one fifth of one megapixel. The pixel count on the 7D is a full two orders of magnitude higher. Mobile phone optics manufacturers provide MTF charts as high as 400 lp/mm, as you would expect, but Canon doesn't.

Hi Daniel,

You make it sound as if it's the only spatial freqency for which the results are reported. Sure, 10 cy/mm isn't testing the resolution limits of the lens, but it does tell something about the overall contrast of a lens. Also, given the historical data of earlier designs it makes some sense to keep reporting it. I do agree that a more critical frequency to test becomes more important as lenses get better.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 01:57:17 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: MTF
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2011, 01:48:23 pm »

... If their [Canon's] Lies (er, "Marketing") Department was a little smarter, they would go a step further and add 5 lp/mm...

Why not? Leica does.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: MTF
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2011, 11:32:42 pm »

Because it corresponds to an APS-C pixel count of 0.19 megapixels (using 2.4 pixels/lp); about one fifth of one megapixel. The pixel count on the 7D is a full two orders of magnitude higher. Mobile phone optics manufacturers provide MTF charts as high as 400 lp/mm, as you would expect, but Canon doesn't.

Not sure I follow your logic about 5 lp/mm and 10 lp/mm MTF curves and megapixels. Those low spatial frequencies are deliberately used to measure lens contrast, not sharpness. Thus, they were invented by engineers, not marketing departments.

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: MTF
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2011, 12:01:42 am »

But doesn't the wavefront change as it passes the aperture, creating a new direction and thus source for interference?

Yes. I think you know it better than I do.
Logged
--Daniel

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: MTF
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2011, 12:05:41 am »

You make it sound as if it's the only spatial freqency for which the results are reported. Sure, 10 cy/mm isn't testing the resolution limits of the lens, but it does tell something about the overall contrast of a lens.

Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize the 10 lp/mm was useful.
Logged
--Daniel

Daniel Browning

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: MTF
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2011, 12:31:25 am »

Why not? Leica does.

To me, Leica is not an example to followed in general, but I'm told that their MTFs are based on actual lenses instead of theoretical computer models, so that's doing something right.

Those low spatial frequencies are deliberately used to measure lens contrast, not sharpness. Thus, they were invented by engineers, not marketing departments.

I was wrong about the lack of utility of low spatial frequency MTF charts. I didn't say MTF charts were "invented" by marketing departments, but I do think that the choice of spatial frequencies has more to do with marketing than engineering. If they were made from actual lenses, one could argue that it's too much engineering effort for a little billion-dollar corporation like Canon, but since they're just computer-generated anyway, it's a few clicks.

Even if they ignore pixel counts in their choice of spatial frequencies, they should at least be scaled with format size due to reproduction magnification (i.e. enlargement ratio). That is, when Canon came out with EF-S lenses that don't cover FF35, they should have provided 16 lp/mm and 48 lp/mm charts.
Logged
--Daniel

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: MTF
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2011, 02:00:09 am »

Hi,

Two more points.

The graphs show different frequencies. "Normal" is 10,20,40. As todays sensors seem to go to around 90-100 lp/mm higher frequencies may be desirible. Canon has 10/30 lp/mm. Olympus I think goes down to 60 lp/mm the curves without the figures make little sense.

The second point is that MTF is measured in two directions, tagential and sagittal. It's easiest to this as wheel, the tagential direction is along the rim and the sagittal direction goes along the spokes.

Best regards
Erik


Hi,

First time on this forum. Excuse my poor english...

I found good material on this site regarding MTF and I think I get it... but :
MTF charts give "lens performance" for 2 apertures : wide open and f/8. What about higher apertures ? f/11, f/16, ... ?

Thanks for your comments...
matt
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: [1]   Go Up