Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: "are we there yet?"  (Read 3147 times)

XE11

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
"are we there yet?"
« on: October 16, 2014, 03:43:18 am »

came across this very interesting article/tutorial.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

But, of course, this is a little while back and now we are at the 36MP era for 35mm FF. but in terms of APSC, the 24MP chip from sony actually has even higher pixel density. So, how many lens out there that can truly out-resolve a 36MP sensor?

i remember reading Zeiss 100mm MP and 135mm should be able to. any other lens? may be the Otus series? what about zeiss Master series for videocam ?

what's you take on the current resolution and lens availability? and the future for 35mm FF? Please discuss. ;D

 
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2014, 04:12:37 am »

Hi,

Any lens that can produce moiré outresolves the sensor, and a lot of them do. Most lenses are pretty good near centre when stopped down to best aperture. It is good corners we are paying a lot for.

Ideally, the sensor would outresolve the lens, so it would capture all detail the lens delivers correctly. The result would be bad pixel-peeping on screen but great if downsized using a proper algorithm.

The image below shows a lot of artefacts, with twice the resolution it would look natural. Jim Kasson made some analysis and arrived at 100 MP or more needed to make best use of an Otus.

If we assume a lens that has it's best performance at f/5.6, I would say that we need something like 2.5-3.0 Micron pixels to avoid aliasing, so that would be 100-140 MP. The Sony RX-100III has 2.4 micron pixels and does decently well, although having a very small sensor, 8.8 x 13.2 mm.

Best regards
Erik





« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 04:25:14 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6629
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2014, 06:19:36 am »

So Otus EOL is about 6 years away. That must make Zeiss happy :)

Edmund

Hi,

Any lens that can produce moiré outresolves the sensor, and a lot of them do. Most lenses are pretty good near centre when stopped down to best aperture. It is good corners we are paying a lot for.

Ideally, the sensor would outresolve the lens, so it would capture all detail the lens delivers correctly. The result would be bad pixel-peeping on screen but great if downsized using a proper algorithm.

The image below shows a lot of artefacts, with twice the resolution it would look natural. Jim Kasson made some analysis and arrived at 100 MP or more needed to make best use of an Otus.

If we assume a lens that has it's best performance at f/5.6, I would say that we need something like 2.5-3.0 Micron pixels to avoid aliasing, so that would be 100-140 MP. The Sony RX-100III has 2.4 micron pixels and does decently well, although having a very small sensor, 8.8 x 13.2 mm.

Best regards
Erik






Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2014, 07:22:40 am »

Well,

Hubert Nasse said in the interview that the Otus is good it could be made at reasonable size and cost.

Interestingly, Sigma seems to have a lens which is very close in performance to the Otus at a much lower price.

Best regards
Erik


So Otus EOL is about 6 years away. That must make Zeiss happy :)

Edmund

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2014, 02:11:40 pm »

came across this very interesting article/tutorial.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

But, of course, this is a little while back and now we are at the 36MP era for 35mm FF. but in terms of APSC, the 24MP chip from sony actually has even higher pixel density. So, how many lens out there that can truly out-resolve a 36MP sensor?

i remember reading Zeiss 100mm MP and 135mm should be able to. any other lens? may be the Otus series? what about zeiss Master series for videocam ?

what's you take on the current resolution and lens availability? and the future for 35mm FF? Please discuss. ;D


I would suggest that practically speaking we are basically at the limit...for the current technology.   My D7100 has a pixel size of 3.90μm, at 24MP on a 1.5X cropped sensor.  The D810 has 4.87μm pixels on a full frame sensor at 36MP.  There are so many limitations impinging on theoretical that it is about as good as it gets.  I think the real advances have come in noise reduction and dynamic range.

I still remember Kodak being adamant that 2400ppi was as good as you got on film so think we are well on the plus side in the digital realm. 
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2014, 02:42:10 pm »

Current lenses are just fine for my needs. In fact I have some ~80-year-old lenses that are just fine for my needs.   :)  At this point I choose lenses less for their ability to resolve spatial detail and more for their overall look. A 100mp sensor would be lovely, though, particularly for alternate RAW conversion schemes like 25mp true RGB. Or how 'bout an output file with RGB components intended to map 1:1 to 4k electronic display RGB pixels? (Granted, you wouldn't need 100mp for the latter case but 36mp 3:2 sensors aren't quite there.)

-Dave-
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6504
"are we there yet?" Not till we surpass all monochrome films, I think
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2014, 08:54:51 pm »

came across this very interesting article/tutorial.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

But, of course, this is a little while back and now we are at the 36MP era for 35mm FF. but in terms of APSC, the 24MP chip from sony actually has even higher pixel density. So, how many lens out there that can truly out-resolve a 36MP sensor?
The most fine-grained, high resolution monochrome films out-resolve the roughy 5 micron pixels available in 36x24mm and large formats (offering quite high MTF to comfortably beyond the 100lp/mm Nyquist limit of those sensors), and many photographers found reason to use those films, so I think we are not yet at the point where lenses entirely limit the detail in our images.

Lenses for smaller formats have some natural design advantages in achieving higher absolute resolution (lp/mm, not lp/ph), with the extreme case being the lenses in compact cameras and phones keeping up with resolution of sensors with pixel spacing close to 1 micron. So I doubt that the smiler interchangeable lens formats are at the point of having resolution being entirely lens-limited, either.

I would say that we are just in the wide "gray zone" where lens aberrations, diffraction, and sensors all contribute significantly to limiting the resolution of the system as a whole.

(But most of the time, the limitations of the lenses in my eyes make all other factors rather irrelevant!)
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 08:59:59 pm by BJL »
Logged

allegretto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2014, 04:16:36 pm »

We will also need breakthrus in processing and cache technology to make it produce any reasonable fps rates.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2014, 04:25:52 pm »

Hi,

I am not sure that we need fps for precision work…

Best regards
Erik

We will also need breakthrus in processing and cache technology to make it produce any reasonable fps rates.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

allegretto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: "are we there yet?"
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2014, 05:17:14 pm »

I obviously respect your learned opinion. However as you read phtographer-on-the-street responses to any new camera you see that the race is to find out what is wrong with the product instead of rejoicing in that which is good.

A reasonable fps (say 3-6fps) would go a long way making it a more flexible tool. And when you consider bracketing it becomes almost a must



Hi,

I am not sure that we need fps for precision work…

Best regards
Erik

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up