Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?  (Read 24240 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re:
« Reply #60 on: October 25, 2014, 04:16:00 am »

Yes,

But if I have a lens that just can deliver 12 MP worth of data I would rather use a phone cam.

It may be argued that stopping down to f/22 reduces resolution to below 12 MP, but even stopped down to f/22 indications are that a 36 MP camera has better detail than a 24 MP camera. Folks shooting MS on MFD say that MS (up to 200 MP) is more tolerant of diffraction than 50MP single shot. I don't understand that, but more pixels have more leeway for sharpening and that may help a lot.

Best regards
Erik

I didn't set it up, everyone else got off on tangents stemming from my simple statement of fact that shouldn't have even got anyone's attention.  Same is true with the fact that more pixels is not necessarily better than less; what really matters is the total amount of data being carried by the pixels.  When engagement times (detect, track, target, fire, kill) can sometimes be less than 3 seconds, you learn to get all you can and you don't waste extra time and bandwidth with the irrelevant.  If 12MP can carry all the data, then 36MPs means 24MPs of waste!

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #61 on: October 25, 2014, 05:12:51 am »

As always, I don't care too much for numbers and graphs and feather pictures.

I do know this. I had a 70-200 f2.8 VR i which did ok on the 12MP nikon sensors. It wasn't amazing or the sharpest lens out there, but it did ok. There was some corner softness, but not a great deal. But when I mounted it on the D800, the sensor extracted every last bit of performance out of it. There was a lot to extract from the center and the corners gave up a long time before the center did. The result was images that had a much more obvious sharpness transition between the center and the edges than the 12mp cameras ever put out.


So yeah, I am a believer that sensors do out resolve lenses and a low performance lens on a high performance sensor would amplify the lenses issues.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re:
« Reply #62 on: October 25, 2014, 05:29:18 am »

But if I have a lens that just can deliver 12 MP worth of data I would rather use a phone cam.

Indeed, but I still find the concept of - a lens delivering a number of pixels - detached from reality. A lens is a component in an imaging chain, and it is that entire chain that delivers a given resolution. The lens alone does not produce pixels.

Quote
Folks shooting MS on MFD say that MS (up to 200 MP) is more tolerant of diffraction than 50MP single shot. I don't understand that, but more pixels have more leeway for sharpening and that may help a lot.

There are two aspects to Multi-shot (the half sensel offset kind) images. One is that it doubles the sampling density, not exactly the same as doubling the number of sensels, but it is the same principle of denser sampling that extracts more detail from a given lens. That alone will combine to get higher resolution from a given system. The other aspect is that the higher sampling density will allow a more accurate sampling of the system blur (lens aberrations, diffraction, filter-stack, AA-filter, sensel aperture, demosaicing), which allows better deconvolution sharpening/restoration. It also allows to produce output with less magnification, which will also preserve resolution.

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

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Sv: Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #63 on: October 25, 2014, 08:25:03 am »

As always, I don't care too much for numbers and graphs and feather pictures.

I do know this. I had a 70-200 f2.8 VR i which did ok on the 12MP nikon sensors. It wasn't amazing or the sharpest lens out there, but it did ok. There was some corner softness, but not a great deal. But when I mounted it on the D800, the sensor extracted every last bit of performance out of it. There was a lot to extract from the center and the corners gave up a long time before the center did. The result was images that had a much more obvious sharpness transition between the center and the edges than the 12mp cameras ever put out.


So yeah, I am a believer that sensors do out resolve lenses and a low performance lens on a high performance sensor would amplify the lenses issues.

I think it is the other way around. This is an example of a lens that has more to give on a higher res sensor.

Sure you see the limitation of the lens better and you get less out of the sensor relative to its theoretical limit but there is more detail in the image. Even in the corners.

I could see the argument that we have reached a point of diminishing returns with a lens like that. But more and more I start to like the idea that we are reaching the limits of what sensors can produce. Then we are back to analog days, it's all about the lens. And format size. And skill. Not so much about upgrading.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sv: Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #64 on: October 25, 2014, 08:51:37 am »

Sure you see the limitation of the lens better and you get less out of the sensor relative to its theoretical limit but there is more detail in the image. Even in the corners.

I agree. Everything is better resolved, including the corners. Apparently the center still had a lot of untapped potential, and the corners had less to offer. However, there is now also more restoration potential in those corners because of the denser sampling. Not that it will become perfect, but closer to its limited maximum performance.

Lens design is still one of the limitations to combined total system performance. As the Otus and Art lenses show, there is room for improvement, but even with those lenses (as shown in Jim's simulation), the combination with denser sampling will also pull more resolution out of such lenses.

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

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #65 on: October 25, 2014, 09:00:13 am »

Interesting perspective  from both of you, but I don't think that's the case. I neither have that lens or a 12 mp body at my disposal now, but I really don't think anymore details were resolved in the corners by the D800. If I downsampled the D800 images to 12 MP, I would think the corners would be very similar to the 12MP images.

To me, this is a scenario where the lens was out resolved by the 36mp sensor in the corners.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 09:02:10 am by synn »
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Sv: Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #66 on: October 25, 2014, 09:00:49 am »

Hi,

My take is that it is always better to have a good image that utilises the lens maximally. Clearly, a high resolution sensor may show weaknesses that are not obvious on a lesser sensor.

Now, I would say that a good 12 MP image will be great on an A2 print, because that is my experience. Going to higher resolution like 24 or 54 MP may give little benefits at A2 but will probably be visible in larger sizes like A1 or A0.

Best regards
Erik
 


I think it is the other way around. This is an example of a lens that has more to give on a higher res sensor.

Sure you see the limitation of the lens better and you get less out of the sensor relative to its theoretical limit but there is more detail in the image. Even in the corners.

I could see the argument that we have reached a point of diminishing returns with a lens like that. But more and more I start to like the idea that we are reaching the limits of what sensors can produce. Then we are back to analog days, it's all about the lens. And format size. And skill. Not so much about upgrading.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #67 on: October 25, 2014, 10:00:20 am »

You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?



Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #68 on: October 25, 2014, 10:15:42 am »

D810,

Unless I shoot full aperture…

BR
Erik

You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?




Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #69 on: October 25, 2014, 10:48:51 am »

You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?





If your primary objective is to shoot with a 50mm equivalent fov and get the maximum possible quality, sell them both and get a sigma DP2.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #70 on: October 25, 2014, 11:11:35 am »

You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?

Essentially the same answer as Erik gave.

At 'A2' output size the 12MP resolution would be enough. So if one never prints larger then perhaps the Otus might be appealing, mostly due to the improved wider aperture performance (the price, weight, and lack of AF, are a minus). For wider aperture use, obviously the Otus would be preferable.

The resolution gain will be much larger from upgrading the sensor resolution (unless the corners are very poor). The image from the lower quality lens can be significantly improved by the combination of higher sampling density and proper sharpening, even for larger than 'A2' prints (which will normally also be viewed from a bit further away than the 70 centimetres or 28 inches one would expect for an 'A2' size for matched 55mm lens perspective).

You can roughly simulate the improvement in resolution by shooting with a 85mm focal length and comparing that to same feature size output from a 50mm. One could also compare a down-sampled to 58% copy with the original size and output them to the same size, to get an idea about the magnitude of change. It's not a perfect simulation, but it will show whether the difference is something worth investing in.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 11:26:24 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #71 on: October 25, 2014, 11:20:15 am »

You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?


Nikon D810, assuming you don't require the durability and working speed the D3 brings to the table.  While none of the Nikon 50mm lens (1.4G to the 1.8D ) are all that spectacular, in almost all shooting conditions you will get more out of the D810 sensor, especially as the output size increases.  Oh, and I suspect other lenses will make their way onto that body which will similarly give better results. Besides, there are more than just 'resolution' advantages to the gained from the camera upgrade.  

Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #72 on: October 25, 2014, 11:31:45 am »

Besides, there are more than just 'resolution' advantages to the gained from the camera upgrade.

Indeed, and one may save a tiny bit of money for other/future lens upgrades when the price of the camera body goes down faster than that of the lens.

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

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re:
« Reply #73 on: October 25, 2014, 11:34:20 am »

But if I have a lens that just can deliver 12 MP worth of data I would rather use a phone cam.

Best regards
Erik


This begs the question, "Does one believe they could make just as good an image (quality of the output file) with their phone as say a Nikon D3 or even D300s?" 

Both these cameras have older, 12MP sensors (FX and DX) which data limits the output so no matter how much more data they might be getting all they can give is 12MP worth?    Most 35mm format film (24mmx36mm) had less resolution data than that!
Logged

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Sv: Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #74 on: October 25, 2014, 12:29:27 pm »

You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?
I would go with the D810 if that was my only goal and choice. Realistically I would get a D800E and a Sigma 50 Art.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re:
« Reply #75 on: October 25, 2014, 12:40:22 pm »

Hi,

Nokia had a mobile phone with 41 MP resolution, and it was enthusiastically reported to be quite close to Canon 5DII in image quality under good light.

What I say is that a lens that would deliver just 12 MP would deliver it with very bad contrast (MTF) at fine pixels, as it otherwise would deliver far better resolution than 12 MP. It is sort of not realistic to make a lens that has decent MTF at 12 MP but suddenly drops to nil at an arbitrary limit like 12MP. A lens delivering zero MTF at 12 MP may deliver say 3-6 MP at 50% MTF. And that bad resolution would push it in the phone camera territory.

Any good lens would deliver probably deliver something like 50-200 MP at 0% MTF on full frame, I guess.

Best regards
Erik

This begs the question, "Does one believe they could make just as good an image (quality of the output file) with their phone as say a Nikon D3 or even D300s?"  

Both these cameras have older, 12MP sensors (FX and DX) which data limits the output so no matter how much more data they might be getting all they can give is 12MP worth?    Most 35mm format film (24mmx36mm) had less resolution data than that!
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 12:48:53 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Sv: Re: Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses?
« Reply #76 on: October 25, 2014, 12:55:32 pm »

Hi,

A2 is my normal print size and at that size I see little difference between 39 MP MFD, 24 MP full frame or 16 MP APS-C.

For larger sizes, I would say D810 or something like it – paired with a decent lens – would be beneficial, but I would say a 400$ Sigma 70/2.8 would be just fine. The great strength of the Otus is that it is really good at f/1.4, but I don't feel I need it for any size of print if shooting medium aperture.

Best regards
Erik



I would go with the D810 if that was my only goal and choice. Realistically I would get a D800E and a Sigma 50 Art.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re:
« Reply #77 on: October 25, 2014, 03:53:15 pm »

Hi,

Nokia had a mobile phone with 41 MP resolution, and it was enthusiastically reported to be quite close to Canon 5DII in image quality under good light.

What I say is that a lens that would deliver just 12 MP would deliver it with very bad contrast (MTF) at fine pixels, as it otherwise would deliver far better resolution than 12 MP. It is sort of not realistic to make a lens that has decent MTF at 12 MP but suddenly drops to nil at an arbitrary limit like 12MP. A lens delivering zero MTF at 12 MP may deliver say 3-6 MP at 50% MTF. And that bad resolution would push it in the phone camera territory.

Any good lens would deliver probably deliver something like 50-200 MP at 0% MTF on full frame, I guess.

Best regards
Erik


Given the unmentioned assumption of the loss of 6-9MPs of data that was the baseline of the discussion, I guess I would still rather have a D3  receiving, digitizing and processing it than my phone electronics.  You can still do a lot with 3-6MP!

I don't want to read anything into your posting, but is seems like you are saying 3-6MP isn't worth the effort.  I know guys doing more with 12MPs than most people with D8x0 cameras might ever do with 36MP.  Like you wrote yesterday (paraphrase) Most equipment outperforms it's user!

About 12 years ago I took 2 photos of my 2 daughters holding monarch butterflies in the palm of their hands.  My mother inlaw loved them and asked for prints.  Of course, I had taken these with the 2MP Coolpix 950 I was playing with.  But I have to say, after some significant post processing effort, I printed them at 11"x14".  About 6 months later she recreated the photo with my Niece, the 3rd female grandchild.  I shot that with a N90s and 85mm f1.8D trying to recreate the framing and perspective.  The film was scanned with my Nikon LS-1000 Super Coolscan.  There was much more data in this film scan and I was required to keep the image a little softer than I would like to match the other 2.  All 3 prints still hang side by side in my inlaws home and I can tell you the 2MP images hold up respectably next to the 3rd.  You really need to step up close and almost pixel peep to see the additional detail in the 3rd print.  At normal viewing distance, it isn't really noticeable.
Logged

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re:
« Reply #78 on: October 25, 2014, 03:56:36 pm »

I like to think about displays as much as prints. You need a 18 mpix camera to exceed the resolution on the long axis of the new iMac 5k retina. 12 mpix is going to feel very dated soon. Not even a 16 mpix 3:2 camera is enough to make a background image  for it.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re:
« Reply #79 on: October 25, 2014, 04:13:12 pm »

Hi,

I don't really see your point, but I feel that very good prints can be made from small MP files. Early on, 135 on good film was considered to be around 6MP, but it was found that 3 MP digital was actually good match for 135 film.

Now, my normal print size is A2, and I don't feel that 6 MP is good enough for that. But I don't see a lot of difference between 12 MP and 24 MP at that size. So, I would say that I (personally) need something like between 12 MP and 24 MP for a very good print. That difference from 6 MP to 24 MP is worth a journey to Iceland for me.

Personally, I would never buy a D3. I don't shoot high ISO or 10 FPS. I shoot on tripod, with MLU and at 50 ISO. So with my shooting habits a low MP high FPS camera simply make no sense.

Some folks are shooting high ISOs on free hand, that is another game, not about resolution but about getting that image.

Best regards
Erik




Given the unmentioned assumption of the loss of 6-9MPs of data that was the baseline of the discussion, I guess I would still rather have a D3  receiving, digitizing and processing it than my phone electronics.  You can still do a lot with 3-6MP!

I don't want to read anything into your posting, but is seems like you are saying 3-6MP isn't worth the effort.  I know guys doing more with 12MPs than most people with D8x0 cameras might ever do with 36MP.  Like you wrote yesterday (paraphrase) Most equipment outperforms it's user!

About 12 years ago I took 2 photos of my 2 daughters holding monarch butterflies in the palm of their hands.  My mother inlaw loved them and asked for prints.  Of course, I had taken these with the 2MP Coolpix 950 I was playing with.  But I have to say, after some significant post processing effort, I printed them at 11"x14".  About 6 months later she recreated the photo with my Niece, the 3rd female grandchild.  I shot that with a N90s and 85mm f1.8D trying to recreate the framing and perspective.  The film was scanned with my Nikon LS-1000 Super Coolscan.  There was much more data in this film scan and I was required to keep the image a little softer than I would like to match the other 2.  All 3 prints still hang side by side in my inlaws home and I can tell you the 2MP images hold up respectably next to the 3rd.  You really need to step up close and almost pixel peep to see the additional detail in the 3rd print.  At normal viewing distance, it isn't really noticeable.

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up