the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / Technical / Antialiasing – email comments

Antialiasing – email comments

January 5, 2011 JimK Leave a Comment

I’ve had some email on the antialiasing posts. One person quotes me from Antialiasing, part 2 as follows:

The good news is that increasing the area of the sensor receptors reduces aliasing, and does it fairly efficiently. William Pratt, in his book Digital Image Processing, 2nd Edition, on pages 110 and 111, compares a square receptor with a diffraction-limited ideal lens and finds that, for the same amount of aliasing error, the lens provides greater resolution loss. He asserts, but does not provide data, that a defocused ideal lens would perform even more poorly than the diffraction-limited lens. In digital cameras, this kind of antialiasing filtering, which comes for free, is called fill-factor filtering, since it is related to how much of the grid allocated to the sensor is sensitive to light.

And then comments:

Increasing the sensor area also does something that those of us in the film world (at least me) had a hard time getting our heads around. It reduces depth of field.

I now regret the shorthand I used in the first sentence of the first quotation. I thought it was clear in context, but now I see that I needed to be more explicit. Let me try again, and even add a little explanation. What I should have said was:

…increasing the proportion of the sensor photosite area that is light-sensitive reduces aliasing, and does it fairly efficiently.

An example: Let’s talk about an array with a pixel pitch of 10 micrometers. Let’s say that an approximation of an ideal photo receptor would have the smallest quasi-practical area, or 700 nanometers (the wavelength of red light) on a side. In this example, one half of one percent of the pixel’s footprint would be light sensitive (it would have a fill factor of 0.49%), and the resultant sensor would be a reasonable approximation of an ideal sampler, but would we useful only in the studio under very bright lights, as it would be slow, noisy in dim light, and have low dynamic range. Now let’s make the light-sensitive area of the photoreceptor the entire 10 micrometer-sided square (it would have a fill factor of 100%). The resultant sensor would not be ideal, since it would roll off high-frequency image information, but it would have fewer aliasing problems, and it should be fast (faster than a Nikon D3), and have a reasonably good dynamic range.

The reader’s comment that larger sensor area reduces depth of field is true in the context of overall sensor size — the size of the whole chip. Bigger sensors, for the same angle of view, require lenses with longer focal length, and those lenses have shallower depth of field. This is true in the digital world, just as it was true in the film world. The larger the format, the shallower the DOF.

Technical

← Antialiasing, part 4 Diffraction, DOF, and digitization in ideal lenses →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

July 2022
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Jun    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • pieter kers on You’re an old photographer if you can remember…
  • George Simian on You’re an old photographer if you can remember…
  • Christopher Thorpe on You’re an old photographer if you can remember…
  • Eric Brody on You’re an old photographer if you can remember…
  • Christer Almqvist on You’re an old photographer if you can remember…
  • Mike Nelson Pedde on You’re an old photographer if you can remember…
  • Alan on What’s the focal length of the Leica Q2 lens?
  • JimK on What’s the focal length of the Leica Q2 lens?
  • Jerry on What’s the focal length of the Leica Q2 lens?
  • JimK on Q2 Monochrom vs GFX 100S

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.