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 / The Last Word / Example Q calculations for Bayer CFAs

Example Q calculations for Bayer CFAs

May 8, 2014 JimK 1 Comment

Restating the Q formula from this post with the Bayer CFA correction from yesterday’s post:

Qbayer = lambda * N / (pitch *1.7)

Where lambda is the wavelength of the light in micrometers, N is the f-stop, and pitch is the pixel pitch in micrometers.

For 0.5 micrometer light,

Qbayer = N / (pitch *3.4)

Since a Q of 2 means that the sensor and the lens are “balanced”, we can relate f-stop and pixel pitch for balanced systems:

N = 6.8 * pitch

or

pitch = N / 6.8

For a setting of f/6.8, we want a 1 micrometer pixel pitch. For a setting of f/8, the pixel pitch should be 1.18 micrometers. These numbers are much finer than any available sensors sized at micro 4/3 and larger.

If we think the correction factor should be one,

Q = lamda * N / pitch = N / (pitch * 2)

And for a “balanced” system

N = 4 * pitch

Or

Pitch = N /4

At f/8 we want a 2-micrometer pixel pitch, still finer than currently available for any available sensors sized at micro 4/3 and larger.

The bottom line is that any interpretation of applying image system Q and the idea of the balanced system to Bayer arrays gives the result that, for fine lenses, resolutions of at least a binary order of magnitude higher than currently available are desirable. This argues for 200+ megapixel full frame sensors.

This is at variance with conventional wisdom. 

The Last Word

← Interpreting Q in the real world The effect of Q on sharpness →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    May 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Jim,

    I don’t think lenses are re really diffraction limited from the Imatest MTF measurements I have down. Clearly, diffraction affects MTF but MTF is quite a bit below what would be possible, So I would suggest it is the combined effects of residual aberrations and diffraction we see.

    Could be interesting to check out that 41 MPixel Nokia phone, may be an interesting example of what is realistically possible.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

December 2023
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Nov    

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
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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

  • JimK on Hasselblad 90/2.5 XCD-V on X2D — Siemens star
  • JimK on Hasselblad XCD 90/2.5 V lens on X2D
  • Marko on Hasselblad XCD 90/2.5 V lens on X2D
  • Glen on Hasselblad 90/2.5 XCD-V on X2D — Siemens star
  • JimK on Hasselblad 90/2.5 XCD on X2D, edge falloff
  • Mario Acerra on Hasselblad 90/2.5 XCD on X2D, edge falloff
  • Nikojorj on More on Foveon image processing
  • Jakob Bogenberger on Why Foveon images are so noisy
  • JimK on More on Foveon image processing
  • Nikojorj on More on Foveon image processing

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.