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 / Hyperfocal distance MTF50 at small CoCs

Hyperfocal distance MTF50 at small CoCs

June 4, 2016 JimK 1 Comment

This is a continuation of a report on new ways to look at depth of field. The series starts here:

A new way to look at depth of field

We looked yesterday at the distance sharpness implications for focusing at the hyperfocal distance with the standard 30 micrometer (um) circle of confusion (CoC), and they weren’t pretty:

Hyperfocal distance MTF50 implications

Today, I’ll show you similar curves with the camera focused at the hyperfocal distance for more reasonable CoCs. I’ll start with what was my standard CoC for critical work before I began this deep dive into DOF, one and a half times the pixel pitch, which, for the Sony a7RII that I’m modeling here, is 6.75 um.

a7rii mtf50 HFD

Those of you who have been following this series from the beginning can skip the next two paragraphs.

The horizontal axis of the graph is subject distance in meters. It’s a log to the base 10 scale, so a third of the way between 1 and 10 is about 2, and two-thirds is about 5. The vertical axis is MTF50 measured in cycles per picture height. The simulated sensor is 42 MP, 14 bit, full frame Bayer CFA with no AA filter, like the sensor in the Sony a7RII. Fill factor is 100%. I turned off all sources of noise (photon, read, PRNU) — they don’t affect slanted edge measurements much anyway, since the technique is intended to calibrate out noise. Diffraction is computed at 450, 550, and 650 nm for the respective blue, green, and red raw color planes. The CFA is Adobe RGB, and the illuminant is D65.

I’m using a lens blur model that I originally created a couple of years ago to approximate the on-axis behavior of the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4. Now that I have improved my focusing accuracy with a motorized rail and my target with a razor blade edge, I now realize that my Otus model is actually somewhat worse than the lens itself, particularly at wide apertures. Nevertheless, it can serve as a stand-in for very good, if not great, 55mm lenses.

For the sharpest f-stops there is a clear loss in distant sharpness and an increase in near sharpness as compared to  just focusing at infinity.  At f/11 and f/16, that penalty is small.

SOme people favor a finer CoC, the pixel pitch itself. Let’s see what that looks like:

a7rii HFD one px

For the sharpest f-stops there is a minor loss in distant sharpness and an increase in near sharpness as compared to infinity focusing. At f/11 and f/16, that penalty is small.

 

 

The Last Word

← Hyperfocal distance MTF50 implications Bridging the CoC/MTF50 gap →

Comments

  1. Bumpy says

    June 4, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Focus stacking here we come? Looks to me like you have demonstrated that you can get infinity to 40-ish meters sharp at 6.75 um hyperfocal distance, but if you bring focus closer you lose distance resolution rapidly as you gain resolution under 40-ish meters. The natural next question is how few exposures, and at what combination of focal distance and aperature, are required to focus stack such that an image is sharp from ‘n’ < 40m to infinity….
    I really enjoy your blog, very interesting analysis even when I can't always follow the details. You bring a unique mindset to imaging analysis that gives insights that are not easily, or perhaps ever, found in more typical photo blogs. Thank you for sharing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

January 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Dec    

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

  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality
  • JimK on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.