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 / Luminance and chromaticity vs spatial frequency, part 2

Luminance and chromaticity vs spatial frequency, part 2

April 21, 2014 By JimK 4 Comments

I ran the FFT analysis of yesterday’s post on a couple of more images. First, this old chestnut (thank you, Fuji):

 

5.0.2

Here’s what I got:

fullrange psd

For the last three octaves of spatial frequency, the two chromaticity components are about the same distance below the luminance component.

Then there’s this image (thank you again, Fuji):

5.0.2

Here’s the power spectral density analysis:

hikey psd

About the same as the so-called full-range image, with respect to the relationships between the luminance and the two chromaticity components over the upper three or four octaves.

I could do this for a whole bunch of images, but I’ve pretty much proven the point to myself. There’s nothing that makes the spectrum of the chromaticity components of a a real world want to fall off a cliff just before the luminance resolution limits of the image are reached.

And why should there be? If, say, the world had this property at normal photographic scales, we would take a picture from 40 feet away, and see small chromaticity changes at high spatial frequencies. Then, if we moved in to 20 feet, we’d see these same changes at half the spatial frequencies.

Now I admit that photographs of the world are not self-similar at all scales. If you back off, say, four or five light years and make a snap of the earth with an angle of view of 20 degrees, you’re going to see mostly black. If you get close, and I mean really close, so that your total image field is a few nanometers, you’re not going to see any color at all. In fact, you won’t be able to form an image with visible light.

But at normal photographic distances and angles of view, there’s no reason that I know of to think that, for a given angle of view, there’s some distance where the power spectral density at normal sensor resolutions drops precipitously.

Then why can we get away with sampling chromaticity components at lower rates than luminance? Stay tuned.

← Luminance and chromaticity vs spatial frequency Mach banding →

Comments

  1. Ed Hannon says

    July 2, 2016 at 6:28 am

    I had always thought that color television works not because of the nature of light but the nature of our rods and cones.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      July 2, 2016 at 7:17 am

      Ed, if you’re talking about the different bandwidths allocated to Y and the chromaticity components, UV or IQ, that’s not so much about he cones (the rods don’t come into play at the illumination levels common to TV viewing), but about the neural processing that follows, where a luminance and two color difference components are generated, and they differ in resolution. However, that processing stems from the different densities of rho, gamma, and beta cones, so in that sense, you’re right; it does go to the cones.

      Jim

      Reply
      • Ed Hannon says

        July 2, 2016 at 7:30 am

        Jim,
        Thanks for the explanation.

        Doesn’t that imply that the A and B in LAB do not need to fall off faster than the L for us to be able get away with sampling A and B at lower rates than L (as in NTSC color TV)?

        Reply
        • Jim says

          July 2, 2016 at 7:44 am

          It certainly does, Ed.

          Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

March 2021
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
« Feb    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • 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 Sigma ART 24/1.4 on Fujifilm GFX 50S
  • Christopher on Sigma ART 24/1.4 on Fujifilm GFX 50S
  • JimK on PDAF banding in GFX 100 in-camera JPEGs
  • Antoine on PDAF banding in GFX 100 in-camera JPEGs
  • Rico Pfirstinger on GFX Natural Live View and raw file histograms
  • Maurin on Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • JimK on Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • Maurin on Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • Scott Pilla on GFX Natural Live View and raw file histograms
  • Macro Guy on THoS: a NYT infinite loop

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.