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 / Optical low-pass filters and the Fuji GFX 50S and 50R

Optical low-pass filters and the Fuji GFX 50S and 50R

February 17, 2020 JimK 4 Comments

This is the fifth post on balancing real and fake detail in digital images. The series starts here.

In the last post, I looked at what advantages would obtain if the Fuji GFX 100 and the Sony a7RIV had an optical low-pass anti-aliasing filter (OLPF or AA filter). It seems to me that those cameras would be better off with such a filter. The Fuji GFX 50S and GFX 50R (collectively the GFX 50x) have a coarser pitch and smaller microlenses (effective fill factor about 50%), which means that they probably need an AA filter even more than the 3.76 micrometer (um) cameras.

To get a quantitative idea of the improvement available, I fired up my simulator and ran a comparison of the energy below the Nyquist frequency — a metric for sharpness and good detail — with the energy above that frequency — a measure of the amount of aliasing. I assumed a diffraction-limited lens, which is optimistic at the widest f-stops, and becomes a decent approximation when the lens is stopped down far enough.

With no AA filter:

 

With a 4-way OLPF that shifts at 0.7 times the pixel pitch:

The aliased energy is suppressed quite a bit, with modest penalty to the below-Nyquist energy.

Defining the effective Nyquist frequency for a Bayer-CFA camera as one third of the sampling frequency, and rerunning the sim, I got the following.

With no AA filter:

How can the aliased energy be higher than the properly sampled energy? There’s twice the bandwidth between the effective Nyquist frequency and the sampling frequency as there is between zero and the effective Nyquist frequency.

With our 4-way OLPF:

Considering how sharp the GFX lenses are, I think we’d be far better off with an AA filter in the camera. The slight loss in below-Nyquist sharpness could be easily compensated for in post, especially since there’d be a lot less aliasing to deal with.

Here are the “net sharpness” — unaliased MTF energy less aliased MTF energy — for the four cases:

 

 

 

 

 

The Last Word

← Optical low-pass filters and high-resolution cameras Fuji 45-100/4 on GFX 100 — screening →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    February 17, 2020 at 11:13 am

    Thanks a lot for the two recent articles, very interesting.

    Sharpening is an interesting aspect, I would recall that you have made some quite nice sharpening studies on the GFX 100.

    It may be that we can learn a lot from shooting Siemens stars, and also slanted edges.

    Breaking down a problem in basic parts and finding out may be easier than trying to optimize a complex system head on.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      February 17, 2020 at 11:43 am

      One of the problems with optimizing the aliasing/sharpness at a system level is that for roughly similar blur circles, diffraction, OLPF, aberrations, and defocusing interact in complex and nonintuitive ways. I can now model that, thanks to Jack and Brandon, but that doesn’t make exploring a space of that many dimensions easy.

      Another problem is defining the optimum tradeoff of real and false detail.

      Reply
  2. FredD says

    February 19, 2020 at 1:25 pm

    Any normal variance to be expected in the manufacture of the OLPF, or its application to the sensor, that would reduce its theoretical advantages and decrease sharpness further than you have modelled? (I ask that because IIRC, there once was a forum thread on DPR where the poster was attributing problems on his camera (a Canon, I think) to a bad OLPF.)

    Reply
    • JimK says

      February 19, 2020 at 1:35 pm

      Any normal variance to be expected in the manufacture of the OLPF, or its application to the sensor, that would reduce its theoretical advantages and decrease sharpness further than you have modelled?

      Not that I know of. Jack, want to weigh in here?

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

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 Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.