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 / Sensel vs lens resolution

Sensel vs lens resolution

May 26, 2014 JimK 1 Comment

I ended a post a couple of days ago on an intellectually-unsatisfying note:

So, in general, the answer to the question, “Would you like more lens resolution or more sensor resolution” is: “Yes.” Which would do you the most good depends on where you are on the 3D surface in the first graph.

In this post I’d like to get more quantitative. There is a plot that Matlab calls a “quiver”. It’s a collection of arrows whose length and direction are programmable. The location of the base of the arrows is also programmable. I thought I’d use that plot to get a handle on the tradeoffs between the two ways to increase resolution: with the lens or with the sensor.

For each but the highest-resolution edges of the sensel pitch/lens f-stop plane, I computed the direction that gave the steepest ascent (with log2/log2 scaling) on MTF50 plots like the one below:

diffractionltdmtf50

I made the arrows point in that direction. I made the length of the arrows proportional to the slope available in the direction of steepest ascent. Here’s a plot for a diffraction-limited lens with f-stops from f/2.8 to f/16, and sensel pitches from 2 um to 5.7 um and no AA filtering:

quiverdiffltdnoAA

Sensel pitch in micrometers (um) is the vertical axis. F-stop is the horizontal one.

You can see that for pixel pitches of 4.7 um and up, except at f/16 the lines of steepest ascent all point in the direction of greater sensor resolution. As the sensor resolution goes up and we get lower on the graph, the direction of the arrows on the left side of the graph begin to point more and more to the left, indication that the easiest way to gain MTF50 is to open up the (perfect) lens.

If we add a 4-way beam-splitter AA filter to our simulated camera, here’s what the plot looks like:

quiverdiffltdAA

Not too much different, except that more resolution is relatively more attractive compared to the no-AA-filter plot. That makes sense; the AA filter adversely affects resolution, so all else being equal, we’ll want to get it back by tightening up the pitch.

Looking at out simulated Otus with no AA filter:

quiverotusnoAA

We can see that more sensor resolution is the attractive direction with currently-available pixel pitches except at f/16.

Adding in the beam-splitter AA filter makes the plot look like this:

quiverotus

Even at f/16, at today’s sensel pitches we most desire more resolution.

An intellectual  problem with these plots is that the direction of the arrows is a function of the scaling of the axes, I think I’ve picked reasonable scaling, but I’m sure people could make arguments for other scalings. It would be nice to have scalings that reflected the cost of making improvements in both directions, but that’s well beyond my pay grade.

 

The Last Word

← MTF vs pitch and f-stop for a simulated Otus MTF10 results for a perfect lens →

Comments

  1. n/a says

    May 27, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    Hi,

    Jim, here is the contest that you might like to take on = http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/05/a-data-processing-contest

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

June 2023
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
« May    

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

  • Olaf on Nikon Z50 dark-field histograms
  • JimK on Nikon Z50 dark-field histograms
  • Paul on A book report: decisions, decisions
  • Olaf on Nikon Z50 dark-field histograms
  • JimK on Sigma ART 50/1.4 on Fujifilm GFX 50S
  • Simon on Sigma ART 50/1.4 on Fujifilm GFX 50S
  • Bob Foster on Hasselblad X2D firmware 2.0
  • JimK on UniWB on the X2D
  • Ad Dieleman on UniWB on the X2D
  • Christer Almqvist on Specularity, part 2

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.