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 / Sensor MTF with a perfect lens

Sensor MTF with a perfect lens

April 21, 2016 By JimK Leave a Comment

To a first approximation, the modulation transfer function (MTF) curve for a given lens and a given sensor is the product of the MTF curve for the lens alone times the MTF for the sensor alone. But how do you measure the MTF of a sensor with a perfect lens?

You don’t. You simulate it.

Here’s a set of curves that you might multiply your lens curves by to see what the overall effect might be. This is from a simulation that I wrote, for a perfect — contact printing — lens on a sensor with 100% fill factor.

Details of the sim:

  • Adobe RGB RGGB CFA
  • 16:1 optical scaling
  • Diffraction = 0
  • Gradient-corrected linear interpolation
  • RGB image converted to luminance before running SFR code
  • Burns’ sftmat3 used to compute MTF

aa no aa sfr ideal

The horizontal axis in in cycles/pixel. The Nyquist frequency is 0.5 cy/px. Two different AA filter are simulated, both of the four-way beam splitting variety. One has a zero at the Nyquist frequency, and one at just below 0.7 cy/px. The bounce at the far right for the no-AA filter curve and the rise above unity on the left of that curve are probably because the optical processing to sampling ratio was too small, but the anomalies could be because of a lack of sophistication in sfrmat3.

You can see that, for a sharp (in this case, very sharp) lens and a high-spatial frequency subject, sizable reduction in aliasing is obtained at some loss in sub-Nyquist contrast.

If you’re used to seeing MTF curves in cycles per picture height instead of cycles per pixel, here’s one for a camera with a 5792 pixel sensor height.

aa no aa sfr ideal cy per pj

It would be nice if lens vendors would publish MTF curves in this form. Then it would be pretty easy to see how a given lens would perform on any particular camera.

If we use AHD demosaicing, things look quite different:

AHD aa no aa sfr ideal cy per pj

The AA filter is costing us more sharpness, and gaining us more removal of frequencies subject to aliasing.

← A book report — varnish options Towards a macro MTF test protocol →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

December 2019
SMTWTFS
« Nov  
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031 

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 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 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 a7RIV vs a7RIII IBIS/OSS performance
  • Linwood on a7RIV vs a7RIII IBIS/OSS performance
  • JimK on Roles of camera and raw developer in determining color
  • Christian on Roles of camera and raw developer in determining color
  • Michael Klein on Roles of camera and raw developer in determining color
  • JimK on Roles of camera and raw developer in determining color
  • chris on Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • JimK on Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • chris on Zeiss Batis 135 on Nikon Z7
  • FredD on Roles of camera and raw developer in determining color

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.