• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Sharpness testing, part 18

Sharpness testing, part 18

November 24, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

This is getting a little far afield from my original reason for doing the testing, but yesterday’s mirror slap results got me interested in two things:

  • Did the D4 work the same way as the D800E?
  • How long did it take the mirror slap vibration to decay?

I put the D4 on the 400mm f/2.8 (choosing my words advisedly here) and repeated yesterday’s remote release test with no shutter delay and the oscilloscope time base set to 1/10 second per division:

tenth sec d4 400

Looks pretty similar, given the D4’s larger pixel pitch. The frequency of the vibration is about the same as with the D800E. I thought it might be lower given the D4’s increased mass.

To get an idea of how fast the vibrations die out, I changed the time base on the ‘scope to 1/2 second per division:

half sec D4 400

This looks like a classic second-order underdamped system. The sinusoid is amplitude modulated by a decaying exponential. The key thing to determine is the time at which the amplitude of he oscillations decay to 36.8% (1/e) of their original value. That is called the time constant of the system. If we know that, we can calculate the amplitude of the oscillation at any time, even though it’s too small to see with our big spot size.

My eyeballs say that the time constant of this trace is about 2 seconds (it could be 3). Two means that the vibration decays to 13.5% of its original value in 4 seconds, 5% or its original value in 6 seconds, and a little less than 2% of its starting value in 8 seconds. Three means that the vibration decays to 13.5% of its original value in 6 seconds, 5% or its original value in 9 seconds, and a little less than 2% of its starting value in 12 seconds.

Since the starting peak to peak value is about 11 pixels, with a time constant of two seconds it will take about five seconds to decay to one pixel, which means that a three second shutter delay is too short. Since three seconds is the longest shutter delay the D4 allows, the right way to deal with mirror slap with the D4/400mm f/2.8 is to use the “mirror up” setting, pressing the remote release once to raise the mirror, waiting five or six seconds, and pressing it again.

Assuming the D800E decay time constant is the same, since the D800E pixels are smaller, we’ll have to wait another time constant to let the vibration damp down to under one pixel peak to peak — that’s six or seven seconds at a time constant of 2, or 9 to 12 seconds at a time constant of three.

The Last Word

← Sharpness testing, part 17 Sharpness testing, part 19 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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 Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.