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 / Siemens Star diffraction & fill-factor effects

Siemens Star diffraction & fill-factor effects

August 22, 2017 JimK Leave a Comment

This is a continuation of  —  and a sidebar to — the development of a simple, relatively foolproof, astigmatism, field curvature, and field tilt test for lens screening. The first post is here.

I took the simulator and set it up for a camera with a 5.3 um pitch, 60% fill factor, and a diffraction-limited lens. Starting at f/2, I made a run stopping down a full stop at each iteration. I fed the sim raised-sinusoid 60-spoke Siemens Stars. With AHD demosaicing, this is what resulted:

The top row is f/2, f/2.8, and f/4. You can see that there’s not much difference across those apertures. The next row is f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. On good lenses, those stops are often pretty close to diffraction-limited, so that’ probably the level of performance you’ll see with a real lens. The bottom row is f/16, f/22, and f/32. Diffraction is having a serious effect at these apertures. Note that, if eliminating all vestiges of false color is your aim, you’ll have to stop down to f/11 to do that.

Now let’s look at what happens if we do a run with everything the same except increasing the fill factor to 100%

There is a big effect on the top row. The changes in the middle row — let’s call that the realistic row — are more subtle.  f/4 and f/5.6 show more aliasing and more above-Nyquist contrast. At f/11, the differences lessen, and at f/22 and f/32, they are virtually gone.

If we use a binary star as the target, the differences are more striking:

60% fill factor

 

100% fill factor

 

There is a significant gain in below-Nyquist contrast at f/8 and wider. Of, course, TANSTAAFL: the aliasing is worse, too.

 

The Last Word

← Siemens Star “pillows” — part II Simulated foliage shots vs fill factor →

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Your email address will not be published.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 Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.