Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-11-2008, 06:00 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bangor, Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,382
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Funny to see the word "arouse" in this context. As a non native speaker, I thought it would have some reserved other meaning
..
Yeah well when you are my age you get aroused any way you can. I found this site, http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/procedure.html, that shows the resolution test done on some of my old glass. What I'm trying to figure out is will my old lenses work on a FF sensor IF Pentax ever comes out with one.

I think the short answer is try them on it IF it ever comes out.

Thanks,

Ken

06-11-2008, 08:15 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 377
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Hi Ben, my view on this is this (my physicists's long-term view, not my photographic need's view for the next generation -- so you may want to ignore it ):

A pixel site should'n get smaller than about 3 micron (because of noise and the optical limits of fine glass like the FA 31mm which is still good at 170 Lp/mm). But not larger either, because our human eyes are so amazingly sharp at their point of sharpest vision (~81 MPixels when we are allowed to point them wherever we want on an image...).

So, we end up with FF and 96 MPixels. For rounding and marketing reasons, this means:

The DSLR pixel race will go up to 100 MPixels and stop there.
For what print size? :/

That doesn't make much sense to me. Above 220 dpi almost no one can tell the difference. And a FF sensor with 81mp is way beyond the resolution of the FA 31mm or any other lens (more than 500Lp/mm, if i'm not wrong).

And for those wondering, 96mp is just a little more than double 14mp resolution, it's not that big of a step (9.600px X 10.000px). Sooner than we think this mega-pixel measurement will be left behind, it's just marketing speak.
06-12-2008, 02:07 AM   #48
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by ricardobeat Quote
For what print size? :/

That doesn't make much sense to me. Above 220 dpi almost no one can tell the difference. And a FF sensor with 81mp is way beyond the resolution of the FA 31mm or any other lens (more than 500Lp/mm, if i'm not wrong).

And for those wondering, 96mp is just a little more than double 14mp resolution, it's not that big of a step (9.600px X 10.000px). Sooner than we think this mega-pixel measurement will be left behind, it's just marketing speak.
What you say is common sense and may be plain correct. Which is why I made my post to articulate a different possibility. It was based on educated guesses, though:

"Above 220 dpi almost no one can tell the difference":
- The resolving power of the human eye is a measured fact. If above 220 dpi printers show no additional detail then you need to print large enough
- The eye (9k x 9k) at 220dpi needs 40" or 1m printing size (A0), viewed from a distance giving a 120į view (i.e., standing 23" or 60cm away).

An image printed smaller or viewed such that the borders are kept in view will not fool the eye into the original scenery. Which is not possible with a today's camera. But which was the base of my guess.


And a FF sensor with 81mp is way beyond the resolution of the FA 31mm:
- It is one of the finest glass around and should not stand behind Zeiss FF glass for the K mount. The latter is specified by Zeiss at 300 Lp/mm which is just the figure required to meet my spec. Of course, software needs to push the low microcontrast (5%) then which means that sensor noise needs to be very low.


96mp is just a little more than double 14mp resolution, it's not that big of a step:
- Exactly. It just means to go FF and to shrink the sensor cells from 5 to 3 microns. P&S sensor cells have already passed this size which is the smallest reasonable figure with today's technology.
06-12-2008, 02:21 AM   #49
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by regken Quote
http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/procedure.html, that shows the resolution test done on some of my old glass. What I'm trying to figure out is will my old lenses work on a FF sensor IF Pentax ever comes out with one.
This test used the USAF Lens Resolution Test Chart on Kodak T-MAX 100 film. It is based on observing the point where Siemens stars fuse together. Unfortunately, this is mostly limitated by the film and its grain at very low contrast. Not like modern laser beam MTF measurements.

In this particular test, I would consider any figure of 98 Lp/mm excellent and probably more than required for a future high end sensor. 98 is just 1 step below the tests maximum score (110), only reached by the FA50/2.8macro at f/11.

06-12-2008, 03:29 AM   #50
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,267
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I do find this interesting but in the nearer term there are more practical concerns. The K20D already shows up the limitations of bad or low resolution lenses. A potential camera with more megapixels or a larger sensor would need even better glass. Consider the cost of your kit when the 31/43/77 is only the starting point -- not everyone can afford this.
Mmm but low end lenses(e.g. FAJ line) were really consummer low end grade and they showed a lot less performance / shrapness (+ ... just add what you want) than mid-grade or high grade lenses on film.

And film went better and better all over the years as well. How is the situation of sensors any different? It may go fatser, OK, but that's it.
06-19-2008, 03:13 AM   #51
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
...
I want to see a 25 to 30 mega pixel DSLR with noise levels similar to the Dalsa digital sensors at 100 iso. ...
I think that 15-18Mpixel is the upper limit in resolution that OPTICS can take advantage of at resonable prices. Lens are analog devices and we have reached the limits of that technology a long-long-long time ago (see how many ancient age lens are still holding up to the same optic level as today's top designs)
06-19-2008, 05:08 AM   #52
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by gkopeliadis Quote
I think that 15-18Mpixel is the upper limit in resolution that OPTICS can take advantage of at resonable prices. Lens are analog devices and we have reached the limits of that technology a long-long-long time ago (see how many ancient age lens are still holding up to the same optic level as today's top designs)
The difference in resolution performance between sensor and film is just going to develop now. There was no need to have glass sharper than film in the past.

And even then, good ancient glass resolves at 300 Lp/mm still not reached by sensors.

Where utmost need for resolution existed (astronomy, espionage satellites) the optics are only bound by the limits of diffraction which is FAR beyond today's limits.
06-19-2008, 05:35 AM   #53
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
...Where utmost need for resolution existed (astronomy, espionage satellites) the optics are only bound by the limits of diffraction which is FAR beyond today's limits.
The key phrase is "reasonable prices" and I may add "reasonable size and weight".
A misalignment of a few micrometers between the lens elements is enough to destroy any fine resolution. Think now that photography lenses have a lot of moving parts (a telescope or spy satellites lens none) and canít be constructed with exotic materials and methods and Ö voila!
Most todayís photographic lenses canít even reach the 10Mpixel sensorís Nyquist frequency on APS-C sensor size (on full frame sensors the theoretical limit is obviously higher for the same lens) except from the very center area. And thatís for perfectly still, flat targets with cameras perfectly focused on tripods with vibration free methods.

06-19-2008, 05:54 AM   #54
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Posts: 8
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The difference in resolution performance between sensor and film is just going to develop now. There was no need to have glass sharper than film in the past.

And even then, good ancient glass resolves at 300 Lp/mm still not reached by sensors.

Where utmost need for resolution existed (astronomy, espionage satellites) the optics are only bound by the limits of diffraction which is FAR beyond today's limits.
a good article worth to be read about lens resolution and diffraction limits at luminous-landscape.com:
Do Sensors Outresolve Lenses?
06-19-2008, 07:28 AM   #55
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
QuoteOriginally posted by mermozjg Quote
a good article worth to be read about lens resolution and diffraction limits at luminous-landscape.com:
Do Sensors Outresolve Lenses?
Exactly !
06-19-2008, 09:01 AM   #56
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Approaching The Summit

QuoteOriginally posted by mermozjg Quote
a good article worth to be read about lens resolution and diffraction limits at luminous-landscape.com:
Do Sensors Outresolve Lenses?
Um. I think I understood about one-fifth of that. And I have a degree in physics -- just not much exercised I suppose!

But I did follow the conclusion: "Only for highly corrected lenses (with better performance at f/5.6 than f/8) do higher sensor resolutions make sense." To be specific, for the APS-C sensor 13MP is enough, or 27MP for those "highly corrected lenses" of which the authors speak. The K20D, with 15MP, has already reached the first of these theoretical limits.

So even though I may not know my MTF from my MDF I believe I was justified in writing "The K20D already shows up the limitations of bad or low resolution lenses. A potential camera with more megapixels or a larger sensor would need even better glass. Consider the cost of your kit when the 31/43/77 is only the starting point -- not everyone can afford this."

That said, according to Photozone the FA31, FA43 and FA77 show best performance at f/4. I interpret the results to mean that these lenses will still be useful on a future 52MP camera.

(The FA50 is in the same league whereas the DA21 and DA16-45 correspond more with the f/5.6 to f/8 maximum resolution class. This seems to correspond well with common experience.)

With the K20D we have already approached the summit of performance for all but the most expensive and well-constructed lenses.
06-19-2008, 11:26 AM   #57
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by gkopeliadis Quote
The key phrase is "reasonable prices" and I may add "reasonable size and weight".
A misalignment of a few micrometers between the lens elements is enough to destroy any fine resolution.
Yes, you may be right. But then, progress has always come from people completely ignoring such lines of argument A few engineers will accept the challenge implied by your concerns.

QuoteOriginally posted by mermozjg Quote
Good article!

The K20D is at 100 lp/mm.

I may add that existing resolution (above the Rayleigh criterion) can always be used to restore an undistorted, higher-contrast image (if noise is low), using computational optics. So, MTF50 isn't the only figure to look at.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I interpret the results to mean that these lenses will still be useful on a future 52MP camera. [...] With the K20D we have already approached the summit of performance for all but the most expensive and well-constructed lenses.
I agree with both statements.

But a 100 MPixel FF sensor wouldn't be that much more demanding (170 lp/mm, just 70% more).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
canon, date, images, intent, k20d, look, nikon, output, pentax news, pentax rumors, quality, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What can a first generation DSLR and a 40 yr old lens do? Lowell Goudge Photographic Technique 4 10-09-2010 07:43 AM
Upgrading - K20, K7 or the Next Generation 8540tomg Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 07-16-2010 09:13 AM
Pixel Wars - The Next Generation kevinschoenmakers Photographic Technique 3 11-19-2009 12:58 AM
Which Improvements to the Next Generation Pentax's benjikan Pentax DSLR Discussion 33 04-14-2007 12:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top