Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: lens resolution

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    78

    lens resolution

    In a the March 2005 issue of Scientific American, pages 94-95, there is a quote:

    "MEGAPIXEL MAX: A so-called four megapixel camera has a CCD with 4 million pixels. The Higher this resolution, the sharper the photograph. But affordable lens systems cannot resolve light into more than six or eight megapixels, Kodaks Gary Hallenbeck says. So consumers touting 10 to 12 megapixel sensors will not create an overall sharper image. The higher count does help make images clearer when using digital zoom."

    So, my questions are: If lenses cant resolve more clearly than the equivalent of 6 - 8 megapixels, then why does large format do soooo much better?? Seems to me that medium format, 4x5 and anything larger can out perform anything the digital world can provide. Are the lenses we use for large format really so bad?? What about the newer medium format CCD digital cameras? doesn't this apply to the above quote also? And last, I think this topic directly applies to large format, as there are already LF dig backs out there.

  2. #2
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    lens resolution

    Most of the articles you find equating resolution, megapixels, and sharpness are seriously confused.
    For some good tutorials on image quality (put in the context of digital images and real world optics) check out:

    http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

    Be prepared to spend some time ... as is often the case in these issues, the ansers aren't simple ones.

    For what it's worth, some of the statements you're quoting are probably out of context, because you can easily get over 100 megapixels worth of useful image data from a good quality 4x5 neg. Your lenses are actually really good.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    lens resolution

    What Kodak considers "affordable lens systems" is probably the key to understanding his statement.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  4. #4
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    lens resolution

    i'm not gonna pay a lot for this lens!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    184

    lens resolution

    I've almost given up on Kodak's official opinions when it comes to digital anything... they may have worked to invent it... but the minute they decided that Wilhelm Researche's methods did not apply to their papers - they lost me.

    The statement does not take into account the overall sensor size, and the individual photosite size, which should have more bearing on resolving factor than the number of them. True, 12 million in a 1/8" chip won't help anything... but in a full frame sensor, they are quite well utilized.

    Now, I'm heading back to my 4x5 and Tmax...

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    53

    lens resolution

    From my experiance with the kinds of cameras that the quote is refering to (compact digital cameras), I would agree. Most lenses on current 5-7 mega-pixel compact cameras do not resolve enough to give any actual extra image information, despite the higher pixel count - an image from a 4mp camera is often just as good as an image from a 7mp when up-sized in Photoshop. But they are talking about VERY small sensors - 7x10mm or so in size. You could fit 180 of them on a 4x5 film sheet, so they are incredibly small.

    LF resolves more in absolute image quality due to the side of the film, not the lenses. In fact many 35mm lenses have much higher resolution per line-pair then LF, but do not produce as clear an image for just that reason - LF just has so much more film area to resolve!

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,219

    lens resolution

    When discussing lens resolution, you have to look at pixels per unit length, not total number of pixels. Consider for example, my 2000 x 3000 Nikon D70, which has a frame just about 16 x 24 mm. That comes out to 125 pixels per mm. In terms of standard resolution figures, you have to divide by 2, to get about 63 lp/mm. That is a theoretical maximum and in practice, you will get somewhat less than that. It should not be hard to design a lens which attains that resolution, but since the resolution of a compound system is always lower than that of any component, you would probably have to resolve significantly higher in the lens to take advantage of what the sensor array can capture. If you increase the number of pixels while keeping the same frame size, you put progressively stronger constraints on lens resolution if the aim is to take full advantage of what the sensor array can deliver.

    For 4 x 5, the arithmetic is more forgiving. Suppose you scan a 96 x 120 mm frame to produce an 8000 x 10,000 scan. That would be 80 Megapixels. But it would be only 10,000/120 ~ 83 pixels per mm. Half of that is about 42 lp mm. But good LF lenses can do rather better than that.

    Perhaps a better way to think about this is to take the lens resolution as the basic limiting factor. Then the higher the number of pixels, the closer you will come to the lens resolution in the compound system. There are different ways to estimate the compound resolution. One way is to add the squares of the reciprocals of the components and take the square root of the reciprical of that. So, for example, if the resolution in lp/mm of the sensor array is twice that of the lens, the combined system would deliver approximately 90 percent of that of the lens. But since it is still pixels per unit length that counts, LF still has an advantage since you can get away with lower resolution lenses.

  8. #8
    not an junior member Janko Belaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Knezija, Zagreb, Croatia, Europe...
    Posts
    219

    lens resolution

    (as 1st, I hope I will be able to write in english what I'm thinking about this problem - resolution, pixels, calculation...)
    In most cases people do forget one simple advantage of film over digital medium: positioning of silver halide crystals and positions of bayer-pattern (most used) ccd/cmos chip. (in my everyday job I use both photosensitive medias, so I'm not writing this to start some one-vs-other verbal fight)
    In film emulsion (b&w and color) we are dealing with thousands of small crystals randomly layered in 3 dimensional space. one over the other, thousands over the other few thousands and we can not tell where one "ends" and where will the other "start". One resolved line from our test chart will be placed on several silver halide crystals. On any chip (except B&W 3 shot cameras with separate R, G, B filters and Foweon chip) one resolved line have to be placed on 2 raws of RG/GB pixels. To get reed of "light bumpers" each and every pixel have to be separated from his "neighbors" with something I will call electron-vacoom-cleaner (ouch... I hope you will get what I mean).
    So, to understood why film can create better non-streat lines imagine that your film is sand on the beach and that chip is road of small stone bricks.

  9. #9

    lens resolution

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/products/linear/linearFamilyPublications.jhtml?id=0.1.6.4.11.10&lc=en

    http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/Inhalt-Frame/C848A011BACB8FF0C1256B1A002DBD21

    I thought that the heights of mis-information on digital photography had been reached long ago. Obviously I was mistaken.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,031

    lens resolution

    ... affordable lens systems cannot resolve light into more than six or eight megapixels, Kodaks Gary Hallenbeck says.
    So, my question: If lenses cant resolve more clearly than the equivalent of 6 - 8 megapixels, then why does large format do soooo much better??


    I think the key word is "affordable." As a manufacturer of konsumer-grade kameras, Kodak is probably talking about a pea-sized blob of plastic, not a real lens. Remember that every dollar they don't spend in manufacturing is another dollar in the stockholders collective pocket.

Similar Threads

  1. Vintage Large format lens resolution & contrast
    By go8x10again@yahoo.com in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 23-Jun-2014, 19:24
  2. Resolution of different focal lenghts of same lens
    By Richard Årlin in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 1-Jun-2006, 11:01
  3. Resolution of several lens constructions
    By Marc Ropac in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 26-Apr-2004, 15:08
  4. Lens Resolution Charts
    By Erik Asgeirsson in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-Jan-2001, 17:13
  5. resolution of LF lens
    By Simon ZENG in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2000, 18:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •