All of it assumes perfection which we know we never have. But it does
set an upper limit.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/2/2012 6:34 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I personally think that Dr. Diffraction is applying too much math to
> the equation. It assumes a perfect sensor with no anti-aliasing
> filtering and no bayer matrix. Those two factors alone will create a
> dimmensional halving of the possible resolution. Sharpening methods
> will bring back some of that.
>
> But that last statement is where I start to part ways with Dr.
> DIffraction on the calculations. The very same methods used to counter
> the AA filter are going to apply just as effectively on the
> diffraction blurring. Therefore, if we are regaining 50% of the
> possible resolution thanks to pixel-sharpening, we are also regaining
> 50% of the possible resolution diminished by diffraction. (I'm pulling
> 50% out of my rump, so don't take it literally--each camera will be
> different).
>
> Furthermore, diffraction blurring isn't an all or nothing affair.
> There is some penumbra to it, so it causes a decrease in contrast in
> the pixel-level details before it will cause out and out blurring.
>
>> From my own emperical evidence, I'm very comfortable with increasing
> Dr. Diffraction's calculations by a full stop.
>
> Even so, it still comes down to final output. DoF and diffraction
> calculations vary entirely on output resolution, size and viewing
> distance.
>
> Dr. Alternate Reality
>
> AG
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|