Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 354771" data-attributes="member: 12496">Some would.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; But this concept of pixel size being smaller than the diffraction disk is one of my pet peeves.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think the comparison is stupid.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not arguing with you Geoff, I'm just arguing.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Best I can tell, the notion must imagine the diffraction disk is somehow perfectly centered on the pixel.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; But it completely overlooks that the digital pixels merely digitally sample the lens image (not unlike a scanner samples a paper print).&nbsp;&nbsp; The pixels merely try to reproduce the lens image the best that it can.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pixels do not create the image, the lens does.&nbsp; More and smaller pixels do have more resolution, used simply to reproduce the digital copy of the lens image, just a little better copy of what already exists.&nbsp; Whether that lens image is perfect, or somewhat less, the best job the pixels can do is to copy it well.&nbsp;&nbsp; If that includes diffraction, so be it... but it is good to reproduce what is actually there.&nbsp; Larger pixels (to hide diffraction in a less resolved copy?)&nbsp; certainly would be counterproductive to the resolution of that copy.IMO, just dumb.&nbsp; Novice geeks making up psuedo-techie junk.&nbsp; &nbsp; No matter what your pixel size is, the diffraction disk is what it is.&nbsp; And the best digital can do is to reproduce it faithfully.&nbsp; Little compact cameras really suffer diffraction at anything past f/4, but that is not due to pixel size. It is their tiny sensor requiring very short lenses for a decent view, so (focal length / diameter) means a tiny aperture diameter. And the greater enlargement (of CoC) to see their tiny sensor image.When appropriate, we make a big mistake avoiding f/16 (meaning, when warranted), and even f/22 for extreme circumstances (macro), and f/32 for telephoto lenses.&nbsp; Sometimes it can help more than the diffraction hurts.&nbsp; The diameter of&nbsp; f/32 on a lens 4x longer compares to a four stops less on the shorter lens anyway (Airy disk diffraction depends on the diameter, not the f/stop).&nbsp; This is why our lenses have these settings on them.&nbsp; They can be useful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 354771, member: 12496"] Some would. :) But this concept of pixel size being smaller than the diffraction disk is one of my pet peeves. I think the comparison is stupid. I'm not arguing with you Geoff, I'm just arguing. :) Best I can tell, the notion must imagine the diffraction disk is somehow perfectly centered on the pixel. :) But it completely overlooks that the digital pixels merely digitally sample the lens image (not unlike a scanner samples a paper print). The pixels merely try to reproduce the lens image the best that it can. Pixels do not create the image, the lens does. More and smaller pixels do have more resolution, used simply to reproduce the digital copy of the lens image, just a little better copy of what already exists. Whether that lens image is perfect, or somewhat less, the best job the pixels can do is to copy it well. If that includes diffraction, so be it... but it is good to reproduce what is actually there. Larger pixels (to hide diffraction in a less resolved copy?) certainly would be counterproductive to the resolution of that copy. IMO, just dumb. Novice geeks making up psuedo-techie junk. No matter what your pixel size is, the diffraction disk is what it is. And the best digital can do is to reproduce it faithfully. Little compact cameras really suffer diffraction at anything past f/4, but that is not due to pixel size. It is their tiny sensor requiring very short lenses for a decent view, so (focal length / diameter) means a tiny aperture diameter. And the greater enlargement (of CoC) to see their tiny sensor image. When appropriate, we make a big mistake avoiding f/16 (meaning, when warranted), and even f/22 for extreme circumstances (macro), and f/32 for telephoto lenses. Sometimes it can help more than the diffraction hurts. The diameter of f/32 on a lens 4x longer compares to a four stops less on the shorter lens anyway (Airy disk diffraction depends on the diameter, not the f/stop). This is why our lenses have these settings on them. They can be useful. [/QUOTE]

Verification