Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 472172" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>LOL. Start your fundraiser then. I am a big fan of Wikipedia, often my first easy source, one of the prime beauties of the internet, but I am very careful about believing all I read, because certainly any of the unidentified writers is capable of writing anything there. And of course they do. It often gets corrected, maybe in months or years, maybe never. Sometimes correct stuff gets corrupted by others. If you want to learn something, on most topics of any difficulty, you should also read under the TALK tab at Wikipedia. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p>Any and all of the evidence on the internet about pixel limited diffraction is merely carefully hand-prepared graphics designed intentionally to show the point they espouse. CambridgeInColor is a major source of this, but this guy also believes gamma is done for the human eye instead of for CRT displays. (outright laughable) Just pretty graphics, but he just read something somewhere. </p><p></p><p>Regarding pixel limited diffraction, there is Zero actual evidence of results mattering, shown or otherwise. I think it does not matter and cannot be shown, because, well, you know why. Any actual Airy disk will normally be straddling pixel boundaries (mostly, any pixel size, any aperture size, if not in the one pixel we examine, certainly in all the other megapixels). An Airy disk is only from a point source anyway. Other than stars, we don't photograph many point sources.</p><p></p><p> But the greater resolution of smaller pixels certainly will always help to reproduce whatever detail is actually there. The job of small pixels is to show more detail. Large pixels without sufficient resolution to show it does NOT mean it is not there, it fails to show many things. </p><p></p><p>Greater resolution is always a good thing (other than noise).</p><p>Greater resolution should show the diffraction better, but that is the detail that is there. The pixels did not cause it, they merely better show what is there. It was already there. Smaller pixels show all detail better. They don't cause the detail, they merely show it. But at greatly reduced normal viewing sizes, smaller original pixels will not show more then.</p><p></p><p>People worry about the better sensors outresolving their inexpensive lenses. But the fault is the lens, not the sensor. Show the faults, or show less detail so not even the faults can show... which is best performance? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Same principle with diffraction. The pixels only show it, they do not cause it. And smaller pixels are greater resolution, more capable to correctly show ALL detail there.</p><p></p><p>Compact cameras are severely diffraction limited past say f/4. Maybe f/5.6 because we never print them large. This is because of their tiny focal length reducing aperture size so much, not because of tiny pixels. We have had compact sensors sizes starting from 0.3 mp to at least 16 mp now, and the answer is always the same apertures. And diffraction works in the last decade the same way it has always worked for 100+ years. </p><p></p><p>The internet is different. In the old days, books or encyclopedias or even magazines had signed sources, who were accountable. The internet, wonderful as it is, is NOT accountable for anything. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Everything has to be evaluated, and then, still keep an open mind.</p><p></p><p>Think about things more. Wonder how it can possibly be? Or at least show some actual pictorial evidence of results. If it matters, show it matters. Show what you claim to believe. We ought to be able to see what we claim matters.</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">-------------------------------------------------</p> <p style="text-align: center"></p><p></p><p>MY ONLY POINT about any of this, is that the dumb articles about pixel limited diffraction make many users shy away from ever using an aperture smaller than about f/11. They heard it was bad.</p><p></p><p>But the obvious truth is, there are MANY situations when the greater depth of field of f/22 or f/32 or even more at times, can make a tremendously better image than the f/11 image where the foreground and background are too fuzzy to recognize. Which is the reason the lens provides those apertures. It is a trade off, sometimes either side can win. But you really ought to try it sometimes, when appropriate.</p><p></p><p>J-see, You meaning any reader, not meaning only you.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html" target="_blank">Diffraction limited images? Really?</a> (and next page too).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 472172, member: 12496"] LOL. Start your fundraiser then. I am a big fan of Wikipedia, often my first easy source, one of the prime beauties of the internet, but I am very careful about believing all I read, because certainly any of the unidentified writers is capable of writing anything there. And of course they do. It often gets corrected, maybe in months or years, maybe never. Sometimes correct stuff gets corrupted by others. If you want to learn something, on most topics of any difficulty, you should also read under the TALK tab at Wikipedia. :) Any and all of the evidence on the internet about pixel limited diffraction is merely carefully hand-prepared graphics designed intentionally to show the point they espouse. CambridgeInColor is a major source of this, but this guy also believes gamma is done for the human eye instead of for CRT displays. (outright laughable) Just pretty graphics, but he just read something somewhere. Regarding pixel limited diffraction, there is Zero actual evidence of results mattering, shown or otherwise. I think it does not matter and cannot be shown, because, well, you know why. Any actual Airy disk will normally be straddling pixel boundaries (mostly, any pixel size, any aperture size, if not in the one pixel we examine, certainly in all the other megapixels). An Airy disk is only from a point source anyway. Other than stars, we don't photograph many point sources. But the greater resolution of smaller pixels certainly will always help to reproduce whatever detail is actually there. The job of small pixels is to show more detail. Large pixels without sufficient resolution to show it does NOT mean it is not there, it fails to show many things. Greater resolution is always a good thing (other than noise). Greater resolution should show the diffraction better, but that is the detail that is there. The pixels did not cause it, they merely better show what is there. It was already there. Smaller pixels show all detail better. They don't cause the detail, they merely show it. But at greatly reduced normal viewing sizes, smaller original pixels will not show more then. People worry about the better sensors outresolving their inexpensive lenses. But the fault is the lens, not the sensor. Show the faults, or show less detail so not even the faults can show... which is best performance? :) Same principle with diffraction. The pixels only show it, they do not cause it. And smaller pixels are greater resolution, more capable to correctly show ALL detail there. Compact cameras are severely diffraction limited past say f/4. Maybe f/5.6 because we never print them large. This is because of their tiny focal length reducing aperture size so much, not because of tiny pixels. We have had compact sensors sizes starting from 0.3 mp to at least 16 mp now, and the answer is always the same apertures. And diffraction works in the last decade the same way it has always worked for 100+ years. The internet is different. In the old days, books or encyclopedias or even magazines had signed sources, who were accountable. The internet, wonderful as it is, is NOT accountable for anything. :) Everything has to be evaluated, and then, still keep an open mind. Think about things more. Wonder how it can possibly be? Or at least show some actual pictorial evidence of results. If it matters, show it matters. Show what you claim to believe. We ought to be able to see what we claim matters. [CENTER]------------------------------------------------- [/CENTER] MY ONLY POINT about any of this, is that the dumb articles about pixel limited diffraction make many users shy away from ever using an aperture smaller than about f/11. They heard it was bad. But the obvious truth is, there are MANY situations when the greater depth of field of f/22 or f/32 or even more at times, can make a tremendously better image than the f/11 image where the foreground and background are too fuzzy to recognize. Which is the reason the lens provides those apertures. It is a trade off, sometimes either side can win. But you really ought to try it sometimes, when appropriate. J-see, You meaning any reader, not meaning only you. See [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html"]Diffraction limited images? Really?[/URL] (and next page too). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses
Top
