Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 472454" data-attributes="member: 12496">No, the pixel part is just a bad guess. We have seen Zero evidence pixel size matters about diffraction. We cannot show it matters.  We can't even properly explain why it might matter.Diffraction affects sharpness because a supposed point source becomes a supposed larger diffraction ring, at least diffraction covers a larger area, hiding subject detail in that same area (of course our extended subjects are not point sources, and do not even make Airy disks, but they do suffer diffraction.  Airy disk is sort of an astronomy thing).  The way digital works is that the pixels simply sample the colors over the area, trying to reproduce fine detail, a little like mosaic tiles in that respect.    But that  larger area (including diffraction) could be sampled by one pixel, 2 pixels, 4 pixels, 16 pixels, etc.   A reasonable belief is that more smaller pixels can better represent the fine detail that is there, which we call "higher resolution", and we favor it, it produces sharper images.   Limiting sampling to fewer large pixels, or to one pixel, cannot eliminate or reduce or change the diffraction in any way, it is there, and it is what it is.  The best that the lower resolution  of larger pixels can do is to lose any smaller detail, be it diffraction or subject.  Higher resolution is ALWAYS a good thing (sure, it can be too high, higher than is useful for the situation, so I am really just saying greater detail is always a good thing).A blur filter would do about the same job as larger pixels.Damn, you are hardheaded J-see.  Sure, diffraction does exist, but pixel size is not a factor of it.  You didn't even mention pixels here, you're just ranting. Simply look at <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html" target="_blank">Diffraction limited images? Really?</a>   and next page.  It is nothing new, it's all been well known since about Day One of Photography... guessing 150 years?   Variable apertures were invented because they help at less than infinite distance.It is taught.  Also see <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=when+to+use+f%2F22" target="_blank">when to use f/22 - Google Search</a>What matters can always be shown (if it matters), and very often, depth of field matters more (can be seen to help more) than diffraction hurts.You are reading and believing outrageous assumptions about some magic alignments, which simply is not true. How do you imagine these Airy disks (which don't even exist for extended subjects) manage to get perfectly aligned, one for one, each centered on a pixel?  That is complete nonsense. But it is the entire basis of your side of this.Anyone refusing to consider ever going past some imagined limit (often about f/11), because they heard it was bad, when in fact it is needed and can obviously help, simply has not learned all they need to know.  Try a few new things, it is how we learn.See?  I'm ruling you out as an authority about this.   Photographers with more experience often intentionally go out of their way to try to include near foreground subjects in landscapes, because it adds depth, adds interest, adds beauty.  It matters, it can be seen.But it causes quite a depth of field problem, from near to infinity, which stopping down even more of course is the solution, it helps, it can be seen.  It helps macro too.  Overall sharper images. This is general knowledge.</blockquote>

Verification