Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 472513" data-attributes="member: 12496">How do you get the supposed spot perfectly centered on the pixel?&nbsp;&nbsp; On every one of the 24 million of them?&nbsp; How does that work?&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />If it matters, why can't we see it?&nbsp; Can you show how it matters?Why doesn't it also affect DOF, which is a very similar larger spot (called Circle of Confusion).&nbsp; How can it possibly be different?Yes, that is too much for some.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; I favor assuming a more random arrangement that tends to average out overall.&nbsp; It is not about pixels at all. More pixels for higher resolution and greater detail is always a good thing.Sure, diffraction is a bad thing.&nbsp; But it is also a relatively slight thing, in that there are many cases when major diffraction at even say f/40 hurts much less than the greatly improved DOF helps.&nbsp; Speaking of the overall picture effect.&nbsp; I have posted a link to show that, but of course, we all already knew it..&nbsp; So in those cases, dare to try f/22 or f/32.&nbsp; You will like it.&nbsp; Photographers have enjoyed using this knowledge for very many years/decades.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 472513, member: 12496"] How do you get the supposed spot perfectly centered on the pixel? On every one of the 24 million of them? How does that work? :) If it matters, why can't we see it? Can you show how it matters? Why doesn't it also affect DOF, which is a very similar larger spot (called Circle of Confusion). How can it possibly be different? Yes, that is too much for some. :) I favor assuming a more random arrangement that tends to average out overall. It is not about pixels at all. More pixels for higher resolution and greater detail is always a good thing. Sure, diffraction is a bad thing. But it is also a relatively slight thing, in that there are many cases when major diffraction at even say f/40 hurts much less than the greatly improved DOF helps. Speaking of the overall picture effect. I have posted a link to show that, but of course, we all already knew it.. So in those cases, dare to try f/22 or f/32. You will like it. Photographers have enjoyed using this knowledge for very many years/decades. [/QUOTE]

Verification