How many mp's to match resolut

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roger N Clark change user, May 6, 2005.

  1. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >

    wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

    wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>Any signal with components less than the Nyquist frequency can be
    >>>>reconstructed by using this formula:
    >>>>
    >>>> sin(pi(t-k)/T)
    >>>> x(t) = sum (-inf, inf) x[k] --------------
    >>>> pi(t-k)/T
    >>>>
    >>>>and this is true regardless of the phase of the signal.
    >>>>
    >>>>(x[k] are the samples, k is the time of each sample, and T is the
    >>>>sampling interval.)

    >>
    >>>This is fine if your do infinite sampling. But imaging sensors
    >>>are discrete and finite sampling of a spatial image.

    >>
    >>Yes, indeed. However, in practice you can get close to the sampling
    >>frequency with a window of a fairly small number of samples, say 64 or
    >>128. And you can reconstruct the signal from this, regardless of its
    >>phase.

    Andrew,
    How would you reconstruct the image on this page:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html
    e.g. the "Nyquist sampling" or "1.5x Nyquist sampling?"
    > But the only thing you can reconstruct is a sine wave, not a square wave.
    > People want images of black and white stripes at frequencies close to the
    > Nyquist, and that's completely unreasonable.

    But even a sine wave at the Nyquist frequency will be grossly distorted
    when sampled at or close to the Nyquist frequency.
    > By the way, I checked a portfolio of 4x5 landscape shots in a recent
    > Japanese magazine, and fully half of them were shot at f/45. That means that
    > the MTF50 from diffraction is a whopping 18 lp/mm. Not a lot of MP there.
    > (Well, actually, a lot of MP if you figure 3 pixels per line pair, and 120 x
    > 95mm => 33MP or so. But nowhere near the 100MP and over figures people have
    > been bandying about.)

    David,
    You pick one MTF for film, but as you know, that is not the whole
    story. Film has higher resolution at lower MTF, and it is that
    higher resolution that contributes to image detail. The above
    web page illustrates this with a 4x5 image at f/45. At f/45,
    the Rayleigh limit is ~9% MTF and detail like grass blades in the
    distance are still recorded as lines, and sampling higher than the
    Rayleigh limit still brings out a little more detail that
    improves the perception of sharpness.
    Roger
    Roger N Clark change user, May 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roger N Clark change user

    Marvin Guest

    Roger N Clark change user wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    > wrote in message
    >
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Any signal with components less than the Nyquist frequency can be
    >>>>>reconstructed by using this formula:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> sin(pi(t-k)/T)
    >>>>> x(t) = sum (-inf, inf) x[k] --------------
    >>>>> pi(t-k)/T
    >>>>>
    >>>>>and this is true regardless of the phase of the signal.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>(x[k] are the samples, k is the time of each sample, and T is the
    >>>>>sampling interval.)
    >>>
    >>>>This is fine if your do infinite sampling. But imaging sensors
    >>>>are discrete and finite sampling of a spatial image.
    >>>
    >>>Yes, indeed. However, in practice you can get close to the sampling
    >>>frequency with a window of a fairly small number of samples, say 64 or
    >>>128. And you can reconstruct the signal from this, regardless of its
    >>>phase.

    >
    > Andrew,
    > How would you reconstruct the image on this page:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html
    > e.g. the "Nyquist sampling" or "1.5x Nyquist sampling?"
    >
    >>But the only thing you can reconstruct is a sine wave, not a square wave.
    >>People want images of black and white stripes at frequencies close to the
    >>Nyquist, and that's completely unreasonable.

    >
    > But even a sine wave at the Nyquist frequency will be grossly distorted
    > when sampled at or close to the Nyquist frequency.
    >
    >>By the way, I checked a portfolio of 4x5 landscape shots in a recent
    >>Japanese magazine, and fully half of them were shot at f/45. That means that
    >>the MTF50 from diffraction is a whopping 18 lp/mm. Not a lot of MP there.
    >>(Well, actually, a lot of MP if you figure 3 pixels per line pair, and 120 x
    >>95mm => 33MP or so. But nowhere near the 100MP and over figures people have
    >>been bandying about.)

    >
    > David,
    > You pick one MTF for film, but as you know, that is not the whole
    > story. Film has higher resolution at lower MTF, and it is that
    > higher resolution that contributes to image detail. The above
    > web page illustrates this with a 4x5 image at f/45. At f/45,
    > the Rayleigh limit is ~9% MTF and detail like grass blades in the
    > distance are still recorded as lines, and sampling higher than the
    > Rayleigh limit still brings out a little more detail that
    > improves the perception of sharpness.
    > Roger
    >


    You've made a good point. The Rayleigh criteron is based on assumptions that do not apply
    to a particular photo as seen by a particular person. The human brain is adept at
    integrating information. We see a photo or a scene at high resolution a bit of the time,
    as only a part of the eye, the macula, has closely spaced rods and cones. Each of use has
    a remarkable imaging system. As with other senses and capabilities, some are better at it
    than others. And training can improve matters.

    If folks understood this better, there would be less debate in this NG aout optimum
    resolution, printing details, etc.
    Marvin, May 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fredy Kuenzler

    Cisco PIX many-to-many NAT problem

    Fredy Kuenzler, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,703
    Walter Roberson
    Jun 15, 2004
  2. Fredy Kuenzler

    Re: Cisco PIX many-to-many NAT problem

    Fredy Kuenzler, Jul 15, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,993
    Kevin Widner
    Jul 16, 2004
  3. Codex
    Replies:
    140
    Views:
    2,223
    Ilya Zakharevich
    May 26, 2005
  4. Roger N Clark change user

    How many mp's to match resolution of 4x5 neg film cam?

    Roger N Clark change user, May 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    295
    Roger N Clark change user
    May 6, 2005
  5. Roger N Clark change user

    How many mp's to match resolution of 4x5 neg film cam?

    Roger N Clark change user, May 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    298
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    May 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page