This post will continue looking at the spatial frequency response measured by MTF Mapper off slanted edges in DPReview.com raw captures and relative fits by the ‘sharpness’ model discussed in the last few articles. The model takes the physical parameters of the digital camera and lens as inputs and produces theoretical directional system MTF curves comparable to measured data. As we will see the model seems to be able to simulate these systems well – at least within this limited set of parameters.
The following fits refer to the green channel of a number of interchangeable lens digital camera systems with different lenses, pixel sizes and formats – from the current Medium Format 100MP champ to the 1/2.3″ 18MP sensor size also sometimes found in the best smartphones. Here is the roster with the cameras as set up:
The series of articles starting here outlines a model of how the various physical components of a digital camera and lens can affect the ‘sharpness’ – that is the spatial resolution – of the images captured in the raw data. In this one we will pit the model against MTF curves obtained through the slanted edge methodfrom real world raw captures both with and without an anti-aliasing filter.
With a few simplifying assumptions, which include ignoring aliasing and phase, the spatial frequency response (SFR or MTF) of a photographic digital imaging system near the center can be expressed as the product of the Modulation Transfer Function of each component in it. For a current digital camera these would typically be the main ones:
Spherical Aberration (SA) is one key component missing from our MTF toolkit for modeling an ideal imaging system’s ‘sharpness’ in the center of the field of view in the frequency domain. In this article formulas will be presented to compute the two dimensional Point Spread and Modulation Transfer Functions of the combination of diffraction, defocus and third order Spherical Aberration for an otherwise perfect lens with a circular aperture.
Spherical Aberrations result because most photographic lenses are designed with quasi spherical surfaces that do not necessarily behave ideally in all situations. For instance, they may focus light on slightly different planes depending on whether the respective ray goes through the exit pupil closer or farther from the optical axis, as shown below:
In fact the question is more generic than that. Smaller format lens designers try to compensate for their imaging system geometric resolution penalty (compared to a larger format when viewing final images at the same size) by designing ‘sharper’ lenses specifically for it, rather than recycling larger formats’ designs (feeling guilty APS-C?) – sometimes with excellent effect. Are they succeeding? I will use mFT only as an example here, but input is welcome for all formats, from phones to large format.
So, is it true that a Four Thirds lens needs to be about twice as ‘sharp’ as its Full Frame counterpart in order to be able to display an image of spatial resolution equivalent to the larger format’s?
It is, because of the simple geometry I will describe in this article. In fact with a few provisos one can generalize and say that lenses from any smaller format need to be ‘sharper’ by the ratio of their sensor linear sizes in order to produce the same linear resolution on same-sized final images.
This is one of the reasons why Ansel Adams shot 4×5 and 8×10 – and I would too, were it not for logistical and pecuniary concerns.
Equivalence – as we’ve discussed one of the fairest ways to compare the performance of two cameras of different physical formats, characteristics and specifications – essentially boils down to two simple realizations for digital photographers:
metrics need to be expressed in units of picture height (or diagonal where the aspect ratio is significantly different) in order to easily compare performance with images displayed at the same size; and
focal length changes proportionally to sensor size in order to capture identical scene content on a given sensor, all other things being equal.
The first realization should be intuitive (future post). The second one is the subject of this post: I will deal with it through a couple of geometrical diagrams.
The key variable as far as the tolerances required to position the lens for accurate focus are concerned (at least in a simplified ideal situation) is an appropriate approximate distance between the desired in-focus plane and the actual in-focus plane (which we are assuming is slightly out of focus). It is a distance in the direction perpendicular to the x-y plane normally used to describe position of the image on it, hence the designation delta z, or dz in this post. The lens’ allowable focus tolerance is therefore +/- dz, which we will show in this post to vary as the square of the format’s diagonal. Continue reading Focus Tolerance and Format Size→
Is MTF50 a good proxy for perceived sharpness? It turns out that the spatial frequencies that are most closely related to our perception of sharpness vary with the size and viewing distance of the displayed image.
For instance if an image captured by a Full Frame camera is viewed at ‘standard’ distance (that is a distance equal to its diagonal) the portion of the MTF curve most representative of perceived sharpness appears to be around MTF90. Continue reading MTF50 and Perceived Sharpness→