Jump to content


Photo

2/3 inch, 35 mm CCD and sharpness...


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Krstic Zoran

Krstic Zoran

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Belgrade

Posted 24 March 2009 - 03:31 PM

I was reading about MTF response and CCD's resolving power.But after all, I did not make some precise conclusion about it.

Story begins:

Lenses have response limit at 200 lp/mm.Ok.Every lens have itself MTF response.Example:at 10lp/mm MTF response is ~90%,at 100 lp/mm is ~70%,etc.We saw that MTF response is falling down for higher spatial frequencies.

CCD has limited spatial resolution at some value.For 2/3 inch CCD, 100 lp/mm is limiting value.Now if we include consideration about lens and CCD, conclusion is that all spatial frequencies above 100 lp/mm could not be resolved.And if lens have MTF response ~70% at 100lp/mm it means that MTF response above 100 lp/mm is cutted.

But,what happened with 35 mm CCD in Sony F35? Resolution of it is same, 1920 px (5760px, but three for every primary;1920 effective pixels), but CCD's width is 24 mm and spatial resolution is limited at 40 lp/mm. It is same story, MTF response above 40 lp/mm is cutted.

If my consideration is right, resolving power of 2/3 inch CCD is better than with 35mm in F35.What it exactly mean?Does F23 give picture with better sharpness (measurable resolution) than F35?

Edited by Krstic Zoran, 24 March 2009 - 03:33 PM.

  • 0

#2 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 March 2009 - 05:07 PM

The 2/3" chip is 9.6 mm wide. 9.6 x 100 = 960 line pairs across the whole picture. For F35, it's 24 x 40 = 960 line pairs across the picture. The Nyquist limit for 1920 photosites across the chip, in both cases, is 1920/2 = 960. We don't need any more line pairs per millimeter in either case. In fact, we'd be in trouble if we had them.

Where we do see a difference is in diffraction. 2/3" is diffraction limited at stops deeper than f/8, 35 is diffraction limited at stops deeper than f/22.






-- J.S.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19760 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 March 2009 - 05:20 PM

But,what happened with 35 mm CCD in Sony F35? Resolution of it is same, 1920 px (5760px, but three for every primary;1920 effective pixels), but CCD's width is 24 mm and spatial resolution is limited at 40 lp/mm. It is same story, MTF response above 40 lp/mm is cutted.

If my consideration is right, resolving power of 2/3 inch CCD is better than with 35mm in F35.What it exactly mean?Does F23 give picture with better sharpness (measurable resolution) than F35?


No, I think what it means is that you only need a lens with a 40 lp/mm on a 35mm sensor to get the same level of detail as a lens with a 100 lp/mm on a 2/3" sensor. Basically the larger the capture area, the lower the MTF of the lens can be to capture the same level of sharpness -- you need less lines per mm because you have more mm's total...
  • 0

#4 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 March 2009 - 05:28 PM

Basically the larger the capture area, the lower the MTF of the lens can be to capture the same level of sharpness -- you need less lines per mm because you have more mm's total...


Yup, we're saying the exact same thing. Just with or without arithmetic. ;-)



-- J.S.
  • 0

#5 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:23 PM

John- could you explain the diffraction limitation between 2/3 and 35mm? I don't generally shoot deeper than an F8 on any format, but I am intrigued...what do you mean by diffraction limitation?
  • 0

#6 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:38 PM

... I am intrigued...what do you mean by diffraction limitation?


If this link works, here's the basic stuff on diffraction:

http://www.cinematog...mp;#entry278263


-- J.S.
  • 0

#7 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 24 March 2009 - 07:59 PM

Excellent link. I knew that lenses had a sweet spot and that at too deep of a stop they will suffer resolution loss, but didn't know the reason or math behind it. I thought it had more to do with lens design and how the aperture is built and positioned rather than theoretical optics science. Very interesting seeing how wavelength affects airy disks size.

Double checking the math you have done, this only relates to digital 1080P imagers of 2/3 and 35mm correct? In film it would be the circle of confusion that would be the limit, not the nyquist limit? And an digital imager of the same size, but with a higher resolution, and ability to reproduce finer detail without ailising would have to adjust the math to find the correct upper limit for either film or a higher resolution chip of a similar size, correct?

Good info, thanks for that John.

Edited by Michael Collier, 24 March 2009 - 08:04 PM.

  • 0


Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

Glidecam

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Technodolly

The Slider

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC