final nail in the coffin for me a93

DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
Offline2366 posts
a year ago a year ago
@Bryan has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@Bryan has written:

@DonaldB has written:

so are you saying that the om1 26 meg sensor has the same diffraction limit to the gh5s 10 meg 🤔

Where did you get the idea that the om1 is 26MP sensor, and where did you get the idea that the GH5 is 10MP sensor???

They are both 20MP...

The Panasonic GH5S is a video-focused Micro Four Thirds camera built around what the company markets as a 10.2MP sensor.

gh6 26 meg, been a while

Ok I wasn't aware of the S version. But why even mention a "video centric" version in this discussion???

i know people dont like talking about it because everything else is equal and they have no come back to testing inaccuracies.
mention the sony a7s2 vers the a7s3 and its a big we better go now 🤣 if you dont know your cameras the a7s2 is 12 large pixels and the a7s3 is 48 small
binned into 12 so the s2 flogs the s3 in low light performance.
finnanhelp_outline
Hidden322 posts
a year ago a year ago
HAND.
DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
Offline2366 posts
a year ago a year ago
@finnan has written:

GH5S 10.28 megapixel, pitch 4.68 µm, OLPF/AA
GH6 25.21 megapixel, pitch 2.99 µm, no OLPF
Should be fun to compare extreme macro resolution...

the top hi mag microscopes use 5 meg sensors
finnanhelp_outline
Hidden322 posts
a year ago a year ago
HAND.
JohnSheehyRevpanorama_fish_eye
Offline549 posts
a year ago a year ago
@DonaldB has written:

@IanSForsyth has written:

@DonaldB has written:

so are you saying that the om1 26 meg sensor has the same diffraction limit to the gh5s 10 meg

What is causing the diffraction is it the sensor or is it the lens and how much it has been stopped down ?
If it is the lens then why would the sensor behind it cause more diffraction?

last word on the subject

“Diffraction is related to pixel size, not sensor size. The smaller the pixels the sooner diffraction effects will be noticed.

blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/diffraction-and-sensors/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CDiffraction%20is%20related%20to%20pixel,of%20the%20same%20sensor%20dimensions.%E2%80%9D

You can isolate diffraction, and look for diffraction as the thing you want to avoid most, and in that context, hiding the diffraction is easily done with larger pixels, which remove all fine detail, both wanted and unwanted and lowers the quality of sampling. What is the point, though? In the end, your final display size will determine how much diffraction could be visible if all capture was analog, spatially, and having more pixelation is not going to make the result be any more detailed, and you always have multiple ways of increasing the size of the circle of confusion at the point of display. The same poor logic occurs where people use bigger pixels to hide fine noise, or camera or subject motion blur, or imprecise AF, or aberration.
IanSForsyth likes this.
favorite1
sybersitizenpanorama_fish_eye
Offline167 posts
a year ago a year ago
@DonaldB has written:

last word on the subject

“Diffraction is related to pixel size, not sensor size. The smaller the pixels the sooner diffraction effects will be noticed.

blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/diffraction-and-sensors/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CDiffraction%20is%20related%20to%20pixel,of%20the%20same%20sensor%20dimensions.%E2%80%9D

You don't even realize how silly your post is. The part you quoted is from a misinformed third person. Jim Kasson's article explains why that misinformed third person's idea is wrong.

This is Jim's one-sentence summary (which is exactly what everyone here except you already knows):

"But the bottom line for the X1D diffraction claim that led off this post is that increasing the resolution of the sensor with the same ratio of pitch to pixel aperture won’t make the effects of diffraction any worse in the capture at the same print size."
GreatBustardpanorama_fish_eye
Offline697 posts
a year ago a year ago
@DonaldB has written:

@GreatBustard has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@GreatBustard has written:

www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html

The lens image was created containing the added diffraction detail, and it is what it is, just another image. The sensor does not care what the image is, it's all simply detail, colors and intensities actually. The sensor adds a grid of pixels onto that image. The digital sensor reproduces the image by sampling colors of many areas (the pixels), the more pixels, the better for resolving finer detail. Diffraction is not possibly aligned centered on pixels anyway, but if the detail spills into neighboring pixels, then those pixels will simply reproduce the color of whatever they see there. If some specific detail is already big, the sampling will not make it bigger. The role of more pixels is to simply better reproduce the finer detail in that image. More smaller pixels show the existing detail better, but pixels do not create any detail (all detail is already in the lens image, each pixel simply records the color it sees in its area). Regardless of what the detail is, more and smaller pixels are always good for better reproduction of that detail. All detail is created by the lens. Recording that detail with more pixels certainly DOES NOT limit detail, more smaller pixels simply reproduce the existing detail better, with greater precision, showing finer detail within it (detail within the detail, so to speak). That's pretty basic. *Yes, larger diffraction is a problem, because it's larger, but growing into adjacent pixels is not an additional problem. It was already larger. Anything that can be resolved is larger than one pixel. Don't worry about pixel size affecting diffraction resolution. Be glad to have the pixels, and worry about the diffraction instead.

so shooting at f45 m43 sensor is great and no difraction 🤔

No one said, or implied, any such thing. What was said is that whatever detail there is, comes from the lens, and that more smaller pixels simply record that detail, whatever that detail may be, more accurately.

Quoted message:

so which image is shot with m43 ? smaller pixels bothe 14 meg images.

We're not saying that the FF photo is less detailed. We're saying the reason isn't larger (or fewer) pixels -- the reason is something else (e.g. AA filter, the depth of the filter stack, the way the software processes the photos, etc., etc., etc..). More smaller pixels will always result in more detail all else equal. Since they don't appear to be doing so in the examples you're posting, then the cause lies elsewhere, and it would be informative to find out what is resulting in the discrepancy.

Basically, Don, it's like this -- your taxes went up and you're saying it's because of illegals crossing the border, which is absolutely not true, as opposed to any number of actual reasons that caused your taxes to increase.

this is my tax guide.

my pixels are 5um my objectives are f4 I have balenced my books 🤨😎😜

www.edmundoptics.es/knowledge-center/application-notes/imaging/limitations-on-resolution-and-contrast-the-airy-disk/#:~:text=Every%20lens%20has%20an%20upper,will%20still%20be%20diffraction%20limited.

Couple of things, Don. First up is that whatever the diameter the Airy Disk is, the more pixels that sample it, the more resolution you will have. Of course, this resolution increase is absolutely subject to diminishing returns, but it is always an increase.

@DonaldB has written:

but thats the whole point my microscope objectives are eq to f16 ff which is equal to f45 m43. all the microscope sites say the same.

Not sure what you meant to say, here -- f/16 on FF is equivalent to f/8 on mFT or, alternatively, f/45 on FF is equivalent to f/22 on mFT. Now, about that with regards to diffraction -- yes, the size of the Airy Disk is decided solely by the f-number (and wavelength), but the proportion of the photo that the Airy Disk covers, and thus its effect on the resolution of the photo, is also proportional to the sensor size. So, while the Airy Disk is the same size at, say, f/16 on both FF and mFT, the Airy Disk spans half as much of the photo on FF as on mFT. So, if FF were to use f/32, the Airy Disk would have twice the diameter, and thus span the same proportion of the photo as f/16 on mFT.

Regardless of the equivalence, the point is that the more pixels that sample the image projected on the sensor by the lens, the more resolution you will have (all else equal), but this resolution increase is subject to diminishing returns based on the conditions of the photo (e.g. motion blur, diffraction, lens sharpness, etc.).
DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
Offline2366 posts
a year ago a year ago
@GreatBustard has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@GreatBustard has written:

@DonaldB has written:

@GreatBustard has written:

www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html

The lens image was created containing the added diffraction detail, and it is what it is, just another image. The sensor does not care what the image is, it's all simply detail, colors and intensities actually. The sensor adds a grid of pixels onto that image. The digital sensor reproduces the image by sampling colors of many areas (the pixels), the more pixels, the better for resolving finer detail. Diffraction is not possibly aligned centered on pixels anyway, but if the detail spills into neighboring pixels, then those pixels will simply reproduce the color of whatever they see there. If some specific detail is already big, the sampling will not make it bigger. The role of more pixels is to simply better reproduce the finer detail in that image. More smaller pixels show the existing detail better, but pixels do not create any detail (all detail is already in the lens image, each pixel simply records the color it sees in its area). Regardless of what the detail is, more and smaller pixels are always good for better reproduction of that detail. All detail is created by the lens. Recording that detail with more pixels certainly DOES NOT limit detail, more smaller pixels simply reproduce the existing detail better, with greater precision, showing finer detail within it (detail within the detail, so to speak). That's pretty basic. *Yes, larger diffraction is a problem, because it's larger, but growing into adjacent pixels is not an additional problem. It was already larger. Anything that can be resolved is larger than one pixel. Don't worry about pixel size affecting diffraction resolution. Be glad to have the pixels, and worry about the diffraction instead.

so shooting at f45 m43 sensor is great and no difraction 🤔

No one said, or implied, any such thing. What was said is that whatever detail there is, comes from the lens, and that more smaller pixels simply record that detail, whatever that detail may be, more accurately.

Quoted message:

so which image is shot with m43 ? smaller pixels bothe 14 meg images.

We're not saying that the FF photo is less detailed. We're saying the reason isn't larger (or fewer) pixels -- the reason is something else (e.g. AA filter, the depth of the filter stack, the way the software processes the photos, etc., etc., etc..). More smaller pixels will always result in more detail all else equal. Since they don't appear to be doing so in the examples you're posting, then the cause lies elsewhere, and it would be informative to find out what is resulting in the discrepancy.

Basically, Don, it's like this -- your taxes went up and you're saying it's because of illegals crossing the border, which is absolutely not true, as opposed to any number of actual reasons that caused your taxes to increase.

this is my tax guide.

my pixels are 5um my objectives are f4 I have balenced my books 🤨😎😜

www.edmundoptics.es/knowledge-center/application-notes/imaging/limitations-on-resolution-and-contrast-the-airy-disk/#:~:text=Every%20lens%20has%20an%20upper,will%20still%20be%20diffraction%20limited.

Couple of things, Don. First up is that whatever the diameter the Airy Disk is, the more pixels that sample it, the more resolution you will have. Of course, this resolution increase is absolutely subject to diminishing returns, but it is always an increase.

@DonaldB has written:

but thats the whole point my microscope objectives are eq to f16 ff which is equal to f45 m43. all the microscope sites say the same.

Not sure what you meant to say, here -- f/16 on FF is equivalent to f/8 on mFT or, alternatively, f/45 on FF is equivalent to f/22 on mFT. Now, about that with regards to diffraction -- yes, the size of the Airy Disk is decided solely by the f-number (and wavelength), but the proportion of the photo that the Airy Disk covers, and thus its effect on the resolution of the photo, is also proportional to the sensor size. So, while the Airy Disk is the same size at, say, f/16 on both FF and mFT, the Airy Disk spans half as much of the photo on FF as on mFT. So, if FF were to use f/32, the Airy Disk would have twice the diameter, and thus span the same proportion of the photo as f/16 on mFT.

Regardless of the equivalence, the point is that the more pixels that sample the image projected on the sensor by the lens, the more resolution you will have (all else equal), but this resolution increase is subject to diminishing returns based on the conditions of the photo (e.g. motion blur, diffraction, lens sharpness, etc.).

why do people skip my posts ? can we also stay on subject eg .microscope objectives.

Quote: Although it seems counter-intuitive, higher magnification objectives actually require fewer pixels. In fact, if you are working at a higher magnification, the optical system is limited to about 3–5 Megapixels that can be transferred to the sensor of a camera. Therefore, if you go out and purchase that 20 Megapixel camera hoping to maximize clarity, know that the “extra pixels” will have NO EFFECT on the resolution of the image, while negatively impacting speed, capacity and sensitivity. However, for lower magnification, a higher pixel count will capture more detail from your microscope.

microscopecentral.com/pages/choosing-a-microscope-camera-what-to-look-for
finnanhelp_outline
Hidden322 posts
a year ago a year ago
HAND.
GreatBustardpanorama_fish_eye
Offline697 posts
a year ago a year ago
@DonaldB has written:

why do people skip my posts ?

Do I really have to spell it out? 😁

Quoted message:

can we also stay on subject eg .microscope objectives.

Sure. How are they different from camera lenses with regards to resolution, light transmission, and diffraction?

Quoted message:

Quote: Although it seems counter-intuitive, higher magnification objectives actually require fewer pixels. In fact, if you are working at a higher magnification, the optical system is limited to about 3–5 Megapixels that can be transferred to the sensor of a camera. Therefore, if you go out and purchase that 20 Megapixel camera hoping to maximize clarity, know that the “extra pixels” will have NO EFFECT on the resolution of the image, while negatively impacting speed, capacity and sensitivity. However, for lower magnification, a higher pixel count will capture more detail from your microscope.

There may be little to no advantage with regards to resolution in such a diffraction limited scenario, but more pixels absolutely DO NOT reduce resolution. Furthermore, yes, more pixels may negatively impact frame rate, but they DO NOT result in less capacity or sensitivity. That is, four 1x1 pixels records the same amount of light as one 2x2 pixel.

Quoted message:

microscopecentral.com/pages/choosing-a-microscope-camera-what-to-look-for

Where does it say that more smaller pixels results in less resolution, all else equal?
IanSForsyth likes this.
favorite1
DeletedRemoved user
a year ago a year ago
@DonaldB has written:

@xpatUSA has written:

@IanSForsyth has written:

@DonaldB has written:

but thats the whole point my microscope objectives are eq to f16 ff which is equal to f45 m43.

First you have to understand why FF f16 is equal to f45 on m43?

Nope.

www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/index.html

did i miss something i didnt see any reference to microscope objectives.

If you think that equivalence does not apply to microscope cameras, I have no further comment.
DeletedRemoved user
a year ago a year ago
I had a chat with GPT 4: I asked:

"It is known that regular cameras use the term "equivalence" when lenses for different sensor sizes are being being discussed. For example, a lens setting of f/16 in full frame size is said to be equivalent to f/8 in micro-four-thirds size. Does "equivalence" also apply to microscope cameras?"

It offered me two responses. I chose:

ChatGPT 4 has written:

The concept of "equivalence" in photography typically refers to the relationship between aperture, focal length, and sensor size to maintain a consistent field of view and depth of field across different camera formats. When photographers talk about equivalence, they're often trying to compare how a lens on a camera with a smaller sensor (like APS-C or micro four-thirds) would need to be adjusted to produce an image with a similar field of view and depth of field as a lens on a full-frame camera.

For microscope cameras, the concept of "equivalence" in the same sense as it is used in general photography does not directly apply. This is because microscope imaging works on principles that are distinct from those of general photography, focusing on magnification rather than focal length and field of view in the conventional sense. Microscope cameras are designed to capture images of specimens magnified through the microscope's optics, where considerations revolve around magnification power, resolution, contrast, and illumination rather than the field of view and depth of field associated with different sensor sizes in traditional photography.

However, some aspects of equivalence can be relevant in a broad sense, particularly regarding sensor size and resolution. For example, a microscope camera with a larger sensor might capture a wider area of the specimen at a given magnification compared to a camera with a smaller sensor. Additionally, the pixel size relative to the magnification and the resolving power of the microscope's optics can influence the detail and quality of the image captured. In these contexts, understanding how different sensor sizes and resolutions affect the final image can be important, but the considerations are specific to microscopy and the objectives of the imaging task rather than trying to maintain equivalence across sensor sizes as in general photography.

The key factors in microscope imaging include the numerical aperture of the microscope objective, the magnification, the illumination technique (e.g., bright field, dark field, fluorescence), and the camera's sensor characteristics (like pixel size and quantum efficiency). The goal is usually to optimize resolution, contrast, and accurate representation of the specimen, which are somewhat different objectives than achieving a certain field of view or depth of field equivalence found in traditional photography.
AlanShlens
Forum Admin
Online3013 posts
a year ago a year ago
What did the other response say?

Alan
DeletedRemoved user
a year ago a year ago
@AlanSh has written:

What did the other response say?

Alan

Sorry, Alan, too late - I've already exited from that page ...
sybersitizenpanorama_fish_eye
Offline167 posts
a year ago a year ago
@xpatUSA has written:

I had a chat with GPT 4: I asked:

"It is known that regular cameras use the term "equivalence" when lenses for different sensor sizes are being being discussed. For example, a lens setting of f/16 in full frame size is said to be equivalent to f/8 in micro-four-thirds size. Does "equivalence" also apply to microscope cameras?"

It offered me two responses. I chose:

ChatGPT 4 has written:

The concept of "equivalence" in photography typically refers to the relationship between aperture, focal length, and sensor size to maintain a consistent field of view and depth of field across different camera formats. When photographers talk about equivalence, they're often trying to compare how a lens on a camera with a smaller sensor (like APS-C or micro four-thirds) would need to be adjusted to produce an image with a similar field of view and depth of field as a lens on a full-frame camera.

For microscope cameras, the concept of "equivalence" in the same sense as it is used in general photography does not directly apply. This is because microscope imaging works on principles that are distinct from those of general photography, focusing on magnification rather than focal length and field of view in the conventional sense. Microscope cameras are designed to capture images of specimens magnified through the microscope's optics, where considerations revolve around magnification power, resolution, contrast, and illumination rather than the field of view and depth of field associated with different sensor sizes in traditional photography.

However, some aspects of equivalence can be relevant in a broad sense, particularly regarding sensor size and resolution. For example, a microscope camera with a larger sensor might capture a wider area of the specimen at a given magnification compared to a camera with a smaller sensor. Additionally, the pixel size relative to the magnification and the resolving power of the microscope's optics can influence the detail and quality of the image captured. In these contexts, understanding how different sensor sizes and resolutions affect the final image can be important, but the considerations are specific to microscopy and the objectives of the imaging task rather than trying to maintain equivalence across sensor sizes as in general photography.

The key factors in microscope imaging include the numerical aperture of the microscope objective, the magnification, the illumination technique (e.g., bright field, dark field, fluorescence), and the camera's sensor characteristics (like pixel size and quantum efficiency). The goal is usually to optimize resolution, contrast, and accurate representation of the specimen, which are somewhat different objectives than achieving a certain field of view or depth of field equivalence found in traditional photography.

Is a microscope camera the same as a full frame ILC with a 10x lens attached?
DeletedRemoved user
a year ago a year ago
@sybersitizen has written:

@xpatUSA has written:

I had a chat with GPT 4: I asked:

"It is known that regular cameras use the term "equivalence" when lenses for different sensor sizes are being being discussed. For example, a lens setting of f/16 in full frame size is said to be equivalent to f/8 in micro-four-thirds size. Does "equivalence" also apply to microscope cameras?"

It offered me two responses. I chose:

ChatGPT 4 has written:

The concept of "equivalence" in photography typically refers to the relationship between aperture, focal length, and sensor size to maintain a consistent field of view and depth of field across different camera formats. When photographers talk about equivalence, they're often trying to compare how a lens on a camera with a smaller sensor (like APS-C or micro four-thirds) would need to be adjusted to produce an image with a similar field of view and depth of field as a lens on a full-frame camera.

For microscope cameras, the concept of "equivalence" in the same sense as it is used in general photography does not directly apply. This is because microscope imaging works on principles that are distinct from those of general photography, focusing on magnification rather than focal length and field of view in the conventional sense. Microscope cameras are designed to capture images of specimens magnified through the microscope's optics, where considerations revolve around magnification power, resolution, contrast, and illumination rather than the field of view and depth of field associated with different sensor sizes in traditional photography.

However, some aspects of equivalence can be relevant in a broad sense, particularly regarding sensor size and resolution. For example, a microscope camera with a larger sensor might capture a wider area of the specimen at a given magnification compared to a camera with a smaller sensor. Additionally, the pixel size relative to the magnification and the resolving power of the microscope's optics can influence the detail and quality of the image captured. In these contexts, understanding how different sensor sizes and resolutions affect the final image can be important, but the considerations are specific to microscopy and the objectives of the imaging task rather than trying to maintain equivalence across sensor sizes as in general photography.

The key factors in microscope imaging include the numerical aperture of the microscope objective, the magnification, the illumination technique (e.g., bright field, dark field, fluorescence), and the camera's sensor characteristics (like pixel size and quantum efficiency). The goal is usually to optimize resolution, contrast, and accurate representation of the specimen, which are somewhat different objectives than achieving a certain field of view or depth of field equivalence found in traditional photography.

Is a microscope camera the same as a full frame ILC with a 10x lens attached?

Good question. I have no idea, sorry.

Maybe Donald knows ...
DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
Offline2366 posts
a year ago a year ago
@GreatBustard has written:

@DonaldB has written:

why do people skip my posts ?

Do I really have to spell it out? 😁

Quoted message:

can we also stay on subject eg .microscope objectives.

Sure. How are they different from camera lenses with regards to resolution, light transmission, and diffraction?

Quoted message:

Quote: Although it seems counter-intuitive, higher magnification objectives actually require fewer pixels. In fact, if you are working at a higher magnification, the optical system is limited to about 3–5 Megapixels that can be transferred to the sensor of a camera. Therefore, if you go out and purchase that 20 Megapixel camera hoping to maximize clarity, know that the “extra pixels” will have NO EFFECT on the resolution of the image, while negatively impacting speed, capacity and sensitivity. However, for lower magnification, a higher pixel count will capture more detail from your microscope.

There may be little to no advantage with regards to resolution in such a diffraction limited scenario, but more pixels absolutely DO NOT reduce resolution. Furthermore, yes, more pixels may negatively impact frame rate, but they DO NOT result in less capacity or sensitivity. That is, four 1x1 pixels records the same amount of light as one 2x2 pixel.

Quoted message:

microscopecentral.com/pages/choosing-a-microscope-camera-what-to-look-for

Where does it say that more smaller pixels results in less resolution, all else equal?

all you guys no more than me, so go take a detailed image at 10x with your m43 sensor and post them to prove your point 😊🤔 otherwise end of conversation.
DeletedRemoved user
a year ago a year ago
@DonaldB has written:

@GreatBustard has written:

@DonaldB has written:

why do people skip my posts ?

Do I really have to spell it out? 😁

Quoted message:

can we also stay on subject eg .microscope objectives.

Sure. How are they different from camera lenses with regards to resolution, light transmission, and diffraction?

Quoted message:

Quote: Although it seems counter-intuitive, higher magnification objectives actually require fewer pixels. In fact, if you are working at a higher magnification, the optical system is limited to about 3–5 Megapixels that can be transferred to the sensor of a camera. Therefore, if you go out and purchase that 20 Megapixel camera hoping to maximize clarity, know that the “extra pixels” will have NO EFFECT on the resolution of the image, while negatively impacting speed, capacity and sensitivity. However, for lower magnification, a higher pixel count will capture more detail from your microscope.

There may be little to no advantage with regards to resolution in such a diffraction limited scenario, but more pixels absolutely DO NOT reduce resolution. Furthermore, yes, more pixels may negatively impact frame rate, but they DO NOT result in less capacity or sensitivity. That is, four 1x1 pixels records the same amount of light as one 2x2 pixel.

Quoted message:

microscopecentral.com/pages/choosing-a-microscope-camera-what-to-look-for

Where does it say that more smaller pixels results in less resolution, all else equal?

all you guys no more than me, so go take a detailed image at 10x with your m43 sensor and post them to prove your point 😊 otherwise you have no idea what your talking about 🤔 end of conversation.

Idiot.