• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Diffraction: Best of breed Lenses

Greetings,

I am trying to understand something about diffraction with reference to lenses such as the Sinaron Digital AF Planar T* 2.8/80

The future in optics appears to look like this here:

The fundamental limitation on DoF is imposed by diffraction effects. Does technology offer any hope in the future for circumventing the diffraction barrier? The answer sounds almost like science fiction. In principle materials with negative refractive index (NIM) make “perfect” lenses that are not limited by diffraction. No naturally occurring NIM exists, but artificial materials (metamaterials) have been fabricated that display negative refractive index for microwaves. In 2005 a NIM material, consisting of minuscule gold rods imbedded in glass, was reported that works with near IR wavelengths. No NIM’s are in sight for visible light; and if one is constructed it will probably only be effective at one wavelength - but it is fun to fantasize. NIM’s are hot topics in the optics world, and there are many papers exploring their weird properties.
- Charles S. Johnson, Jr. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. -

However, if I look at the datasheet here : Sinaron Digital AF Planar T* 2.8/80

I have trouble understanding how to read that in respect of the optimum aperture on such a high end lense. May be it is not possible to read that from the given information, at least I can not conclude above what aperture diffraction comes into play, but this is just my own lack of education in optics I suppose.

See, in the DSLR world, I know if I go over f11 on my zuiko digital 14-54mm, diffraction will come into play. I know this from experience and from talking to people who use the same lense.

But what I wonder is, can such information be learned about just by looking at the datasheet?

Sorry if this is a very basic question, but I find it always interesting to know in what range a lense performs on it's very optimum, and if there would be an easy way to know this for any given lense, that would be helpful in deed to minimise the learning curve on new optics.
 
Dear Georg,

I'll try to answer your question and explain this as simply and shortly as possible.

The diffraction of a certain lens, respectively what is the maximum stopping down before diffration becomes visible, is depending on different factor:

- the film size used or the digital medium size
- the reproduction scale of the subject on this capture medium (analog or digital)
- the f-stop/aperture used
- the viewing distance of the final image (screen, print, photo print for exhibition, newspaper print, etc ..)

What happens during diffraction is that the light rays entering the lens are deviated from their linear course and broken at the edge of the aperture blades. This will induce, roughly said, interferences with the "normal" light rays entering the lens opening. These broken/diffracted light rays from the edge of the aperture do create reproduction points on the capture plane, the more the aperture is closed, the bigger those reproduction points will become. When the size of these points reaches or overcomes the size of the "normal" reproduction points of the subject, created by the normal light rays entering the lens, this will show up with an additional "unsharpness" or fuzziness. Please refer to the attached image which gives you a good visual idea of what happens (image 1). It can be basically and to understand better what happens, be compared to some wawes entering a sea port and hitting or being broken at the jetty of a port (see image 2). The smaller the opening of the jetty, the bigger the interference of those broken wawes with the rest.

Now, when does this diffraction have an influence on the overall image? As said, the amount of diffraction depends on the opening of the lens. But it also highly depends on the reproduction scale of your subject: in other words, how big it is reproduced on the capture medium compared with its original size. Or put differently, how long is the distance between your lens and your film plane: the smaller the reproduction scale the smaller the distance between lens and film/sensor plane. The shorter the distance the less dramatic the effect of the broken light rays and their produced fuzziness in the image (or the longer the distance = bigger reproduction scale, the more effect those broken rays will have. In other words, depending on your reproduction scale you can stop down more or less before the diffraction becomes visible in your image.

The next factor having an influence on diffraction is the size of your capture medium, coupled with the viewing distance: the bigger the image, the longer should be the viewing distance of this image. there is a general rule which says that the viewing distance should be twice the diagonal of the image size. So this influences also the diffraction and when it becomes visible. But let us leave this on the side and take in account only the 2 previous influencing factors.

I have put you another image/table, showing the different film sizes, in relation with the normal viewing distance, and the resulting maximum "allowed" size of the reproduction points created by the broken light rays before creating a for our eyes visible fuzziness in the overall image. Unfortunately I don't have the values for digital sensors, only for the different film sizes existing, and I would have to calculate them in relation to the size of the pixels. But it gives you an idea what is in play and how it works and the maximum "allowed" size of the reproduction points from the broken light rays (image 3) to not add fuzziness to the overall image.

Then I have included a table (image 4), which gives you the maximum stopping down/aperture at the different possible reproduction scales and/or at the different lens to film/sensor plane distance. This table is for 4x5" film, but one can calculate easily the maximum apertures based on other capture formats. this maximum aperture is also called "critical aperture". Forget about the 4th part in this image, called "Corrections Factors": that is something different and not in relation with diffraction (I just can't take it out).

I hope this makes some sense and is understandable.

Kind regards,
Thierry

Greetings,

I am trying to understand something about diffraction with reference to lenses such as the Sinaron Digital AF Planar T* 2.8/80

The future in optics appears to look like this here:

- Charles S. Johnson, Jr. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. -

However, if I look at the datasheet here : Sinaron Digital AF Planar T* 2.8/80

I have trouble understanding how to read that in respect of the optimum aperture on such a high end lense. May be it is not possible to read that from the given information, at least I can not conclude above what aperture diffraction comes into play, but this is just my own lack of education in optics I suppose.

See, in the DSLR world, I know if I go over f11 on my zuiko digital 14-54mm, diffraction will come into play. I know this from experience and from talking to people who use the same lense.

But what I wonder is, can such information be learned about just by looking at the datasheet?

Sorry if this is a very basic question, but I find it always interesting to know in what range a lense performs on it's very optimum, and if there would be an easy way to know this for any given lense, that would be helpful in deed to minimise the learning curve on new optics.
 

Attachments

  • Image 1.jpg
    Image 1.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 170
  • Image 2.jpg
    Image 2.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 155
  • Image 3.jpg
    Image 3.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 162
  • Image 4.jpg
    Image 4.jpg
    40.3 KB · Views: 151
Last edited:
Greetings,

I am trying to understand something about diffraction with reference to lenses such as the Sinaron Digital AF Planar T* 2.8/80
...
, if I look at the datasheet here : Sinaron Digital AF Planar T* 2.8/80

I have trouble understanding how to read that in respect of the optimum aperture on such a high end lense.

Hi Georg,

The link isn't working (for me), so I'll give a more general comment.

Image quality as projected by a lens is affected by several potential causes that reduce quality, diffraction is one of them and it impacts sharpness. The impact of some of these causes, notably residual optical aberrations, are reduced (image quality improves) by using a smaller physical aperture. At the same time diffraction increases by using smaller apertures. That leads to a given aperture that creates an optimum trade-off between aperture size induced improvement and deterioration for that lens.

A useful fact about quantifying diffraction is, that the size of the diffraction pattern is only dependent on the aperture number and wavelength. Since the aperture number is a ratio between the focal length and the physical size (=diameter, in case of a circular aperture) of the aperture, the diffraction pattern's diameter is always the same at a given aperture number, regardless of focal length.

In the case of digital sensors (instead of film), the sensel dimensions also become a factor to take into consideration. Afterall, only when the diffraction spot diameter becomes larger than a single sensel will the sharpness be impacted. That means that sensor arrays with a small sensels will be more sensitive to the effects of diffraction than larger sensels. The total size of the entire sensor array also plays a role because large sensor arrays usually require less magnification for a given output size.

Bart
 
Bart,

I agree with you, but what do you do with the reproduction scale, resp. the bellow's extension on a view camera: this DOES affect the diffraction.

By the way: I have said a non-sense concerning this, it is actually the opposite, the shorter the extension the less diffraction: I had it right in my mind but typed it wrong and shall correct. that's why landscape photographers can easily shoot with apertures around 64+ without noticeable or dramatic diffraction (with 4x5"), because they mostly shoot at "infinity".

Thierry

Hi Georg,

The link isn't working (for me), so I'll give a more general comment.

Image quality as projected by a lens is affected by several potential causes that reduce quality, diffraction is one of them and it impacts sharpness. The impact of some of these causes, notably residual optical aberrations, are reduced (image quality improves) by using a smaller physical aperture. At the same time diffraction increases by using smaller apertures. That leads to a given aperture that creates an optimum trade-off between aperture size induced improvement and deterioration for that lens.

A useful fact about quantifying diffraction is, that the size of the diffraction pattern is only dependent on the aperture number and wavelength. Since the aperture number is a ratio between the focal length and the physical size (=diameter, in case of a circular aperture) of the aperture, the diffraction pattern's diameter is always the same at a given aperture number, regardless of focal length.

In the case of digital sensors (instead of film), the sensel dimensions also become a factor to take into consideration. Afterall, only when the diffraction spot diameter becomes larger than a single sensel will the sharpness be impacted. That means that sensor arrays with a small sensels will be more sensitive to the effects of diffraction than larger sensels. The total size of the entire sensor array also plays a role because large sensor arrays usually require less magnification for a given output size.

Bart
 
Bart,

I agree with you, but what do you do with the reproduction scale, resp. the bellow's extension on a view camera: this DOES affect the diffraction.

Hi Thierry,

You are correct, but the effect is relatively small for 'normal' shooting distances (e.g. as you said landscapes) and 'normal' sensor sizes (of course 'normal' depends on one's perspective
wink.gif
). When we get into close-up photography, or especially macro/micro photography, things do get more critical, but so do the residual optical aberrations (due to the longer optical path), everything gets relatively magnified compared to infinity focus. Therefore I'm not so sure that the sweet-spot of optimal lens performance changes with magnification on a View camera, but you have more experience in that area so maybe you have an example you'd want to share.

For a relatively small sensor array (24x36mm) I have demonstrated in this thread the diffraction effects, which are quite similar to what I experience with infinity focus. As soon as I close the aperture enough to produce a diffraction spot diameter (for green light) of approx. 1.5x the sensel pitch, the resolution will visibly deteriorate, whether at 5:1 magnification or at infinity focus (1:∞). That rule of thumb (1.5x sensel pitch) applies to AA-filtered sensels, without AA-filtering lots of things can happen (including aliasing reduction from diffraction).

The diffraction spot diameter is simple to calculate: Diameter = 2.43932 x Lambda x N , where Lambda is the wavelength (e.g. 0.550 micron for an average green), and N is the aperture number.

Kind regards,
Bart
 
Geeze.... LOL

Thierry, this is going to be an expensive friendship, I already owe you 3 beers.

Bart... what the Hell.... LOL.... you have got to go into R&D, or technical consultancy, or develop something yourself, software, hardware, I don't care, really! You are extremly knowlegdable and somehow remind me to Prof. Wetzel ( my organic chemistry Prof.) although... no, you are a much nicer chap in deed! LOL

OK, NOT tonight, I have to print/digest and read that sober.

I shall be excused now, and thanks so much for your efforts, really!!

I'll be back....

P.S.

Bart, look away now...

Thierry; Seriously, not a clue what Bart is doin right now, but trust me on that, if you can afford him, Sinar should hire him!

P.P.S.
If Sinar hires him, I'll keep the "M" as a consultancy fee! LOLOL ;)

P.P.P.S.
Seriously again, a good friend of mine is the ex global VP for ____ at Siemens, if you need more HR recommendations, I take cameras every day. <grins>

---- Jena, rings a lot of bells, I was R&D consultant there for quite some time, many years ago, and what a time, was a mutually beneficial relationship in deed. ---- :)
 
Thanks Bart!

I am not that much a scientific analyzer, more on the practical side. So thanks for this details of great interest.

As for LF: yes, I am/was (with analog 4x5") confronted very seriously with this, when shooting table-tops. The diffraction at a reproduction scale of 1:1 forces to stop down with a very maximum of f 45.
1:1 are common situations in stills, and f 45 at 1:1 doesn't give that much of DOF (a few mm when taking a COC of 0.1mm), which makes it a struggle regarding sharpness and which makes it necessary to set the view camera with the most precise sharpness plane as possible: sometime a 1/10 of a degree more or less tilt/swing can result in stopping down by 1 stop more. 1 stop more needed with a maximum of f 45 due to diffraction is critical. That's why we emphsize the precision of our tools, which allow for such 1/10 of degrees precision for settings.

Thanks again and best regards,
Thierry

Hi Thierry,

You are correct, but the effect is relatively small for 'normal' shooting distances (e.g. as you said landscapes) and 'normal' sensor sizes (of course 'normal' depends on one's perspective
wink.gif
). When we get into close-up photography, or especially macro/micro photography, things do get more critical, but so do the residual optical aberrations (due to the longer optical path), everything gets relatively magnified compared to infinity focus. Therefore I'm not so sure that the sweet-spot of optimal lens performance changes with magnification on a View camera, but you have more experience in that area so maybe you have an example you'd want to share.

For a relatively small sensor array (24x36mm) I have demonstrated in this thread the diffraction effects, which are quite similar to what I experience with infinity focus. As soon as I close the aperture enough to produce a diffraction spot diameter (for green light) of approx. 1.5x the sensel pitch, the resolution will visibly deteriorate, whether at 5:1 magnification or at infinity focus (1:∞). That rule of thumb (1.5x sensel pitch) applies to AA-filtered sensels, without AA-filtering lots of things can happen (including aliasing reduction from diffraction).

The diffraction spot diameter is simple to calculate: Diameter = 2.43932 x Lambda x N , where Lambda is the wavelength (e.g. 0.550 micron for an average green), and N is the aperture number.

Kind regards,
Bart
 
Gentlemen,

thanks so much! Yes Thierry, it is understandable and very interesting in deed.

Looking at the tables, naturally I wonder, if I am not mistaken the DALSA chip has a size of 48.0mm x 36.0mm. Do you have any tables at all that include the DALSA in relation to f stop?

Another question came to my mind, where can I find out more informations on Sinar workshops? Apart from some useful informations concernig Viewcameras in the Know How section, I did not see anything on SINAR's website.

Thanks!

Bart, thanks for the link to the other thread, I did not see that before, very interesting! I have soooo much other stuff to read, but if you would have a recommendation on a single book, if possible, that goes into the scientific details of all that photography stuff, I would probably read it step by step, over time.

Can you think of any book that should be the "bible" for photographers in terms of the science behind it? I mean sure, its just a subset of physics, optics, but I wonder whether there is a single book that focusses on the photographic aspect exclusively, instead of being part of a main physics compendium.

Can't be as complex as chemistry after all.... I hope... LOL ;)

Now I have to find another aspirin and make some salty scrambled eggs. The chablis left his ugly effects of reduced electrolytes and headaches of course. LOL

Cheers
~^...^~
 
Bart, thanks for the link to the other thread, I did not see that before, very interesting! I have soooo much other stuff to read, but if you would have a recommendation on a single book, if possible, that goes into the scientific details of all that photography stuff, I would probably read it step by step, over time.

A single book, that's a tough one as I haven't written it yet ;-) Now without kidding, there are various books that cover the capture part of photography for various types of photography. I would know only a small fraction of them, also because I followed a formal education as a professional photographer, and subsequently developed my knowledge and insights over the course of several decades of practice and studying, so it took me many books, articles, experiences, to get where I am, and I'm still learning stuff (mostly digital).

There are books on optics, photography of various subject matter, art history, composition, photochemistry, (digital) image processing, color management, etcetera, and they all deal with parts of the puzzle because photography is such a huge potpourri of fundamental science and art. But a single book, I doubt it.

Can you think of any book that should be the "bible" for photographers in terms of the science behind it? I mean sure, its just a subset of physics, optics, but I wonder whether there is a single book that focusses on the photographic aspect exclusively, instead of being part of a main physics compendium.

Can't be as complex as chemistry after all.... I hope... LOL ;)

Maybe there is something like an encyclopedia on photography in the English language. I have one but it's in Dutch, so of limited value for most. Maybe Wikipedia can offer some starting points, although one obviously has to be cautious about the accuracy/reliability of such a public source, so alternative sources should still be consulted. Other useful sources of information are the Photonics dictionary, "HIPR", and the HyperPhysics Concepts pages.

Besides 'our own' Doug Kerr's "The Pumpkin" series of articles, there are also several other authors with interesting on-line content, e.g. Paul van Walree on optics. Maybe that helps to get started.

When it comes to books on general image processing (so after acquiring the image), I can recommend "The Image Processing Handbook" by John C. Russ as a very readable book that only touches on math when it can't be avoided (and he manages to avoid it a lot which is quite an accomplishment). For those looking for a bit more mathematically oriented reading, a standard work seems to be "Digital Image Processing" by Rafael C. Gonzalez and Richard E. Woods, I also like that book a lot.

Maybe others can also suggest some general works of reference ..., might even make a nice sticky topic/thread, "Reference books on Photography"? The two titles mentioned above would certainly deserve a place in that list.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Last edited:
hi Georg,

No, I don't have any table for the Dalsa (nor Kodak) sensor(s). But yes, the dalsa 33,3 MPx sensor has a size of 48x36 with a pixel size of 7.2 micro.

Workshops: those have been stopped a few years ago, for the reason that I have left for Asia! I was the one running all workshops at Sinar and elsewhere, for many years, and am still in some countries in Asia (mainly in China). So I am the sole responsible for no workshops anymore at Sinar! Sorry about that.

But I have a .ppt presentation that covers the theory of large format which was part of the workshops, beside the practical work done there. If you're interested, I can upload it to my ftp server. Actually, the 4 images I had attached to my previous post are part of it.

Kind regards,
Thierry

Gentlemen,

thanks so much! Yes Thierry, it is understandable and very interesting in deed.

Looking at the tables, naturally I wonder, if I am not mistaken the DALSA chip has a size of 48.0mm x 36.0mm. Do you have any tables at all that include the DALSA in relation to f stop?

Another question came to my mind, where can I find out more informations on Sinar workshops? Apart from some useful informations concernig Viewcameras in the Know How section, I did not see anything on SINAR's website.
 
Bart, thanks for the links, two more books to read! ;)

Thierry, yes please, very generous of you to offer, it would be brilliant if I could have a look at that, most interesting! Just send me the link to my email, muchas gracias!
 
Top