LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


The diffraction cutoff frequency

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 04 Sep 2009 (Friday) 04:48   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2008
1,199 posts
Vancouver, WA
[MORE/SHARE]

There are two common misconceptions about diffraction. The first is that diffraction can cause small pixels to actually have lower resolution than large pixels. The second is that once diffraction affects the image, there is no further benefit possible from smaller pixels.

The most frequently misunderstood factor in diminishing returns is diffraction. As pixel size decreases, there are two points of interest: one at which diffraction is just barely beginning to noticeably diminish returns (from 100% of the expected improvement, to, say, 90%); and another where the resolution improvement is immeasurably small (0%). One common mistake is to think both occur at the same time, but in reality they are very far apart.

Someone who shoots the 40D at f/5.6 will get the full benefit of upgrading to the 7D. The returns will be 100% of the theoretical maximum improvement. Someone who shoots the 40D at f/11 will *not* get the full improvement. The returns will be diminished to, say, 50%. Someone who shoots the 40D at f/64 (for DOF) will not get any increased resolution at all from the 7D. The returns have diminished to 0%.

Under no circumstances will the smaller pixel ever be worse, and usually it is at least somewhat better, but sometimes is only the same. When the returns diminish to 0%, it means that the sampling rate is higher than the diffraction cutoff frequency (DCF). This is different from the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA).

Diffraction is always there. It's always the same, no matter what the pixel size. When the f-number is wider than the DLA, it means that the image is blurred so much by large pixels, that it's impossible to see the diffraction blur. Smaller pixels simply allow you to see the diffraction blur that was always there.

The DLA is the point at which diffraction *starts* to visibly affect the image. It is not the point at which further improvement is impossible (the DCF). For example, the diffraction cutoff frequency for f/18 (in green light) is 4.3 micron pixels (the 7D). So if you use f/18, then you can upgrade to the 7D and still see a benefit. For example, if you compare the 50D and 7D and f/11, you'll see an improvement in resolution, even though the 50D DLA is f/7.6.

Another important factor is that diffraction can be deconvolved in software! Normal sharpening helps, but specialized algorithms such as Richardson-Lucy are really impressive, and there are several free raw converters that include that option. There are two important limitations: it doesn't work well in the presence of high noise power (at the sampling frequency), and we don't have the phase information of the light waves. The practical result of these two factors is that RL deconvolution works great at ISO 100 for increasing contrast of frequencies below the diffraction cutoff frequency, but it cannot construct detail higher than the cutoff.

Even at f/11, the 7D offers *some* improvement over the 40D. Diffraction will never cause the 7D to have *worse* resolution. But in extreme circumstances (e.g. f/22+) it will only be the same, not better. At f/11, the returns will be diminished so that the 7D is only somewhat better. (If you use the special software below, you can get those returns back.) In order to enjoy the full benefit of the additional resolution, one must avoid going past the DLA ("Diffraction Limited Aperture").

Let's compare the XT and 7D. The maximum theoretical improvement in linear resolution that would be possible going from 8 MP to 18 MP is 50% (sqrt(18/8 ) or 5184/3456). That means if the XT can resolve 57 lp/mm, then the 7D could resolve 86.4 lp/mm (50% higher). But that would only be true when you stay under the DLA. At f/5.6, you should be able to get the full 86.4 lp/mm. But at f/11, you will get something in the middle (say, 70 lp/mm). At f/18 you're back down to 57 lp/mm again. (For green light. Blue has less diffraction and red has more.)

This comparison (thanks to The-Digital-Picture.comexternal link) is the 5D (12 MP) with the 1Ds Mark 3 (21 MP) using the EF 200mm f/2.8. The 5D has a much weaker AA filter, relative to the pixel size, than the 1Ds3, so that will skew the results in favor of larger pixels looking better.

I have simulated the same print size by re-sizing the center crops with a good algorithm. Do not examine the thumbnails below: you must click on the thumbnail to see the full sized image. (The thumbnails themselves are not intended for analysis.)

Set "f/5.6" is below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/5.6. There is no visible effect at all from diffraction in either camera. The aliasing/debayer artifacts (green and color patterns) are a natural result of the weakness of the anti-alias filter. As expected, the 1Ds Mark III, with over 50% more pixels, has higher resolution. This set establishes a baseline of how much improvement is possible when there is no diffraction at all. (Some people have a hard time seeing the difference between 12.8 MP and 21 MP, so look carefully.)

5D @ f/5.6external link (link due to eight image limit)

IMAGE: http://thebrownings.name/photo/diffraction/65-1dsm3-f5.6.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...action/500-1dsm3-f5.6.jpg]external link

Set "f/8" is below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/8.0. Diffraction is beginning to have a very slight effect here, which is noticeable on the 1Ds, but not the 5D. It is softening the very highest frequency of detail. The 5D's 8.2 micron pixels add too much of their own blur for the diffraction to be visible.

IMAGE: http://thebrownings.name/photo/diffraction/65-5d-f8.0.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...ffraction/500-5d-f8.0.jpg]external link

IMAGE: http://thebrownings.name/photo/diffraction/65-1dsm3-f8.0.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...action/500-1dsm3-f8.0.jpg]external link

Set "f/11" below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/11.0. Now diffraction is very obvious, even in the 5D. But it's plain that the 6.4 micron pixels still resolve more detail.

IMAGE: http://thebrownings.name/photo/diffraction/65-5d-f11.0.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...fraction/500-5d-f11.0.jpg]external link

IMAGE: http://thebrownings.name/photo/diffraction/65-1dsm3-f11.0.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...ction/500-1dsm3-f11.0.jpg]external link

Set "f/16" below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/16.0. This focal ratio results in a *lot* of diffraction, as you can see. However, you can still see that the 21 MP provides more detail than the 12 MP. The difference isn't as large as f/5.6, above, but it's there. Returns have diminished, but not to 0%.

IMAGE: http://thebrownings.name/photo/diffraction/65-5d-f16.0.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...fraction/500-5d-f16.0.jpg]external link

IMAGE: http://thebrownings.name/photo/diffraction/65-1dsm3-f16.0.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...ction/500-1dsm3-f16.0.jpg]external link

Furthermore, note that in all the cases above, the higher megapixel camera provided more contrast (MTF) in addition to the increased resolution. Yet this is with very little sharpening ("1" in DPP) applied. RL deconvolution would greatly increase the contrast in the diffraction limited images.

To summarize: smaller pixels always provide the same or higher resolution. Diffraction limited is not the same as the diffraction cutoff frequency. The cutoff is probably much higher than you think.

Post #1, Sep 04, 2009 04:48:49


Daniel

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
wickerprints
"Shooting blanks"
wickerprints's Avatar
Joined Jul 2009
864 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8581530external link
Diffraction is always there. It's always the same, no matter what the pixel size. When the f-number is wider than the DLA, it means that the image is blurred so much by large pixels, that it's impossible to see the diffraction blur. Smaller pixels simply allow you to see the diffraction blur that was always there.

Beautifully, beautifully explained. Pure gold. Thank you for this, because I have tried (without success) to push back against the anti-MP conventional wisdom, and it's like talking to a brick wall. You've put it in so much better words than I could have ever chosen.

Post #2, Sep 04, 2009 04:59:20


5DmkII :: EF 24-105/4L IS :: EF 85/1.8 :: EF 70-200/2.8L IS :: EF 100/2.8L IS macro (coming soon!)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
5,340 posts
Melbourne, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

wickerprints wrote in post #8581555external link
Beautifully, beautifully explained. Pure gold. Thank you for this, because I have tried (without success) to push back against the anti-MP conventional wisdom, and it's like talking to a brick wall. You've put it in so much better words than I could have ever chosen.

The argument is not that diffraction increases as pixels get smaller. Just that you aren't getting any extra detail out of the extra megapixels, as the detail projected onto the sensor is limited by diffraction in the first place, while suffering the downsides of extra megapixels (smaller wells for the same per-pixel read noise, increased bandwidth required resulting in slower potential fps, etc.).

If diffraction is projecting point sources of light onto your sensor as 15-micron circles, the only difference you'll get from dividing the image into a 4 micron grid as compared with a 6 micron grid is more near-identical dots for each 15-micron circle...

Post #3, Sep 04, 2009 05:34:00




LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Cream of the Crop
RDKirk's Avatar
Joined May 2004
11,579 posts
USA
[MORE/SHARE]

The argument is not that diffraction increases as pixels get smaller. Just that you aren't getting any extra detail out of the extra megapixels, as the detail projected onto the sensor is limited by diffraction in the first place, while suffering the downsides of extra megapixels (smaller wells for the same per-pixel read noise, increased bandwidth required resulting in slower potential fps, etc.).

I don't think you actually read Daniel's very good exposition.

You do get extra detail out of the extra megapixels. You just get increasingly smaller benefit as the aperture decreases from the aperture diffraction limitation begins to be detectable down to the point that there is no visible difference between two sensors because of diffraction.

The other problems are dealt with in other ways that aren't part of this discussion. "Slower potential fps?" Have you read the specifications of the 7D?

Post #4, Sep 04, 2009 05:43:00 as a reply to Shadowblade's post 9 minutes earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
Joined Mar 2008
1,122 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

So if I understand correctly (and I probably dont...so much went over my head) at low aperature f2.8 higher pixel density will give more detail but at higher aperature f/8 higher pixel density will start to show diffraction but it wont be worse than a lower pixel density camera. There just wont be any improvements.

So all in all higher pixel density is generally good thing, because in the least it will offer more detail at lower aperatures.

Post #5, Sep 04, 2009 08:32:37 as a reply to RDKirk's post 2 hours earlier.


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
plasticmotif
Goldmember
plasticmotif's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
3,154 posts
Tennessee
[MORE/SHARE]

elitejp wrote in post #8582306external link
So if I understand correctly (and I probably dont...so much went over my head) at low aperature f2.8 higher pixel density will give more detail but at higher aperature f/8 higher pixel density will start to show diffraction but it wont be worse than a lower pixel density camera. There just wont be any improvements.

So all in all higher pixel density is generally good thing, because in the least it will offer more detail at lower aperatures.

That's what I gathered.

Post #6, Sep 04, 2009 08:55:16


Mac P.
My Zenfolioexternal link My Photo Blogexternal link My Equipment
http://photography-on-the.net ...p?p=14172975#post14​172975

LOG IN TO REPLY
james_in_baltimore
Senior Member
james_in_baltimore's Avatar
Joined Jun 2006
494 posts
Baltimore, MD
[MORE/SHARE]

Awesome post on diffraction. thoroughly explained. This was something I never really understood until now. Should be a sticky.

Post #7, Sep 04, 2009 09:05:07


James Harris Photography - Weddings Portraits Eventsexternal link
Canon 7D, 5D Mkii, 580EX II X2, 430EX, ST-E2
24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 17-40mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
kcphotog
Member
kcphotog's Avatar
Joined May 2008
76 posts
Denver, CO
[MORE/SHARE]

Very good explanation. Thanks for sharing, you have a talent with words and examples. Excellent!

Post #8, Sep 04, 2009 09:44:06


_______________

1D3,5D2,50D,10-22,17-40L,24-70L,70-200L 2.8IS,100-400L,135L,50 1.4, 85 1.8, 300L IS 2.8,1.4TC, 2XTC,+++ :)

LOG IN TO REPLY
stsva
Cream of the Crop
stsva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2009
5,942 posts
Northern Virginia
[MORE/SHARE]

Great stuff - thanks!:D

Post #9, Sep 04, 2009 09:51:19


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profileexternal link
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club http://photography-on-the.net ...=744235&highlight=h​amsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Turning
Senior Member
Joined May 2007
720 posts
Renton
[MORE/SHARE]

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8581530external link
There are two common misconceptions about diffraction. The first is that diffraction can cause small pixels to actually have lower resolution than large pixels. The second is that once diffraction affects the image, there is no further benefit possible from smaller pixels.

The most frequently misunderstood factor in diminishing returns is diffraction. As pixel size decreases, there are two points of interest: one at which diffraction is just barely beginning to noticeably diminish returns (from 100% of the expected improvement, to, say, 90%); and another where the resolution improvement is immeasurably small (0%). One common mistake is to think both occur at the same time, but in reality they are very far apart.

Someone who shoots the 40D at f/5.6 will get the full benefit of upgrading to the 7D. The returns will be 100% of the theoretical maximum improvement. Someone who shoots the 40D at f/11 will *not* get the full improvement. The returns will be diminished to, say, 50%. Someone who shoots the 40D at f/64 (for DOF) will not get any increased resolution at all from the 7D. The returns have diminished to 0%.

Under no circumstances will the smaller pixel ever be worse, and usually it is at least somewhat better, but sometimes is only the same. When the returns diminish to 0%, it means that the sampling rate is higher than the diffraction cutoff frequency (DCF). This is different from the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA).

Diffraction is always there. It's always the same, no matter what the pixel size. When the f-number is wider than the DLA, it means that the image is blurred so much by large pixels, that it's impossible to see the diffraction blur. Smaller pixels simply allow you to see the diffraction blur that was always there.

The DLA is the point at which diffraction *starts* to visibly affect the image. It is not the point at which further improvement is impossible (the DCF). For example, the diffraction cutoff frequency for f/18 (in green light) is 4.3 micron pixels (the 7D). So if you use f/18, then you can upgrade to the 7D and still see a benefit. For example, if you compare the 50D and 7D and f/11, you'll see an improvement in resolution, even though the 50D DLA is f/7.6.

Another important factor is that diffraction can be deconvolved in software! Normal sharpening helps, but specialized algorithms such as Richardson-Lucy are really impressive, and there are several free raw converters that include that option. There are two important limitations: it doesn't work well in the presence of high noise power (at the sampling frequency), and we don't have the phase information of the light waves. The practical result of these two factors is that RL deconvolution works great at ISO 100 for increasing contrast of frequencies below the diffraction cutoff frequency, but it cannot construct detail higher than the cutoff.

Even at f/11, the 7D offers *some* improvement over the 40D. Diffraction will never cause the 7D to have *worse* resolution. But in extreme circumstances (e.g. f/22+) it will only be the same, not better. At f/11, the returns will be diminished so that the 7D is only somewhat better. (If you use the special software below, you can get those returns back.) In order to enjoy the full benefit of the additional resolution, one must avoid going past the DLA ("Diffraction Limited Aperture").

Let's compare the XT and 7D. The maximum theoretical improvement in linear resolution that would be possible going from 8 MP to 18 MP is 50% (sqrt(18/8 ) or 5184/3456). That means if the XT can resolve 57 lp/mm, then the 7D could resolve 86.4 lp/mm (50% higher). But that would only be true when you stay under the DLA. At f/5.6, you should be able to get the full 86.4 lp/mm. But at f/11, you will get something in the middle (say, 70 lp/mm). At f/18 you're back down to 57 lp/mm again. (For green light. Blue has less diffraction and red has more.)

This comparison (thanks to The-Digital-Picture.comexternal link) is the 5D (12 MP) with the 1Ds Mark 3 (21 MP) using the EF 200mm f/2.8. The 5D has a much weaker AA filter, relative to the pixel size, than the 1Ds3, so that will skew the results in favor of larger pixels looking better.

I have simulated the same print size by re-sizing the center crops with a good algorithm. Do not examine the thumbnails below: you must click on the thumbnail to see the full sized image. (The thumbnails themselves are not intended for analysis.)

Set "f/5.6" is below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/5.6. There is no visible effect at all from diffraction in either camera. The aliasing/debayer artifacts (green and color patterns) are a natural result of the weakness of the anti-alias filter. As expected, the 1Ds Mark III, with over 50% more pixels, has higher resolution. This set establishes a baseline of how much improvement is possible when there is no diffraction at all. (Some people have a hard time seeing the difference between 12.8 MP and 21 MP, so look carefully.)

5D @ f/5.6external link (link due to eight image limit)

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...action/500-1dsm3-f5.6.jpg]external link

Set "f/8" is below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/8.0. Diffraction is beginning to have a very slight effect here, which is noticeable on the 1Ds, but not the 5D. It is softening the very highest frequency of detail. The 5D's 8.2 micron pixels add too much of their own blur for the diffraction to be visible.

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...ffraction/500-5d-f8.0.jpg]external link

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...action/500-1dsm3-f8.0.jpg]external link

Set "f/11" below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/11.0. Now diffraction is very obvious, even in the 5D. But it's plain that the 6.4 micron pixels still resolve more detail.

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: http://thebrownings.na​me ...fraction/500-5d-f11.0.jpg]external link

http://thebrownings.na​me ...ction/500-1dsm3-f11.0.jpgexternal link

Set "f/16" below: The 5D and 1Ds Mark III at f/16.0. This focal ratio results in a *lot* of diffraction, as you can see. However, you can still see that the 21 MP provides more detail than the 12 MP. The difference isn't as large as f/5.6, above, but it's there. Returns have diminished, but not to 0%.

http://thebrownings.na​me ...fraction/500-5d-f16.0.jpgexternal link

http://thebrownings.na​me ...ction/500-1dsm3-f16.0.jpgexternal link

Furthermore, note that in all the cases above, the higher megapixel camera provided more contrast (MTF) in addition to the increased resolution. Yet this is with very little sharpening ("1" in DPP) applied. RL deconvolution would greatly increase the contrast in the diffraction limited images.

To summarize: smaller pixels always provide the same or higher resolution. Diffraction limited is not the same as the diffraction cutoff frequency. The cutoff is probably much higher than you think.

I am not very smart so I am the try it myself kind of guy. I had been told that buying a 5d mark ii would not give me better resolution at f/16 than my 5d (table top photography of art objects with strobes).

I have borrowed my brothers mark ii twice for a couple weeks and shot tests back to back with my 5d. I found the same thing you say.

The mark ii had noticeably more detail than the mark i at f/16 with a good lens. One had only to downsize the mark ii image to the same size as the mark i to see a dramatic difference in detail. (Or look at them 100% crop side by side.)

Further, I found that low levels of simply sharpening seemed to help the mark ii images even more than the 5d images (which sharpening helped, but not as much).

This will allow me to shoot with extra background and foreground on the objects for more flexible layout possibilities later in terms of publishing, while adding even a little more detail and dpi when cropped (editors like that).

Post #10, Sep 04, 2009 09:51:36




LOG IN TO REPLY
itzcryptic
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2006
1,174 posts
Cincinnati
[MORE/SHARE]

elitejp wrote in post #8582306external link
So if I understand correctly (and I probably dont...so much went over my head) at low aperature f2.8 higher pixel density will give more detail but at higher aperature f/8 higher pixel density will start to show diffraction but it wont be worse than a lower pixel density camera. There just wont be any improvements.

So all in all higher pixel density is generally good thing, because in the least it will offer more detail at lower aperatures.

Almost. Change the sentence "There just won't be any improvements" to "There just won't be as much improvement as the increase in resolution suggests."

Post #11, Sep 04, 2009 10:17:04




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
laychengjin
Member
Joined Apr 2009
76 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

You have enlighten me!!! :D

Post #12, Sep 16, 2009 18:47:28


Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
jetcode
Cream of the Crop
Joined Jul 2009
6,225 posts
West Marin
[MORE/SHARE]

wow we have a digital imaging guru ... I'll read every word ... thanks for the offerings

Post #13, Sep 16, 2009 19:54:18




LOG IN TO REPLY
1234sakura
Member
Joined Sep 2009
46 posts
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

First of all thanks for all the information. I am very interested in the topic, and could not find much human-readable info.

A two questions. More to do with photography than MP vs Diffraction Limitation.

1) Does photoshop or DPP have any built-in / plug-in module that can do deconvolution? (Cos I use PS CS4 mostly) Or will sharpening do the trick?

2) Is there an equation you use to know where the diminishing return and cut off aperture points are? It seems to be something to try avoid since it's a decrease both in sharpness and contrast?

Post #14, Sep 16, 2009 20:32:30 as a reply to jetcode's post 38 minutes earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
lbridges
Senior Member
lbridges's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
123 posts
Indialantic, FL
[MORE/SHARE]

1234sakura wrote in post #8658317external link
1) Does photoshop or DPP have any built-in / plug-in module that can do deconvolution? (Cos I use PS CS4 mostly) Or will sharpening do the trick?

2) Is there an equation you use to know where the diminishing return and cut off aperture points are? It seems to be something to try avoid since it's a decrease both in sharpness and contrast?

1. Yes. Although I've never used such a tool there are things like FocusFixer that claim to be using deconvolution/Fourier transform math.

2. I doubt it. The fact is that real world effects such as diminishing optics performance at large F stop numbers (small openings) complicates any such decision. The only true answer would be to perform tests using your lens with your camera body.

To the OP - thanks for putting this together. A well written explanation of a difficult topic.

Post #15, Sep 16, 2009 21:52:17




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
9,564 views & 0 likes for this thread
The diffraction cutoff frequency
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00082 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
1097 guests, 882 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is photolazz

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.