Photolithography lenses + astro cameras = extreme macro

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Very interesting to see the results of a monochrome camera + filters on a terrestrial subject. This should give much better resolution than a same-size sensor with a Bayer matrix. Every pixel is contributing data for all three colors. It is almost like the Sigma Foveon sensor in that respect.

Thanks for the tip about Astraimage!

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

Just curious, has anyone experimented with Imagej and these plugins?

https://imagej.net/Deconvolution

-JW:

JohnyM
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am

Post by JohnyM »

Yes, but it really only works with fluorescence.

kds315*
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:06 am
Contact:

Post by kds315* »

I'm not surprised to see these rather sad results, have done similar many years ago also with disappointing results. Sold my S-Planars and Ultra Micro Nikkors later, luckily with quite a profit due to their rarity... :-)

In a way funny to see how history repeats itself ever so often...
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Sad??? The image circle of the lens shown above is 144mm. The single shots above are 2x enlargements of crops 500 pixels wide of an image that would be 42000 pixels wide. Edit-see below.
Last edited by Lou Jost on Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Edit to the above: It is difficult to compare lenses with very different image circles. There is no best way, it depends on what you want to do with the lens. If you have a fixed sensor size and don't want to stitch, then our normal crops at 100% (or blown up even more, to 200% or 400%) are most informative. But if you have a choice of sensors or if you can stitch across the aerial image, then a better measure of lens quality is the total information it can capture. One measure of this would be the mean resolution (on the image side) times the image circle diameter. The same measure could be calculated on the object side, and I would think the two numbers would be equal. This measure would tell us what's the maximum amount of information we could squeeze out of a single image.

Our way of expressing a zoom factor is also not always appropriate for comparing lenses with different image circles. In addition to our standard way of expressing the zoom factor (eg Photoshop zoom percentages), it would be helpful to express the size of the crop relative to the size of the whole image (either the whole aerial image or the whole image on the sensor, depending on the purpose). For example, relative to the aerial image, my crop above is roughly 500/420000 pixels, so it is about 1% of the total aerial image. For a typical microscope image that just covers an APS sensor, a typical 100% crop (using Photoshop percentage) posted on this forum at 1024 pixels wide is about 15-20% of the total aerial image.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic