I bet your camera sensor have lower resolution.Lou Jost wrote:Justwalking, what if those resolution figures refer to resolution on the subject rather than on the sensor?
https://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/ ... esolution/
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
I bet your camera sensor have lower resolution.Lou Jost wrote:Justwalking, what if those resolution figures refer to resolution on the subject rather than on the sensor?
Oh! I did not know you camera. Thought there is less MP. Then it is problem to find outperfoming optics to take maximum. Do you prepare 50?P pic for some since magazin?Lou Jost wrote:If the "120 line pairs per mm" refers to the resolution in image space, then according to the table in your link, my 20Mp MFT sensor slightly out-resolves this lens when not using pixel-shift, and greatly out-resolves it when using pixel-shift (effectively 50Mp, so 2.1micron pixel width, Nyquist limit 227 lp/mm).
.
This is caused by a character set problem.Justwalking wrote:(#####, i have again general error from board engine during repla?)
--Rikrjlittlefield wrote:The place to look for problems is where that "?" appears in the list of words. In this case it's at '?lens' and '?na'.
The underlying issue is that for historical reasons the forum database uses a character set named "latin1" (description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-1). latin1 is only a subset of Unicode. If a post uses any Unicode characters that are not contained in latin1, then the post will preview OK but produce the message about "Illegal mix of collations" when it gets Submit'ed and stored in the database.
It's a very annoying problem that was caused by a change in the PHP specification several years ago. If you're curious, see the 3-page discussion at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=25154 .
At best, the up-sampling algos simply mimic a higher resolution sensor. A low resolution lens on high resolution sensor will produce a low resolution image. If it were not so, where is the limit? If the lens was not the limit, then you could continue to sub-sample forever and achieve infinitely small resolution.Lou Jost wrote:I'm not sure. Can you give an argument in favor of that?
I do know that the Oly algorithm stops working at f/8. That number is more like the aperture at which a 20MP MFT sensor becomes diffraction-limited, not the aperture at which a 50Mp or 80MP MFT sensor becomes diffraction-limited.