www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Calculating step distance for medium format sensor

An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
 Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page Old Forums/Galleries

Author Message
Davids

Joined: 31 Jan 2016
Posts: 159

 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:34 am    Post subject: Calculating step distance for medium format sensor I normally use Johan's excellent step distance calculator for my stacks, however his largest sensor is FF. While the GFX sensor (43.8 mm x 32.9 mm) isn't that much bigger than FF, I'd still like to calculate appropriate step distances. Any help? David
mawyatt

Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1685
Location: Clearwater

 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:59 am    Post subject: David, There's a formula that includes pixel size I recall. Off the top of my head it's: DoF = Wavelength (Green ~ 0.55um)/((NA)^2) + Pixel width/(M*NA) Think this is correct, but check to be sure. Best,_________________Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find! ~Mike
ChrisR

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 7966
Location: Near London, UK

 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:43 pm    Post subject: My reference is still this: DOF Two ways http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=126606#126606 You can of course alter it, put fixed numbers in, etc._________________Chris R
rjlittlefield

Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19408
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:48 pm    Post subject:

If you are pixel-peeping to see all the detail captured by your sensor, then a good starting point is to use the same values as for FF. In this model the larger sensor covers a larger FOV but presumably with more pixels so that the pixel density is the same.

If you are doing anything else, for example making prints to be viewed at standard viewing distance, then a good starting point is to enlarge the step size by the ratio of the sensor sizes, so about 1.25X in your case using the diagonals. In this case the model is that the larger sensor permits a larger COC, and DOF is directly proportional to COC in the formulation that I think Johan's calculator is using.

The reason I've written "good starting point" is that if the step size is critical, then there's no substitute for determining the right value by experiment. All of the calculators -- including my own which ChrisR links to -- incorporate assumptions that may or may not be appropriate for your subject, setup, and application.

Another good reference is the simplified tables (also mine) at https://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/tables/macromicrodof . The numbers there are conservative in the sense that they assume a perfect lens, limited only by diffraction, plus an arbitrarily good sensor that can capture however much detail is present in the optical system. Still, some photographers use even smaller steps because they get better results that way for their subjects and setups. There are good physical reasons for that, but I won't take space here to mention any of them. On the other hand, other photographers routinely use larger steps because they find that the results remain adequate for their purposes and larger steps make the shooting and processing go faster. Again, if the step size is critical, you have to determine by experiment what size best meets your own needs.

 mawyatt wrote: DoF = Wavelength (Green ~ 0.55um)/((NA)^2) + Pixel width/(M*NA) Think this is correct, but check to be sure.

I don't recall seeing that particular form before, but it looks like it has all the right parameters raised to the right powers. The first term is due to diffraction and the second is geometric blur. Unfortunately the model is fundamentally wrong because the two components don't really combine that way. But fortunately that fundamental error doesn't matter much because the resulting number is close enough to be plausible and ultimately a human ends up adjusting it anyway. There is much more discussion of these points at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=148498#148498 and in the surrounding thread, if you're a glutton for punishment.

Personally I've become convinced that the whole question is squishy enough that fretting over the nuances of formulas is basically a waste of time. But I confess, it was interesting when I did it, and I don't begrudge the time spent.

--Rik
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 All times are GMT - 7 Hours Page 1 of 1

 Jump to: Select a forum Rules and Guidelines----------------Posting GuidelinesImage Hosting Procedures Community Discussions and Announcements----------------General Discussion Forum and Community AnnouncementsCommunity Members and FriendsFavorite LocationsEquipment Exchange Image Galleries----------------Nature Photography -- Macro and Close-upTechnical and Studio Photography -- Macro and Close-upPhotography Through the MicroscopeMacro and Close-up Archives Techniques and Technical Discussions----------------Macro and Micro Technique and Technical DiscussionsEquipment DiscussionsMacro & Microscopy ArticlesFrequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Beginners Forums----------------Beginners MacroBeginners Micro Administrator's Appreciation Galleries----------------Administrator's Appreciation Gallery...Macro and Close-up ImagesAdministrator's Appreciation Gallery...Photography Through the Microscope
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum