Dragon/Epic Resolve 100 lp/mm. Is there any point in having a lens that does 200lp/mm

[Will Keir]

Just a quick question.

Dragon/Epic Resolve 100 lp/mm. Is there any point in having a lens that does 200lp/mm

Will I see any improvement in my image shooting on a lens with 200 lp/mm over a lens that shoots 100 lp/mm? Given that all other factors would remain constant?

Thanks for the input.

 

[Joseph Bailey]

Those resolution measurements are typically for the center of the lens, with decreasing sharpness at the edges. The better the lens, the better the edges. Also, look out for decreased contrast, which is often the trade-off for spatial resolution. Test, test, test, and compare under several lighting conditions and at several t-stops.

 

[Will Keir]

Thanks for posting but that doesn't answer my question. Anyone else?

 

[Phil Holland]

Will, look back at the SALT III Test we did. Based on what we saw you can clearly see the difference on Epic Mysterium X today between 100 and 200 lpm glass. At least the glass we tested. It appears the difference is visible on the glass we tested to approximately 2 stops closed. We're counting hairs on gnats butts at that point in terms of a difference, but it's there. As Joseph stated, if you got something that will do 200-140 across the field, that's the magic sauce.

 

[Will Keir]

Thanks Phil but there is still something i am not getting.

if the Epic can resolve at MAX 100 LP/MM, how can you get more detail from a 200 LP/MM lens when the bottleneck is 100 LP/MM?

is there a specific example for the lens tests you could point out please?

Thanks.

Will, look back at the SALT III Test we did. Based on what we saw you can clearly see the difference on Epic Mysterium X today between 100 and 200 lpm glass. At least the glass we tested. It appears the difference is visible on the glass we tested to approximately 2 stops closed. We're counting hairs on gnats butts at that point in terms of a difference, but it's there. As Joseph stated, if you got something that will do 200-140 across the field, that's the magic sauce.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Higher resolving lenses have the added power for enlargements, print, and post work, also while most lenses are indeed measured in their center, which is the highest spot of resolving power, when you measure Master Primes and now Leica Cine S. Primes, this changes the game completely, as the fall off of resolution on the edges is not as prominent as with most of all other lenses, even so it is more complex then that, having a higher resolving lens, will give cleaner sharper images edge to edge, so that at the end your image has more manipulation capacity in post, which is relatively important for Cinema, but extremely important for Frame Pulling on Textures, Land Scapes, City Scapes, and Macro or product shots.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

This is why you need to compare MTF charts, not the detail size (your resolving limit in lp/mm) at which the contrast reaches 0%. The resolving limit is only telling you part of the story.

The lens that resolves 200 lp/mm will have much higher contrast at the important 20-50 lp/mm detail than one that resolves up to 100 lp/mm. Or, in other words, the contrast of the detail that the sensor can actually reproduce will be higher.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

if the Epic can resolve at MAX 100 LP/MM, how can you get more detail from a 200 LP/MM lens when the bottleneck is 100 LP/MM?

There are a few ways to reproduce true detail beyond Nyquist frequency limit. One of the super-resolution methods is to trade temporal resolution for spacial resolution. There are other published and unpublished methods, some awaiting patent proceedings. Do you want to sign an NDA?

 

[Les Dittert]

What Pawl said. Aliasing is in the long run your friend.
Most red users shoot with a low pass filter which is a blunt force instrument IMO.

If I'm not seeing aliasing on my raw capture I know i'm not in focus.

 

[Robert Hart]

Here's an unscientific conundrum for you which might in layman speak answer the question partially.

Before RED cam along and kicked all the milk bottles over, people who were playing with 35mm groundglass relay imaging were finding that groundglasses with a 5 micron finish were "seeing" the differences between "soft" and "sharp" lenses. The groundglass scatter effect seemed to amplify any deficiency in a lens. I don't know what the pixel size is with the EPIC and it would probably be of no use to me if I did. For the Altasens Super16mm sized sensor in the SI2K it is apparently five microns. The pits and peaks of a groundglass texture are random ( think analogue ) compared to the ordered existence of pixels on a sensor and their little painted coverings for colour separation.

My guess is that whilst the pixel pitch and its ability to resolve so many line pairs per mm may in theory be a limiting gateway, a fine detail in the projected image of a less sharp lens may implicate more neighbouring pixels. The bayer system might then emulate the groundglass scatter effect and amplify the deficiencies of a soft lens due to the sampling of neighouring pixels for the debayer process.

An optical low pass filter must surely do the same as the groundglass. albeit to a lessser degree.

It naturally follows that a sharper lens will reproduce detail more faithfully, despite the "bottleneck" as it has been defined in the preceding comments.

Just my two bob's worth and probably a blind alley.