Timeline for What do resolution figures mean in lens specifications?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 11, 2015 at 19:07 | history | suggested | feetwet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improving readability
|
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 11, 2015 at 19:07 | |||||
| Mar 10, 2015 at 19:38 | comment | added | user3211966 | Thank you. I can't get closer in this case, so i guess that is the limit resolution I'm gonna deal with. "Only" 166 LP/MM? Reading some posts around the web I didn't found any bigger resolution and this one seems to be already quite high (this is not a microscopy application), isn't it? So the basic concept is that with the same lens i'm getting slightly better images with a higher resolution sensor because of this oversampling factor? I thought it was all about the lens, since is that one limiting the amount of light hitting the sensor.. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 16:27 | comment | added | Michael Nielsen | yes that would be good, hard to do in practice. your lens is still only 166lp/mm so you have to increase your sensor to have more mm's to project on. or decrease your FOV so less linepairs has to be projected on the sensor, and then stitch. So when you cannot increase your lp/mm, you can reduce the need for a high number. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 15:15 | comment | added | user3211966 | If i've get your point, in the example above i'd be oversampling by a factor 2, right? But how about 8-16 times? It starts from 1300 to 2600 LP/MM, so a 0.3 micron pixel size? I'm not understanding.. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 14:55 | history | answered | Michael Nielsen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |