The content on this video was EXACTLY what I was looking for. I was confused after watching videos from other creators because they showed the point of light superimposed on the photosite grid. It's confusing because I thought the superimposed point of light was the image the photosite gave. In this video, the points of light start off superimposed over a photosite grid, but then it transitions to show how the photosites are interpreting the data. After watching this video, I immediately made the connection between what the photosites do and the process of quantization. So, much like with auto-tune in pop songs, the differences in data need to be large enough to be interpreted as a different value.
Taking a little from all those reality shows, you sir............... ............. ............. are safe for another week. Thanks for sharing again. 👍👍👍👍👍
It's useful for photographers to know the limits of their setup. If what you are after is sharp images and the full resolution, knowing how to avoid the effects of diffraction on your setup is important.
Good explanation. One thing I'd add is that since diffraction comes on gradually, it is sometimes still worth stopping down past the point where diffraction becomes visible to get more depth of field - the increased depth of field is worth a little diffraction blurriness. I believe some sharpening algorithms are also very good at counteracting the effects of diffraction. I've also seen that many people think that diffraction is "worse" on higher megapixel sensors. At the same image size, it is not going to be worse; it is only more visible when looking at the same zoom setting, such as 100%, because 100% with a higher resolution sensor is a larger image size than 100% with a lower resolution sensor. So although diffraction becomes visible at lower f/stops with a higher resolution sensor, it is only because the lower resolution sensor isn't able to show as much detail at any setting. The higher resolution sensor will never show less detail than the lower resolution sensor.
8/10 overall, I enjoyed this, and my only suggestions would be some graphics and visuals. 10/10 for the explanation though. I'm not a subscriber, but I've come across your videos before and they're usually pretty good. Keep it up!
Learning the science of photography is very helpful. Understanding why images turn out the way they do, answers a lot of questions. Thanks for doing this and I look forward to more.
Thank you so much for this explanation. I have been wondering why my shots are soft focus at higher apertures and your video explains it perfectly so 10 out of 10 for your video!!! Now begs the question how can we take a super high depth of field photo without having to stop down to high apertures resulting in soft focus?
A good explanation of this phenomenon. Worth pointing out that the effect depends almost solely on aperture not focal length and that the diameter of the Airy disc increases much more rapidly as one stops down the lens. The effect on a digital sensor is also governed as you say by pixel size - the problem really begins when the disk diameter is greater than the area of the pixel - hence film copes somewhat better subject to its resolution limit. It is also worth pointing out that when printing large from a small sensor you increase the lack of resolution due to diffraction as just as you magnify the image you also magnify the Airy disk! This is why photographers using 10x8 cameras were happy to use f45 or f64 because to produce a 20x16 print they were using an area magnification of 4x and the size of the disc remained insignificant. The site Cambridge in Color gives another great explanation plus an active calculator that lets you check the diffraction limit of your lens/camera combination 9/10
Very clearly+fully explained, I did full-sized-screen-saves of both your images, put them straight into photoshop and enlarged them, the images reinforced what I already knew in theory. :) an important Vid because you went the distance to fully explain. A "Straight-Ten" from me - thanks for posting :)
BRILLIANT and understandable video, thanks! A while back I had a nice lens that performed very well on older 12 and 16 Mp bodies but absolutely SUCKED on my (then) new 22Mp camera sensor from even f/8 onward…
Good job! Now how about a video that explains why theoretically the larger the aperture the higher the resolution and why in practice this does not happen (yet)? Cheers
Now that I think about it, the first camera that I'm going to buy (not now due to pandemic, it's the Canon T7i) doesn't have autofocus at F8. how bad would this be for me?
The Laowa 24mm Macro Probe Lens is interesting because its aperture starts at f/14 and closes down to f/40 , i wonder where diffraction starts to become noticeable on that crazy looking lens
Does the same hold true for film photography? Film uses chemicals but not pixel sensors. The resolution (grain) depends on the ISO/ASA of the specific film speed I suppose. Thank you for the very good explanation.
Just out of curiosity if diffraction is more noticeable when stopping down significantly ( i.e. when the physical opening is very small) does it mean that it is noticeable early for wide angle lenses compared to tele lenses.for example at f2 for 50mm lens the opening would be 25mm but for f2 on 200mm lens the opening would be 100mm, so is the diffraction less noticeable on 200mm lens at f2 conpared to 50mm lens at f2 because the opening is comparatively wider?
In the same zoom lens, the f/number that makes diffraction visible is the same in all focal distance range? Because i thought diffraction as to do with the physical size of the aperture... This means, that for the same F/number the diaphragm has different sizes depending of the focal distance (F=FD/d). So, as we increase the focal distance, the diffraction will begin in higher F numbers. Is this true? Or the same question for long primes. Is diffraction a problem for a 300mm prime?
6/10 This is good explained but doesn’t it depend on lens-layout and sensor-size? On an 8x10 Camera using f64 is not a bad Choice and every lens hast it’s "sweet spot".
Because, obviously, he normally shot on a very large format camera (8" x 10" was certainly a favourite) and not 35mm, or at least not until quite late in his career. The relative "sensor sizes" (read 'film or ground glass plate area' for Ansel's technologies) are then significantly different. And digital sensors have higher resolution capabilities today. But you need to ask someone with more concrete knowledge of the relative "sensor" sizes between digital and the old black and white technologies to get a better understanding of this difference.
@@dee9692 perhaps not as obvious to me.. the generalities of sensor vs. film size make some sense but I'm seeking specifics on why/how the aperture opening causes diffraction differently for different formats.
Aperture is a calculation of diameter and focal length, and in turn focal length is relative to the format, so they aren't constant across different formats. An 8x10 camera shooting at 210mm f/64 will give you the same depth of field and angle of view as a 28mm f/8 on a full frame camera. More likely you'd encounter this change the other way around with a crop sensor camera: a 50mm lens on a crop sensor gives an equivalent view of an 80mm lens on full frame.
You have nicely explained what and under what apertures one might expect to suffer from meaningful diffraction but... *you haven't "explained diffraction"*. If you are interested, here is a nice explanation: docs.google.com/file/d/0B6w2XfPHEcZYUENBSm1ZbGNBUHc/view, starting at ca. 43:30
The content on this video was EXACTLY what I was looking for.
I was confused after watching videos from other creators because they showed the point of light superimposed on the photosite grid. It's confusing because I thought the superimposed point of light was the image the photosite gave.
In this video, the points of light start off superimposed over a photosite grid, but then it transitions to show how the photosites are interpreting the data.
After watching this video, I immediately made the connection between what the photosites do and the process of quantization. So, much like with auto-tune in pop songs, the differences in data need to be large enough to be interpreted as a different value.
I learned something new and it didn't cause my head to hurt - 9/10
You explained something I didn’t even realize I was affected by- thank you. This is hugely helpful!
You are everywhere...!
This is one of the best practical e plantation I have seen. My rating is 10/10
Taking a little from all those reality shows, you sir............... ............. ............. are safe for another week.
Thanks for sharing again. 👍👍👍👍👍
I knew about diffraction but didn't realize that it affected *all apertures*, 10/10!
Excellent explanation of light diffraction 9/10.
It's useful for photographers to know the limits of their setup. If what you are after is sharp images and the full resolution, knowing how to avoid the effects of diffraction on your setup is important.
That’s so true!
Many thanks to Mr Cheng ! Your explanations will have a score of ten on a scale of maximum ten !😊
Excellent. Passed this on to my friend who shoots landscapes at f/22 on a R5.
Very informative....thank you 👍
Good explanation. One thing I'd add is that since diffraction comes on gradually, it is sometimes still worth stopping down past the point where diffraction becomes visible to get more depth of field - the increased depth of field is worth a little diffraction blurriness. I believe some sharpening algorithms are also very good at counteracting the effects of diffraction. I've also seen that many people think that diffraction is "worse" on higher megapixel sensors. At the same image size, it is not going to be worse; it is only more visible when looking at the same zoom setting, such as 100%, because 100% with a higher resolution sensor is a larger image size than 100% with a lower resolution sensor. So although diffraction becomes visible at lower f/stops with a higher resolution sensor, it is only because the lower resolution sensor isn't able to show as much detail at any setting. The higher resolution sensor will never show less detail than the lower resolution sensor.
8/10 overall, I enjoyed this, and my only suggestions would be some graphics and visuals. 10/10 for the explanation though. I'm not a subscriber, but I've come across your videos before and they're usually pretty good. Keep it up!
Very comprehensive video which clearly explains the diffraction of the lenses, will done! 10/10
11/10 Excellent. Really clear explanation. Just keep doing what you're doing.
10/10 - great explanation and pace with examples
Learning the science of photography is very helpful. Understanding why images turn out the way they do, answers a lot of questions. Thanks for doing this and I look forward to more.
Mate that's a solid 10/10. Thank you for the video
super helpful and clear explanation! Keep up the great work!
Excellently explained!
Your explanations are always to the point, clear and very helpful. 10/10. Thank you!!
10/10 Excellent explanation
Not only this, I learnt a lot from watching your channel
Thanks 😊
Awesome😁 Very well explained in a manner all can understand. A solid 10/10 thank you😊
Excellent explanation, thank you 10/10
Great narrated and very informatif👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you so much for this explanation. I have been wondering why my shots are soft focus at higher apertures and your video explains it perfectly so 10 out of 10 for your video!!! Now begs the question how can we take a super high depth of field photo without having to stop down to high apertures resulting in soft focus?
Very well explained. 9/10
Pretty good explanation.
A good explanation of this phenomenon. Worth pointing out that the effect depends almost solely on aperture not focal length and that the diameter of the Airy disc increases much more rapidly as one stops down the lens. The effect on a digital sensor is also governed as you say by pixel size - the problem really begins when the disk diameter is greater than the area of the pixel - hence film copes somewhat better subject to its resolution limit. It is also worth pointing out that when printing large from a small sensor you increase the lack of resolution due to diffraction as just as you magnify the image you also magnify the Airy disk! This is why photographers using 10x8 cameras were happy to use f45 or f64 because to produce a 20x16 print they were using an area magnification of 4x and the size of the disc remained insignificant. The site Cambridge in Color gives another great explanation plus an active calculator that lets you check the diffraction limit of your lens/camera combination 9/10
Deep! Thank you. 📸
Great explanation of the phenomena!
I used to be a physics major in college (long time ago)
This is a WAY better explanation than any of my professors gave.
11/10. Will share.
Very clearly+fully explained, I did full-sized-screen-saves of both your images, put them straight into photoshop and enlarged them, the images reinforced what I already knew in theory. :) an important Vid because you went the distance to fully explain. A "Straight-Ten" from me - thanks for posting :)
Thank you for explaining that so well, now I know what I have probably been doing wrong and I can work on fixing it. I'd give you 10/10 😁
10 out of 10. Thanks!!
Thanks for sharing!
9.5/10! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 Definitely don’t feel like a moron now when trying to understand cameras more in depth.
Ty so much. now I know more about my Panasonic HC X1.
Great explanation.
Fantastic 10/10
BRILLIANT and understandable video, thanks!
A while back I had a nice lens that performed very well on older 12 and 16 Mp bodies but absolutely SUCKED on my (then) new 22Mp camera sensor from even f/8 onward…
Damn Zy Your subscriber grow so rapidly fast :)
10/10. Nice job
Would be nice to consider the term "Diffractive Optics" and look into corresponding lenses too. Thank you.
9/10
Use more cats for 10/10
haha! 100% agree
Good job! Now how about a video that explains why theoretically the larger the aperture the higher the resolution and why in practice this does not happen (yet)?
Cheers
10/10, perfect!!
10/10 Thank you.
Now that I think about it, the first camera that I'm going to buy (not now due to pandemic, it's the Canon T7i) doesn't have autofocus at F8.
how bad would this be for me?
Dude that was claer
10/10
Good video
Excellent! 10
The Laowa 24mm Macro Probe Lens is interesting because its aperture starts at f/14 and closes down to f/40 , i wonder where diffraction starts to become noticeable on that crazy looking lens
Thanks! 10/10
Does the same hold true for film photography? Film uses chemicals but not pixel sensors. The resolution (grain) depends on the ISO/ASA of the specific film speed I suppose. Thank you for the very good explanation.
Just out of curiosity if diffraction is more noticeable when stopping down significantly ( i.e. when the physical opening is very small) does it mean that it is noticeable early for wide angle lenses compared to tele lenses.for example at f2 for 50mm lens the opening would be 25mm but for f2 on 200mm lens the opening would be 100mm, so is the diffraction less noticeable on 200mm lens at f2 conpared to 50mm lens at f2 because the opening is comparatively wider?
100/10 explaination!
Hey ZY, what are your thoughts on Canon Eos R5 and R6! Have a good day☺️
Nice. 10/10
Damn Thx zy for the info :)
In the same zoom lens, the f/number that makes diffraction visible is the same in all focal distance range? Because i thought diffraction as to do with the physical size of the aperture... This means, that for the same F/number the diaphragm has different sizes depending of the focal distance (F=FD/d). So, as we increase the focal distance, the diffraction will begin in higher F numbers. Is this true?
Or the same question for long primes. Is diffraction a problem for a 300mm prime?
If 10 is perfect, and nobody is perfect in this world i'd give you a 9/10.
10 out of 10
Great
ok so why dont we have a diffraction corrector after the light wave has been diffracted ?
Shooting at F22 produced very sharp images with slides and film. Why does it do the opposite with digital?
and on macro lens ?
10!
how can i change or remove diffraction
Whats this guys name, I don't see it posted anywhere, he seems to know his stuff.
Malaysian content creator.. WOW
I appreciate the explanation, but I was bit distracted by your speech pattern. You tend to say "actually" quite often. Nonetheless, 9/10. Cheers! :)
6/10
This is good explained but doesn’t it depend on lens-layout and sensor-size?
On an 8x10 Camera using f64 is not a bad Choice and every lens hast it’s "sweet spot".
10/10
10.5/10
8
wot? is light waves?
I can't help but wonder how Ansel Adams and Group f/64 managed to avoid diffraction.. his prints were incredible sharp.
Because, obviously, he normally shot on a very large format camera (8" x 10" was certainly a favourite) and not 35mm, or at least not until quite late in his career. The relative "sensor sizes" (read 'film or ground glass plate area' for Ansel's technologies) are then significantly different. And digital sensors have higher resolution capabilities today. But you need to ask someone with more concrete knowledge of the relative "sensor" sizes between digital and the old black and white technologies to get a better understanding of this difference.
@@dee9692 perhaps not as obvious to me.. the generalities of sensor vs. film size make some sense but I'm seeking specifics on why/how the aperture opening causes diffraction differently for different formats.
Aperture is a calculation of diameter and focal length, and in turn focal length is relative to the format, so they aren't constant across different formats. An 8x10 camera shooting at 210mm f/64 will give you the same depth of field and angle of view as a 28mm f/8 on a full frame camera. More likely you'd encounter this change the other way around with a crop sensor camera: a 50mm lens on a crop sensor gives an equivalent view of an 80mm lens on full frame.
10
9👍
7/10
Ten
Can I give 11/10?
You have nicely explained what and under what apertures one might expect to suffer from meaningful diffraction but... *you haven't "explained diffraction"*. If you are interested, here is a nice explanation: docs.google.com/file/d/0B6w2XfPHEcZYUENBSm1ZbGNBUHc/view, starting at ca. 43:30
10/10 explanation!
Shooting at F22 produced very sharp images with slides and film. Why does it do the opposite with digital?
10/10
8
10
10