Great overview. There is another technique, of course, and that’s tilt/shift/swing, to actually move the focal plane to intersect with the areas of critical focus. For full frame systems, however, there are just not that many lens options, and what options there are have limited movements, and rarely have autofocus, so may not be good for action. One can invest in technical systems like Cambo and gain plenty of movement options, but that is expensive and bulky so best used in static work.
I thought u would be lecturing about photography and lenses but it was about wave-cancellation pattern education! Very good video about the experiment! Thanks! I got it all ! Super thanks! Love it!
The video’s content is truly enlightening. It presents complex ideas in a way that is readily understandable, making it a valuable resource for anyone interested in the topic, which still has many question marks.
Yes. All other things being equal, the bigger the aperture, the smaller the airy disk, and the higher the resolving power. Of course, depth of field is a limiting factor, but for infinity shots, wide open is theoretically your sharpest aperture. Unfortunately, few photographic lenses are actually diffraction limited, but some expensive ones are close to it.
Impressive video in so many ways ! I've tried pin hole / camera obscura on my FF Sony, and the results are, well, artistic if I'm being generous. Never occurred to me that diffraction is mega, when having an aperture value of 120.
Karl Taylor with the script writer! Great video. Whether is a singular component or a combination of chromatic aberration, heat wave distortion, I get bad fuzziness when using a 2x converter on a 400mm during the middle of the day. Can really only use it for certain distances like getting a picture of a players face during the game or maybe just getting their whole body in frame. Anything farther than that it can get pretty fuzzy. But once it gets later in the day towards evening it can still be really good optically. And don't have a problem indoors. I guess it's the amount of UV light because if it's during the time of day when you need to squint, then the photos suffer. If you don't have to squint, they'll be okay.
(Looks at the thumbnail) "Oh, is that Karl Taylor? Explaining diffraction? He's gonna do a pretty good job, I haven't watched anything from him in a couple of years but he always went in depth and with great knowledge. Surely his style and presentation haven't changed a little-"
You did such a Phenomenal job on this video, you kept reminding of David Attenborough narrating one of his nature documentaries. Absolutely Phenomenal Video!!! You Knocked it Out The Park, I was Literally Stunned!!!
I always wondered, if the soft edge aperture has been tried out by lens manufacturers. There are APO lenses, with "fully soft aperture" and the hard ones only, but no real in between. Also, how are phone images so sharp, despite having such big handicaps: physically small sensor, small lens and slow aperture?
Wow, this is shot like a TV program, varied scenes, nicely scripted, cool little flourishes like the manikin arms falling at the conclusion of the sentence in that one scene. As for the topic, you mentioned focus stacking as a solution. I seem to understand that Macro lenses (with size and relatively 'meh' max aperature settings for their respective focal lengths compared to higher end primes in the same focal length) solve lots of these issues with aberrations. One thing I don't get is how does focus stacking software cope with high quantity stacks (50+ images or more for very small macro work), when shifting focus introduces DISGUSTING levels of focus breathing? Nothing breathes as bad as these macro lenses. How does this get fixed by focus stacking software where the entire composition changes?
If diffraction in a lens is due to the aperture being a knife edged hole, could this be mitigated by thickening the aperture so the light travels through a short tunnel of sorts?
Great video. But I am usually shooting my pictures wide open, trying to achieve the shallowest depth of field possible. I wonder if you would be better off shooting with a smaller lens rather than stopping down a large fast lens. The technical lens reviews I watch often state that refraction becomes involved at anything over f11, and with the high quality lenses the image is actually sharper at f8. If you are doing the complex focus stacking, why go all the way down to f16?
Hi, I do most of my focus stacking at f11 as I always run my own tests on all my lenses to see where diffraction becomes an issue, on my lenses f11 is still excellent so I benefit from the slightly greater DOF for the focus stack (less shots needed).
The problems of diffraction are reduced when the format is larger as explained in one of the graphics in this video. When I used to shoot 5x4 film I could be shooting f32. If you look back to even larger formats such as 10x8 film then again the format is bigger so the relative diffraction is less.
Although I know what diffraction is, I absolutely ignore it when I need it. A softer image vs no image is always better. If I'm somewhere and I want to play as a landscape photographer, I'd compensate with the narrowest aperture I have available to counteract the lack of an ND filter.
Well doesn't this just bring back the days when I would end up telling my son "Because the laws of physics are spoiled little brats who always get their way". lol.
Damn Karl, i learned so much from you 9-10 years ago but my interests shifted and i stopped watching. When this video popped up today i had to click it to visit my teacher. And oh damn your content changed a lot. Although it is cool it feels like its aimed at young audience and not presented in pure format like you used to do. If it had to change to grow on youtube i fully support you! But if not less animations wouldnt hurt. Wish you all sucess!
Hey Karl, perfect explanation. Before I became photographer, I studied engineering, my hobbies are physics and mathematics and I 100% enjoyed this video.
@@VisualEducationStudio Same for me, I am a grad student in a Ultrafast laser lab as well as a photographer and few have put it better. I even got into a whole debate with my Fourier optics professor about the lens sweet spot because he argued that wider aperture is always better, which is true based on the diffraction limit for ideal imaging systems, but not when you consider aberrations. I feel that my technical background has served me well in my photography and really is crucial for getting the absolute most out of my equipment. I cannot emphasis how articulate this video was for people of all backgrounds, providing great value without getting lost in the weeds. I hope to publish a video like this one but on the subject of the 500 rule and NPF rule for astrophotography, and this will be the standard I aim for. Cheers!
Diffraction is one of the bigger scapegoats for photographers, in a strong field. For 99% of you, your uninspired metaphorical eye is what is ruining your images. Focus is probably second, and a distant one at that. I'll agree that provided everything else is already optimised, it does start to matter. In any case, this is a fantastic description of how diffraction occurs.
Good explanation. Since the size of the aperture at f16 on a 50mm is smaller than a 200mm f16, would the 200mm escape diffraction, since the f16 size is much bigger. It could be like a f8 size on a 50mm where there is no diffraction on the 50mm. Your feedback on this would be appreciated.
3:18 Hey, your tripod is not good! No collars must be on spikes - otherwise they don't work on grass or fallen leaves. Thw whole structure will shake a bit. It's like diffraction limit.
It is what makes stunning lenses of yesteryear completely useless now that we finally have higher rez sensors. If only we stayed with 3.5mpx sensors…. But now according to some idiot experts my old 400L 5.6 is completely worthless on my R7…NOT!
Great production. One side note: sensor resolution / pixel size doesn't contribute to diffraction, but it can contribute to making it visible. A higher resolution just means you are making those smaller visual artifacts, which were already there, visible. In other words, increasing the resolution of the sensor above its diffraction limited aperture doesn't REDUCE sharpness over the lower resolution sensor - but it also doesn't increase the resolving power, because the image is diffraction limited. When the image is NOT diffraction limited, i.e. when using a large enough aperture, using a higher resolution sensor DOES increase its sharpness or resolving power.
Hi Karl with the post processing technique of selectively adjusting the image, could you then potentially shoot at the max or near max aperture setting for the deepest DOF possible? That we would/do see a deeper DOF in the image than if we stop before diffraction typically sets in and any blurriness from diffraction as a result of increasing the aperture to max/near max would be “corrected” via software?
Se é assim, como explicar as estupendas fotos do Ansel Adams, geralmente feitas com aberturas menores que f22? (Formato grande? , Objetivas com poucos elementos ópticos?) No mais, magistral e agradabilíssima matéria!
Yes a photophrapher should know that but optimal optical performance does not necessarily mean optimal aesthetic performance - except for scientific, object and military purposes. So keeping such laws in mind the artistic feeling should guide the photographer....
Just shut your eye lids to a minimum and you will simulate diffraction in real time :) i shot an XCD 80mm at f32 for hasselblad masters and find the results acceptable... Even though it didnt make the finals but the shot didnt work in any other way, it had to have the maximum D.o.f..
At reasonable f-stop, diffraction limits are usually way smaller than the pixel pitch. The takaway of this video is: don't use unreasonably small aperature when taking photos.
You didn't go into Nyquist theorem and its effect on sampling rates near enough. Focal length, aperture, and individual pixel size for each specific wavelength all play a role in critical sampling rates to achieve max angular resolution.
