Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] SHARPNESS (long!)
From: Alexey Merz <alexey@webcom.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:18:12 +0000

PSchiemer@aol.com wrote:

[lots snipped, mostly about how much better off we'd be if we stuck
to describing lens performance in terms of resolution, evaluated in
line pairs per unit of linear distance...]

>Everybody gets better, gray area fades and contrast gets brighter.

Contrast, ah yes. THAT is a (not "the") crux of the matter, as 
Erwin Puts has pointed out so clearly, over and over. As Erwin 
points out, the old DR Summicron 50 can resolve well over 100 
lp/mm but the Summicron-M is a much better performer, due in 
large measure to its superior contrast at 10-20 lp/mm. See, for 
discussion:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/r/tests/r14-50.html

As a biologist whose professional work revolves around optical 
microscopy, perhaps I can add to this discussion. With the 
green light that's often used, an optical microscope with 
perfect diffraction-limited optics can resolve two points about 
1 x 10^-7 m apart. 

But we can *detect* structures substantially smaller than this. 
In fact it is easy to detect polymeric protein filaments that 
are 0.06 x 10^-7 m in diameter. With more sensitive detectors, 
single molecules of the jellyfish green fluorescent protein 
(yes, that is what it is called) can be detected by optical
microscopes. And needless to say, our microscopes are *not*
diffraction limited. 

The critical issue here is signal-to-noise ratio, or effective
contrast. For this reason almost all very high resolution 
microscopy is now done with fluorescent stains that emit
light, rather than with absorptive stains. Flourescent stains
simply have a far higher SNR, allowing us to detect (and resolve)
much smaller structures. Furthermore, SNR is the reason why 
so many biologists lust after $200,000 laser scanning confocal
microscopes that have linear resolution no better than is achieved
with typical $20,000 research microscopes. The confocal 'scopes
allow the researcher to exclude out-of-focus information, resulting
in dramatic increases in contrast. For an example of a fluorescently
stained sample imaged using an ON TOPIC Leica confocal laser scanning
microscope, see: 

http://www.webcom.com/alexey/news.html

High resolution is a desirable parameter in a camera lens but 
it is by no means the only, or even the most important, parameter. 
Resolution is necessary, but it is not sufficient! Contrast, 
distortion, tonality, and rendering of out-of-focus information
all are significant contributors, but a lp/mm figure explicitly 
addresses none of these qualities. Maybe that's one reason why
people in this forum don't generally rely on lp/mm figures 
as the ultimate arbiters of image quality?
..........................................................................
Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: alexey@webcom.com