The MTF curves I've seen recently for the inspec and other lenses here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=29363
are confusing me more than MTF curves usually do.
Is there a standard for stating magnification? What do these mean?
-0.5
0.5
-3.5
Why is it stated in that post that -0.5 is the same as 0.5 and is 1/2x magnification? What does the "-" mean?This is extremely confusing and I finally decided to ask.
I do understand the basics of MTF so don't try to explain frequency or modulation. I just want to know about how the quantities are reported in the graphs, and how to interpret them.
This may be explained in an FAQ but I've read about a dozen explanations of MTF but not a single one talks about negative magnification.
I have further issues with curves I've seen and will probably ask in this thread.
MTF curves
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 3438
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Negative magnification just reflects the fact that the projected image is inverted.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification#Photography for some discussion.
Note that the use of negative magnification differs between communities and can be a source of great confusion when reading the other group's papers. For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture#Working (effective) f-number , the formulas simply give the wrong answers if you plug in positive magnifications instead of the negative ones that are expected.
--Rik
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification#Photography for some discussion.
Note that the use of negative magnification differs between communities and can be a source of great confusion when reading the other group's papers. For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture#Working (effective) f-number , the formulas simply give the wrong answers if you plug in positive magnifications instead of the negative ones that are expected.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 3438
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
So does this mean the inspec lens quoted in my link above does not invert the image? Or is Linos/Rodenstock just being inconsistent/sloppy?rjlittlefield wrote:Negative magnification just reflects the fact that the projected image is inverted.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification#Photography for some discussion.
Note that the use of negative magnification differs between communities and can be a source of great confusion when reading the other group's papers.
...
--Rik
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Schneider Kreuznach uses the same system of negative values for ß' (magnification). Now I am curious.rjlittlefield wrote:I'd go with inconsistent/sloppy. It's weird to see such inconsistency in two graphs that look like they came from the same source & setup, but I don't know how else to explain the discrepancy.
--Rik