Do f-stop and exposure time perfectly cancel?
I am photographing a scene with white and black elements in it. Starting at the f/22 stop, I increase the aperture one stop and decrease the exposure time by a factor of 2, take a picture, and keep doing this for all the f-stops on the lens. My expectation is that raw counts should stay the same inside a white region or a black region since halving the exposure time compensates for increasing the aperture. But when I select a white region and average its pixel raw counts for each image, there is variability between the images (the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean). Same thing if I select and average a black region. I am not knowingly changing anything else (illumination, camera position), and the camera is a scientific CMOS. What could be causing this variation: noise, or something more systematic?
exposure aperture
add a comment |
I am photographing a scene with white and black elements in it. Starting at the f/22 stop, I increase the aperture one stop and decrease the exposure time by a factor of 2, take a picture, and keep doing this for all the f-stops on the lens. My expectation is that raw counts should stay the same inside a white region or a black region since halving the exposure time compensates for increasing the aperture. But when I select a white region and average its pixel raw counts for each image, there is variability between the images (the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean). Same thing if I select and average a black region. I am not knowingly changing anything else (illumination, camera position), and the camera is a scientific CMOS. What could be causing this variation: noise, or something more systematic?
exposure aperture
1
What is the lens? Is it also designed for scientific purposes? If so, does it come with a datasheet listing tolerances, or can you get that from the manufacturer?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I am photographing a scene with white and black elements in it. Starting at the f/22 stop, I increase the aperture one stop and decrease the exposure time by a factor of 2, take a picture, and keep doing this for all the f-stops on the lens. My expectation is that raw counts should stay the same inside a white region or a black region since halving the exposure time compensates for increasing the aperture. But when I select a white region and average its pixel raw counts for each image, there is variability between the images (the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean). Same thing if I select and average a black region. I am not knowingly changing anything else (illumination, camera position), and the camera is a scientific CMOS. What could be causing this variation: noise, or something more systematic?
exposure aperture
I am photographing a scene with white and black elements in it. Starting at the f/22 stop, I increase the aperture one stop and decrease the exposure time by a factor of 2, take a picture, and keep doing this for all the f-stops on the lens. My expectation is that raw counts should stay the same inside a white region or a black region since halving the exposure time compensates for increasing the aperture. But when I select a white region and average its pixel raw counts for each image, there is variability between the images (the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean). Same thing if I select and average a black region. I am not knowingly changing anything else (illumination, camera position), and the camera is a scientific CMOS. What could be causing this variation: noise, or something more systematic?
exposure aperture
exposure aperture
edited 3 hours ago
KAE
asked 5 hours ago
KAEKAE
20217
20217
1
What is the lens? Is it also designed for scientific purposes? If so, does it come with a datasheet listing tolerances, or can you get that from the manufacturer?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
What is the lens? Is it also designed for scientific purposes? If so, does it come with a datasheet listing tolerances, or can you get that from the manufacturer?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
1
1
What is the lens? Is it also designed for scientific purposes? If so, does it come with a datasheet listing tolerances, or can you get that from the manufacturer?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
What is the lens? Is it also designed for scientific purposes? If so, does it come with a datasheet listing tolerances, or can you get that from the manufacturer?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
This is normal behavior, caused by:
- Imperfections of aperture. Usually there are variations from
technology process which cause not to have exact size of the hole.
On 50mm lens f4 you should have 12.5mm opening, but it can be 12.4mm
or 12.6mm - Imperfections in shutter speed. The shutter is also mechanical unit
and based on some factors as temperature, how precise are the blades
and other elements inside, speed will be not 1/100s but can be
1/110s or 1/90s. - The same is true about the sensor itself (from electronic point of
view)
At the end even two consecutive photos can have different (slightly) exposure.
And add fluctuation of your illumination source...
So 'noise' and not something systematic. That makes sense.
– KAE
4 hours ago
@KAE, you can name it noise :) There are so many variables so at the end it is random
– Romeo Ninov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The short answer is yes... they cancel. But there are some nuances.
Each time the diameter of a circle increases (or decreases) by a factor equal to the square root of 2 (approximately 1.4) the area of that circle is exactly doubled (or halved if decreased). The f-stop numbers are all based on powers of the square root of 2 (e.g. f/1 = √2^0; f/1.4 = √2^1; f/2 = √2^2; f/2.8 = √2^3; etc.)
Shutter exposures are more intuitive. 1/500th sec is obviously half as long as 1/250th sec, etc.
The nuances:
Cameras do a bit of rounding. E.g. if you have a 100mm lens it's probably not precisely 100mm (but it's probably not far off) and as you refocus, the lens may do a bit of focus breathing (for a good lens that stays with 5% of the stated focal length ... but some lenses have rather strong focus-breathing issues ... e.g. 30%. When this happens, it means the f-stop isn't strictly accurate.
F-stops aren't strictly accurate as it is. But they are "close enough" that the margin of error wont impact the exposure in a noticeable way.
There are other issues. When you shoot heavily stopped down (e.g. f/22), all light comes from a very small area near the center of the lens axis and is distributed across the sensor more evenly. When you shoot wide-open, light comes from a wide range of angles. Areas of the sensor near the center can collect light from many angles, but areas of the sensor near an edge or corner are more limited on the number of paths light can take through the lens to reach that particular spot. This results in vignetting. So while you can take two photos using "equivalent exposures" (trading a stop of aperture for a stop of shutter duration), changes in vignetting patterns can cause pixels to have a different amount of collected light depending on the pixel you choose to inspect.
While this is a good answer, where are you getting the numbers for focus breathing from?
– Hairy Dresden
3 hours ago
@Hairy Dresdon, just reviews of various lenses. But these are tests you can also do yourself. E.g. while looking through a viewfinder (or even in live-view) run the focus through the full range and watch the field of view change. You can can also use calculators (like this one: tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ) to work out the true focal length (relative to what it should be). There are a few lenses that have reputations for being "heavy breathers".
– Tim Campbell
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In theory, yes — stops are interchangeable. In practice, they do not perfectly cancel to perfect precision.
the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean
In photographic terms, this is basically nothing. It is far below human perception, and even when the difference is noticeable, the generally-expected workflow involves working with each image individually, so the photographer can compensate either in the field or in post-production.
Cameras meant for photography are not measuring devices; using them as such is setting yourself up for disappointment. Making the devices much more precise would be a lot more expensive and provide no benefit for the target market. Even if you have a camera made for scientific purposes, these particular tolerances might not be within the relevant area of concern.
If you're trying to get perfection for something like a time-lapse or another series of photos, post-processing to even out the fluctuations is your best bet.
1
Good idea to even out the fluctuations - maybe I will take a lot of frames and average the pixel values.
– KAE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
With regard to systematic problems: you are taking into account that with opening up the aperture depth of focus decreases and thus the borders of out-of-focus scene parts blur? Also with small apertures you might get some blurring due to diffraction.
If you have a mechanical shutter, you actually can get diffraction with large apertures from the resulting short shutter times when a significant amount of the exposure time is spent near at least one of the shutter curtains moving across.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105839%2fdo-f-stop-and-exposure-time-perfectly-cancel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is normal behavior, caused by:
- Imperfections of aperture. Usually there are variations from
technology process which cause not to have exact size of the hole.
On 50mm lens f4 you should have 12.5mm opening, but it can be 12.4mm
or 12.6mm - Imperfections in shutter speed. The shutter is also mechanical unit
and based on some factors as temperature, how precise are the blades
and other elements inside, speed will be not 1/100s but can be
1/110s or 1/90s. - The same is true about the sensor itself (from electronic point of
view)
At the end even two consecutive photos can have different (slightly) exposure.
And add fluctuation of your illumination source...
So 'noise' and not something systematic. That makes sense.
– KAE
4 hours ago
@KAE, you can name it noise :) There are so many variables so at the end it is random
– Romeo Ninov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This is normal behavior, caused by:
- Imperfections of aperture. Usually there are variations from
technology process which cause not to have exact size of the hole.
On 50mm lens f4 you should have 12.5mm opening, but it can be 12.4mm
or 12.6mm - Imperfections in shutter speed. The shutter is also mechanical unit
and based on some factors as temperature, how precise are the blades
and other elements inside, speed will be not 1/100s but can be
1/110s or 1/90s. - The same is true about the sensor itself (from electronic point of
view)
At the end even two consecutive photos can have different (slightly) exposure.
And add fluctuation of your illumination source...
So 'noise' and not something systematic. That makes sense.
– KAE
4 hours ago
@KAE, you can name it noise :) There are so many variables so at the end it is random
– Romeo Ninov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This is normal behavior, caused by:
- Imperfections of aperture. Usually there are variations from
technology process which cause not to have exact size of the hole.
On 50mm lens f4 you should have 12.5mm opening, but it can be 12.4mm
or 12.6mm - Imperfections in shutter speed. The shutter is also mechanical unit
and based on some factors as temperature, how precise are the blades
and other elements inside, speed will be not 1/100s but can be
1/110s or 1/90s. - The same is true about the sensor itself (from electronic point of
view)
At the end even two consecutive photos can have different (slightly) exposure.
And add fluctuation of your illumination source...
This is normal behavior, caused by:
- Imperfections of aperture. Usually there are variations from
technology process which cause not to have exact size of the hole.
On 50mm lens f4 you should have 12.5mm opening, but it can be 12.4mm
or 12.6mm - Imperfections in shutter speed. The shutter is also mechanical unit
and based on some factors as temperature, how precise are the blades
and other elements inside, speed will be not 1/100s but can be
1/110s or 1/90s. - The same is true about the sensor itself (from electronic point of
view)
At the end even two consecutive photos can have different (slightly) exposure.
And add fluctuation of your illumination source...
answered 5 hours ago
Romeo NinovRomeo Ninov
3,74931226
3,74931226
So 'noise' and not something systematic. That makes sense.
– KAE
4 hours ago
@KAE, you can name it noise :) There are so many variables so at the end it is random
– Romeo Ninov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
So 'noise' and not something systematic. That makes sense.
– KAE
4 hours ago
@KAE, you can name it noise :) There are so many variables so at the end it is random
– Romeo Ninov
4 hours ago
So 'noise' and not something systematic. That makes sense.
– KAE
4 hours ago
So 'noise' and not something systematic. That makes sense.
– KAE
4 hours ago
@KAE, you can name it noise :) There are so many variables so at the end it is random
– Romeo Ninov
4 hours ago
@KAE, you can name it noise :) There are so many variables so at the end it is random
– Romeo Ninov
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The short answer is yes... they cancel. But there are some nuances.
Each time the diameter of a circle increases (or decreases) by a factor equal to the square root of 2 (approximately 1.4) the area of that circle is exactly doubled (or halved if decreased). The f-stop numbers are all based on powers of the square root of 2 (e.g. f/1 = √2^0; f/1.4 = √2^1; f/2 = √2^2; f/2.8 = √2^3; etc.)
Shutter exposures are more intuitive. 1/500th sec is obviously half as long as 1/250th sec, etc.
The nuances:
Cameras do a bit of rounding. E.g. if you have a 100mm lens it's probably not precisely 100mm (but it's probably not far off) and as you refocus, the lens may do a bit of focus breathing (for a good lens that stays with 5% of the stated focal length ... but some lenses have rather strong focus-breathing issues ... e.g. 30%. When this happens, it means the f-stop isn't strictly accurate.
F-stops aren't strictly accurate as it is. But they are "close enough" that the margin of error wont impact the exposure in a noticeable way.
There are other issues. When you shoot heavily stopped down (e.g. f/22), all light comes from a very small area near the center of the lens axis and is distributed across the sensor more evenly. When you shoot wide-open, light comes from a wide range of angles. Areas of the sensor near the center can collect light from many angles, but areas of the sensor near an edge or corner are more limited on the number of paths light can take through the lens to reach that particular spot. This results in vignetting. So while you can take two photos using "equivalent exposures" (trading a stop of aperture for a stop of shutter duration), changes in vignetting patterns can cause pixels to have a different amount of collected light depending on the pixel you choose to inspect.
While this is a good answer, where are you getting the numbers for focus breathing from?
– Hairy Dresden
3 hours ago
@Hairy Dresdon, just reviews of various lenses. But these are tests you can also do yourself. E.g. while looking through a viewfinder (or even in live-view) run the focus through the full range and watch the field of view change. You can can also use calculators (like this one: tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ) to work out the true focal length (relative to what it should be). There are a few lenses that have reputations for being "heavy breathers".
– Tim Campbell
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The short answer is yes... they cancel. But there are some nuances.
Each time the diameter of a circle increases (or decreases) by a factor equal to the square root of 2 (approximately 1.4) the area of that circle is exactly doubled (or halved if decreased). The f-stop numbers are all based on powers of the square root of 2 (e.g. f/1 = √2^0; f/1.4 = √2^1; f/2 = √2^2; f/2.8 = √2^3; etc.)
Shutter exposures are more intuitive. 1/500th sec is obviously half as long as 1/250th sec, etc.
The nuances:
Cameras do a bit of rounding. E.g. if you have a 100mm lens it's probably not precisely 100mm (but it's probably not far off) and as you refocus, the lens may do a bit of focus breathing (for a good lens that stays with 5% of the stated focal length ... but some lenses have rather strong focus-breathing issues ... e.g. 30%. When this happens, it means the f-stop isn't strictly accurate.
F-stops aren't strictly accurate as it is. But they are "close enough" that the margin of error wont impact the exposure in a noticeable way.
There are other issues. When you shoot heavily stopped down (e.g. f/22), all light comes from a very small area near the center of the lens axis and is distributed across the sensor more evenly. When you shoot wide-open, light comes from a wide range of angles. Areas of the sensor near the center can collect light from many angles, but areas of the sensor near an edge or corner are more limited on the number of paths light can take through the lens to reach that particular spot. This results in vignetting. So while you can take two photos using "equivalent exposures" (trading a stop of aperture for a stop of shutter duration), changes in vignetting patterns can cause pixels to have a different amount of collected light depending on the pixel you choose to inspect.
While this is a good answer, where are you getting the numbers for focus breathing from?
– Hairy Dresden
3 hours ago
@Hairy Dresdon, just reviews of various lenses. But these are tests you can also do yourself. E.g. while looking through a viewfinder (or even in live-view) run the focus through the full range and watch the field of view change. You can can also use calculators (like this one: tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ) to work out the true focal length (relative to what it should be). There are a few lenses that have reputations for being "heavy breathers".
– Tim Campbell
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The short answer is yes... they cancel. But there are some nuances.
Each time the diameter of a circle increases (or decreases) by a factor equal to the square root of 2 (approximately 1.4) the area of that circle is exactly doubled (or halved if decreased). The f-stop numbers are all based on powers of the square root of 2 (e.g. f/1 = √2^0; f/1.4 = √2^1; f/2 = √2^2; f/2.8 = √2^3; etc.)
Shutter exposures are more intuitive. 1/500th sec is obviously half as long as 1/250th sec, etc.
The nuances:
Cameras do a bit of rounding. E.g. if you have a 100mm lens it's probably not precisely 100mm (but it's probably not far off) and as you refocus, the lens may do a bit of focus breathing (for a good lens that stays with 5% of the stated focal length ... but some lenses have rather strong focus-breathing issues ... e.g. 30%. When this happens, it means the f-stop isn't strictly accurate.
F-stops aren't strictly accurate as it is. But they are "close enough" that the margin of error wont impact the exposure in a noticeable way.
There are other issues. When you shoot heavily stopped down (e.g. f/22), all light comes from a very small area near the center of the lens axis and is distributed across the sensor more evenly. When you shoot wide-open, light comes from a wide range of angles. Areas of the sensor near the center can collect light from many angles, but areas of the sensor near an edge or corner are more limited on the number of paths light can take through the lens to reach that particular spot. This results in vignetting. So while you can take two photos using "equivalent exposures" (trading a stop of aperture for a stop of shutter duration), changes in vignetting patterns can cause pixels to have a different amount of collected light depending on the pixel you choose to inspect.
The short answer is yes... they cancel. But there are some nuances.
Each time the diameter of a circle increases (or decreases) by a factor equal to the square root of 2 (approximately 1.4) the area of that circle is exactly doubled (or halved if decreased). The f-stop numbers are all based on powers of the square root of 2 (e.g. f/1 = √2^0; f/1.4 = √2^1; f/2 = √2^2; f/2.8 = √2^3; etc.)
Shutter exposures are more intuitive. 1/500th sec is obviously half as long as 1/250th sec, etc.
The nuances:
Cameras do a bit of rounding. E.g. if you have a 100mm lens it's probably not precisely 100mm (but it's probably not far off) and as you refocus, the lens may do a bit of focus breathing (for a good lens that stays with 5% of the stated focal length ... but some lenses have rather strong focus-breathing issues ... e.g. 30%. When this happens, it means the f-stop isn't strictly accurate.
F-stops aren't strictly accurate as it is. But they are "close enough" that the margin of error wont impact the exposure in a noticeable way.
There are other issues. When you shoot heavily stopped down (e.g. f/22), all light comes from a very small area near the center of the lens axis and is distributed across the sensor more evenly. When you shoot wide-open, light comes from a wide range of angles. Areas of the sensor near the center can collect light from many angles, but areas of the sensor near an edge or corner are more limited on the number of paths light can take through the lens to reach that particular spot. This results in vignetting. So while you can take two photos using "equivalent exposures" (trading a stop of aperture for a stop of shutter duration), changes in vignetting patterns can cause pixels to have a different amount of collected light depending on the pixel you choose to inspect.
answered 5 hours ago
Tim CampbellTim Campbell
813
813
While this is a good answer, where are you getting the numbers for focus breathing from?
– Hairy Dresden
3 hours ago
@Hairy Dresdon, just reviews of various lenses. But these are tests you can also do yourself. E.g. while looking through a viewfinder (or even in live-view) run the focus through the full range and watch the field of view change. You can can also use calculators (like this one: tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ) to work out the true focal length (relative to what it should be). There are a few lenses that have reputations for being "heavy breathers".
– Tim Campbell
2 hours ago
add a comment |
While this is a good answer, where are you getting the numbers for focus breathing from?
– Hairy Dresden
3 hours ago
@Hairy Dresdon, just reviews of various lenses. But these are tests you can also do yourself. E.g. while looking through a viewfinder (or even in live-view) run the focus through the full range and watch the field of view change. You can can also use calculators (like this one: tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ) to work out the true focal length (relative to what it should be). There are a few lenses that have reputations for being "heavy breathers".
– Tim Campbell
2 hours ago
While this is a good answer, where are you getting the numbers for focus breathing from?
– Hairy Dresden
3 hours ago
While this is a good answer, where are you getting the numbers for focus breathing from?
– Hairy Dresden
3 hours ago
@Hairy Dresdon, just reviews of various lenses. But these are tests you can also do yourself. E.g. while looking through a viewfinder (or even in live-view) run the focus through the full range and watch the field of view change. You can can also use calculators (like this one: tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ) to work out the true focal length (relative to what it should be). There are a few lenses that have reputations for being "heavy breathers".
– Tim Campbell
2 hours ago
@Hairy Dresdon, just reviews of various lenses. But these are tests you can also do yourself. E.g. while looking through a viewfinder (or even in live-view) run the focus through the full range and watch the field of view change. You can can also use calculators (like this one: tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ) to work out the true focal length (relative to what it should be). There are a few lenses that have reputations for being "heavy breathers".
– Tim Campbell
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In theory, yes — stops are interchangeable. In practice, they do not perfectly cancel to perfect precision.
the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean
In photographic terms, this is basically nothing. It is far below human perception, and even when the difference is noticeable, the generally-expected workflow involves working with each image individually, so the photographer can compensate either in the field or in post-production.
Cameras meant for photography are not measuring devices; using them as such is setting yourself up for disappointment. Making the devices much more precise would be a lot more expensive and provide no benefit for the target market. Even if you have a camera made for scientific purposes, these particular tolerances might not be within the relevant area of concern.
If you're trying to get perfection for something like a time-lapse or another series of photos, post-processing to even out the fluctuations is your best bet.
1
Good idea to even out the fluctuations - maybe I will take a lot of frames and average the pixel values.
– KAE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
In theory, yes — stops are interchangeable. In practice, they do not perfectly cancel to perfect precision.
the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean
In photographic terms, this is basically nothing. It is far below human perception, and even when the difference is noticeable, the generally-expected workflow involves working with each image individually, so the photographer can compensate either in the field or in post-production.
Cameras meant for photography are not measuring devices; using them as such is setting yourself up for disappointment. Making the devices much more precise would be a lot more expensive and provide no benefit for the target market. Even if you have a camera made for scientific purposes, these particular tolerances might not be within the relevant area of concern.
If you're trying to get perfection for something like a time-lapse or another series of photos, post-processing to even out the fluctuations is your best bet.
1
Good idea to even out the fluctuations - maybe I will take a lot of frames and average the pixel values.
– KAE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
In theory, yes — stops are interchangeable. In practice, they do not perfectly cancel to perfect precision.
the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean
In photographic terms, this is basically nothing. It is far below human perception, and even when the difference is noticeable, the generally-expected workflow involves working with each image individually, so the photographer can compensate either in the field or in post-production.
Cameras meant for photography are not measuring devices; using them as such is setting yourself up for disappointment. Making the devices much more precise would be a lot more expensive and provide no benefit for the target market. Even if you have a camera made for scientific purposes, these particular tolerances might not be within the relevant area of concern.
If you're trying to get perfection for something like a time-lapse or another series of photos, post-processing to even out the fluctuations is your best bet.
In theory, yes — stops are interchangeable. In practice, they do not perfectly cancel to perfect precision.
the standard deviation of the raw counts is ~5% of the mean
In photographic terms, this is basically nothing. It is far below human perception, and even when the difference is noticeable, the generally-expected workflow involves working with each image individually, so the photographer can compensate either in the field or in post-production.
Cameras meant for photography are not measuring devices; using them as such is setting yourself up for disappointment. Making the devices much more precise would be a lot more expensive and provide no benefit for the target market. Even if you have a camera made for scientific purposes, these particular tolerances might not be within the relevant area of concern.
If you're trying to get perfection for something like a time-lapse or another series of photos, post-processing to even out the fluctuations is your best bet.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 4 hours ago
mattdmmattdm
121k40356650
121k40356650
1
Good idea to even out the fluctuations - maybe I will take a lot of frames and average the pixel values.
– KAE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Good idea to even out the fluctuations - maybe I will take a lot of frames and average the pixel values.
– KAE
4 hours ago
1
1
Good idea to even out the fluctuations - maybe I will take a lot of frames and average the pixel values.
– KAE
4 hours ago
Good idea to even out the fluctuations - maybe I will take a lot of frames and average the pixel values.
– KAE
4 hours ago
add a comment |
With regard to systematic problems: you are taking into account that with opening up the aperture depth of focus decreases and thus the borders of out-of-focus scene parts blur? Also with small apertures you might get some blurring due to diffraction.
If you have a mechanical shutter, you actually can get diffraction with large apertures from the resulting short shutter times when a significant amount of the exposure time is spent near at least one of the shutter curtains moving across.
New contributor
add a comment |
With regard to systematic problems: you are taking into account that with opening up the aperture depth of focus decreases and thus the borders of out-of-focus scene parts blur? Also with small apertures you might get some blurring due to diffraction.
If you have a mechanical shutter, you actually can get diffraction with large apertures from the resulting short shutter times when a significant amount of the exposure time is spent near at least one of the shutter curtains moving across.
New contributor
add a comment |
With regard to systematic problems: you are taking into account that with opening up the aperture depth of focus decreases and thus the borders of out-of-focus scene parts blur? Also with small apertures you might get some blurring due to diffraction.
If you have a mechanical shutter, you actually can get diffraction with large apertures from the resulting short shutter times when a significant amount of the exposure time is spent near at least one of the shutter curtains moving across.
New contributor
With regard to systematic problems: you are taking into account that with opening up the aperture depth of focus decreases and thus the borders of out-of-focus scene parts blur? Also with small apertures you might get some blurring due to diffraction.
If you have a mechanical shutter, you actually can get diffraction with large apertures from the resulting short shutter times when a significant amount of the exposure time is spent near at least one of the shutter curtains moving across.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 16 mins ago
user82603user82603
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105839%2fdo-f-stop-and-exposure-time-perfectly-cancel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
What is the lens? Is it also designed for scientific purposes? If so, does it come with a datasheet listing tolerances, or can you get that from the manufacturer?
– mattdm
2 hours ago