Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

mtf and perceived sharpness

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Marc Wossner - 29 Jan 2007 13:47 GMT
Hi, I´m a bit confused about mtf curves and perceived sharpness
because I found seemingly contradicting statements. Some texts say
that perceived sharpness correlates best with the 50% value of the mtf
(where contrast has dropped by half) and others state that the
important values for perceived image sharpness are between 0,5 and 2
line pairs per mm at a viewing distance of 13,5 inches. Are those
values related to each other (and is it due to my minor knowledge that
I do not see that) or are they really in conflict?

Thanks for your input!
Marc
otisbrown@pa.net - 29 Jan 2007 15:03 GMT
Clarification for the reader:

M.T.F = Modulation Transfer Function.

Otis

> Hi, I´m a bit confused about mtf curves and perceived sharpness
> because I found seemingly contradicting statements. Some texts say
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Thanks for your input!
> Marc
A Lieberma - 30 Jan 2007 02:19 GMT
> Clarification for the reader:

Clarification for the reader.  Please disregard Otis's postings.  He is not
in the medical profession and not in any position to give medical advice.

Thanks!

Allen
otisbrown@pa.net - 30 Jan 2007 03:32 GMT
Some people are a dense as a stone.

M.T.F. is a technical term -- used to qualify
photographs and imagining analysis.

It is not a medical term.

Tragically Allen Leiberman has not a clue
about any of this.

This is a detail of technical analylsis -- and
NOT a medical subject.

Otis

> "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote innews:1170082986.136025.257750@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Allen
Mike Tyner - 30 Jan 2007 03:56 GMT
> This is a detail of technical analylsis -- and
> NOT a medical subject.

Yes.. like logic and statistics, there's no room for it in your newsgroup.

Lessee... MTF(v) = Mi / M0   ---- Nope, no sci or med or vision anywhere in
that.

-MT
Marc Wossner - 30 Jan 2007 09:38 GMT
> <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> -MT

Well, my question regards how mtf value and perceived sharpness are
related to each other and I´m convinced that this *has* to do with the
science of visual perception.

Marc
Mike Tyner - 30 Jan 2007 12:48 GMT
> Well, my question regards how mtf value and perceived sharpness are
> related to each other and I´m convinced that this *has* to do with the
> science of visual perception.

Of course it does. But your thread got hijacked by our resident troll, a
so-called engineer who will insist on injecting pea-brained potshots and
making the thread about him, rather than you.

Of course the mtf relates to "perceived sharpness". One problem is we don't
have a reliable scale - no good way to assign values to "perceived
sharpness" or its inverse, "blur," other than indirect measurements of
resolution like snellen acuity or logMAR.

You can bet that blur increases as mtf decreases. But mtf is determined
using a focused optical system. Most of the problems with human blur involve
systems that won't focus properly. Blur can vary from moment-to-moment,
present at some distances and not at others. But the MTF is intrinsic and
constant, and the blur it contributes is from constant factors, like media
transparency and optical aberrations.

-MT
Marc Wossner - 31 Jan 2007 09:49 GMT
> On 30 Jan., 13:48, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > "Marc Wossner" <marc.woss...@gmx.net> wrote
<snip>
> Of course the mtf relates to "perceived sharpness". One problem is we don't
> have a reliable scale - no good way to assign values to "perceived
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> constant, and the blur it contributes is from constant factors, like media
> transparency and optical aberrations.

Yes I know about those problems and that´s why I keep wondering why
the values I stated at the beginning are regarded as important for
perceived sharpness. Maybe they are just picked as samples a lot of
people can agree on but if so no source says it clearly. That´s why I
´m confused.

Marc

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.