> 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