p.1 #1 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
I have an understanding of the concept of micro contrast versus larger scale contrast, but it's not a complete visual understanding. What do the two actually look like?
I see it constantly mentioned here in the forums, but I never see examples of it.
Where can I go to see examples of photos with good/bad micro contrast and good/bad regular contrast.
Descriptions only do so much. I want to see the difference.
p.1 #2 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
I am guessing that when you guys refer to micro contrast, you're refering to sharpness. Is that correct? And when you're refering to regular contrast, you're describing the shape of the histogram? Ie: bad contrast in the form of a histogram with large spaces to the left and right of the graph?
If that's what you guys are refering to, then all that confuses me is the term "micro contrast"; isn't it redundant with the word "sharpness"?
p.1 #3 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Here is a good illustration of micro vs macro contrast, also typical Zeiss vs Canon. The 100% crop is at the left edge of the frame. On the left was taken by a Canon 85L at f2, and on the right by a Zeiss C/Y 85/1.4 MMG at f2: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3383531969_3aa7550111_o.jpg
As you can see, the canon appears sharper to the eye and has better defined macro contrast for coarser definitions, but if you look carefully, the Zeiss resolves better for the finest details (micro contrast).
p.1 #4 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
DubiousDrewski wrote:
I am guessing that when you guys refer to micro contrast, you're refering to sharpness. Is that correct? And when you're refering to regular contrast, you're describing the shape of the histogram? Ie: bad contrast in the form of a histogram with large spaces to the left and right of the graph?
If that's what you guys are refering to, then all that confuses me is the term "micro contrast"; isn't it redundant with the word "sharpness"?
Generally, micro contrast refers to a lens' ability to separate smaller details (hence "micro") of similar tonal value. If you look at strands of hair in a portrait, or individual blades of green grass in a landscape shot, for example, now, a lens with good microcontrast will render these values separately, while a lens with poor micro contrast tends to lump them together with barely any separation. Hope this helps.
p.1 #5 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
DubiousDrewski wrote:
I am guessing that when you guys refer to micro contrast, you're refering to sharpness. Is that correct? And when you're refering to regular contrast, you're describing the shape of the histogram? Ie: bad contrast in the form of a histogram with large spaces to the left and right of the graph?
If that's what you guys are refering to, then all that confuses me is the term "micro contrast"; isn't it redundant with the word "sharpness"?
Well, yes and no. Sharpness is the ability of the lens to resolve clearly the smallest of details. Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to separate this very fine detail more clearly. A lens can be very sharp but lacks micro-contrast (some Leica), or not the ultimum in sharpness but with high micro-contrast that gives the impression of high sharpness in real life prints (like some Zeiss).
Sharpness is usually judged on MTF graphs with the 40 lp/mm line while micro-contrast is with the 10 lp/mm.
p.1 #6 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Cinstance, your example explains it nicely. Thank you. It's exactly as I had originally imagined it before I confused myself about it. It's still strange to comprehend that there are different types of contrast, depending on scale. I mean, whatever happened to "Is the lens sharp or not? Yes? Ok." Simple.
So the MTF-50 measurements that I've always relied upon for sharpness ratings are only measuring one aspect of a lens' sharpness and they don't see the whole picture? Wonderful. So what can you go by, then?
edward, you've brought something interesting to my attention. So there is definitely micro and macro contrast, each a separate category. But there IS also a type of contrast that is measurable on the histogram. It's the simplest kind and the kind even inexperienced photographers can point out:
http://www.andysuderman.com/1/contrast2.jpg
As this suggests, it looks like there are THREE types of contrast, then.
p.1 #8 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Cinstance wrote:
Here is a good illustration of micro vs macro contrast, also typical Zeiss vs Canon. The 100% crop is at the left edge of the frame. On the left was taken by a Canon 85L at f2, and on the right by a Zeiss C/Y 85/1.4 MMG at f2:
As you can see, the canon appears sharper to the eye and has better defined macro contrast for coarser definitions, but if you look carefully, the Zeiss resolves better for the finest details (micro contrast).
That's a nice test, but I think the chart on the Canon is right tilted more than the one on Contax side. This will affect the results that taken by digital sensor. (Bayer pattern) I see moire from the Canon 85L, so it should be better in this respect. Could you do another test?
p.1 #11 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
page is there but you have to copy (or type) the whole link from http to pdf into your internet browser. You can also access that document from zeiss.com then 'Camera and Cine Lenses' then 'Camera Lens News December 2008' and at the bottom ' Measuring lenses objectively'
p.1 #12 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
I really like this part:
''... Test procedures which measure only one point of the modulation transfer function, for example the resolution or the spatial frequency where 50% MTF is achieved, are of little value! This applies to optics just as it does to HIFI system: If I know at which frequency the loudspeaker will have their maximum transmission or how loud 440HZ are, I still don't know how music sounds ..."
p.1 #13 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
DubiousDrewski wrote:
As this suggests, it looks like there are THREE types of contrast, then.
I think if you think about it, the 'histogram' type of contrast is macro contrast.
For example, macro contrast is affected by flare. When a lens is flare prone, light gets scattered from a bright part to a dark part of the frame, lightening your shadows. This compresses the frame-wide range of exposure values, squishing your histogram. So macro contrast is kind of the contrast between the bright whites and the dark shadows in your picture.
Micro contrast is the ability of a lens to differentiate between adjacent areas of fine detail with similar tonal values. The better the lens can do this, the higher the micro contrast is.
Obviously micro contrast plays into the perception of sharpness of a lens. Macro contrast can affect micro contrast as well. So they are all tied up together - kind of like breaking up a tree and talking about bark, leaves, trunk and branches as unrelated things. All parts can have different characteristics, but it's still all a tree.
p.1 #14 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
DubiousDrewski wrote:
Cinstance, your example explains it nicely. Thank you. It's exactly as I had originally imagined it before I confused myself about it. It's still strange to comprehend that there are different types of contrast, depending on scale. I mean, whatever happened to "Is the lens sharp or not? Yes? Ok." Simple.
So the MTF-50 measurements that I've always relied upon for sharpness ratings are only measuring one aspect of a lens' sharpness and they don't see the whole picture? Wonderful. So what can you go by, then?
edward, you've brought something interesting to my attention. So there is definitely micro and macro contrast, each a separate category. But there IS also a type of contrast that is measurable on the histogram. It's the simplest kind and the kind even inexperienced photographers can point out:
http://www.andysuderman.com/1/contrast2.jpg
As this suggests, it looks like there are THREE types of contrast, then....Show more →
I would have thought that the histogram example was illustrating IMAGE contrast rather than lens contrast.
p.1 #18 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
phuang3 wrote:
That's a nice test, but I think the chart on the Canon is right tilted more than the one on Contax side. This will affect the results that taken by digital sensor. (Bayer pattern) I see moire from the Canon 85L, so it should be better in this respect. Could you do another test?
The tilt was really the pincushion distortion, which is actually similar for both lenses if you overlap the crops in Photoshop.
If you look at the UPC bar and the words and numbers, the Canon appears sharper, but Zeiss still shows significant more resolving power for finer details.
p.1 #20 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Cinstance,
Thanks for the effort. It looks like 85L has more image curvature at f/2.0. I am curious about the center performance of these two lenses. Optically, 85L "should be" a better design with aspherical element.
