Here's some more to address your questions:
First, the calculator is intended to demonstrate the absolute limit of maximally attainable resolution-- regardless of technique, composition and pixel size. The calculator therefore only considers objects that are on the focal plane. I think the source of confusion is the context in which you are used to using CoC. The arbitrary manufacturer standard for choosing *maximum* CoC is that on an 8x10 inch print, when viewed from 10 inches, the smallest distinguishable feature is 0.01 in (~0.03 mm on 35 mm film). This max CoC can be used equally for defining the limits of a depth of field and for defining the maximum enlargement size of a print. The diffraction calculator is only used to inform, for a given print size and viewing distance, when diffraction becomes visible-- not where to focus for optimal sharpness throughout.
When considering DoF factors, as you point out, the circle of confusion *at infinity* is CoC = f^2/(N*(s-f)) ~ f^2/(N*(F - 2f)), where "s" is the lens to subject distance. Further, assuming s >> f and s >> d, we arrive at the equation you showed below of CoC = f^2/(N*F). The CoC used here is variable and for a very specific scenario; it does not represent max CoC used in the context of defining a diffraction limit. I am much more familiar with the CoC=f^2/(N*F) formula being used for finding the hyperfocal distance when the CoC is treated as a constant and F is variable.
One thing to address from before. You had said that:
Quote:
|
2. It does not look like that the results depend on the pixel size (the number of Mp). I can change the Mp anywhere from 0 to 100 MP and the diffraction limit has not change. I would assume (maybe naively) that if the pixel size is sufficiently large it can become the limiting factor and not the DOF or diffraction.
|
Changing the number of megapixels for a given sensor size has no impact on whether the print itself has become diffraction limited. Of course, if there are too few pixels, the print can be become pixelated by camera resolution. However, this is still not caused by diffraction, and listing some other limit could defocus the reader from the main point of the page. This calculator is only for the diffraction limit, not assessing all components of the overall system including ccd/optics/printsize/viewing distance. There is always a trade-off between the number of input parameters they require and the ease of use of the average internet user. There are at least three factors at play here: (1) the total number and absolute size of pixels, (2) the f-number and (3) the CoC defined by the print size and viewing distance.
The interplay between (1) and (2) is in the "Diffraction Limited Aperture Estimator" at
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ensor-size.htm
The interplay between (1) and (3) is in the "Photo Enlargement Calculator" at:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...nlargement.htm
The interplay between (2) and (3) is in the "Diffraction Limit Calculator" at:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm
Each represents a limiting case for when the subject is on the focal plane; for subjects outside the focal plane there are pages on depth of field and the hyperfocal distance. Could all (1)-(3) be incorporated into a single all-purpose calculator? Of course. The only concern here is making it too complicated to use/interpret, or having the calculator require knowledge of information not discussed in the given article. I really try to define breaking points to separate each of the concepts into digestible chunks. It's like first learning Newton's laws and then later finding out that they are only a limiting case. Diffraction, DoF and pixel size can all dominate the print's perceived sharpness in limiting cases. Of course, as a research scientist you might want to see more thrown into the mix...
If anyone else has feedback that would also be helpful. These pages can always be improved..