Resolution Chart Comparison (JPEG and RAW)
Images on this page are of our standard resolution chart which provides for measurement of resolution up to 4000 LPH (Lines Per Picture Height). A value of 20 equates to 2000 lines per picture height. For each camera we use the relevant prime lens (the same one we use for all the other tests in a particular review). The chart is shot at a full range of apertures and the sharpest image selected. Studio light, cameras set to aperture priority (optimum aperture selected), image parameters default. Exposure compensation set to deliver approximately 80% luminance in the white areas.
What we want to show here is how well the camera is able to resolve the detail in our standard test chart compared to the theoretical maximum resolution of the sensor, which for the charts we shoot is easy to work out - it's simply the number of vertical pixels (the chart shows the number of single lines per picture height, the theoretical limit is 1 line per pixel). Beyond this limit (which when talking about line pairs is usually referred to as the Nyquist frequency) the sensor cannot faithfully record image detail and aliasing occurs.
This limit is rarely attained, because the majority of sensors are fitted with anti-aliasing filters. Anti-aliasing filters are designed to reduce unpleasant moiré effects, but in doing so, they also reduce resolution (the relative strength and quality of these filters varies from camera to camera). In theory though, a sensor without an AA filter, when coupled with a 'perfect' lens, will deliver resolution equal to its Nyquist limit. Therefore, even though it may be effectively unattainable with normal equipment in normal shooting situations, an understanding of a sensor's theoretical limit provides a useful benchmark for best possible performance. Nyquist is indicated in these crops with a red line.
On this page we're looking at both JPEG and Raw resolution. For a (more) level playing field we convert the latter using Adobe Camera Raw. Because Adobe Camera Raw applies different levels of sharpening to different cameras (this confirmed) we use the following workflow for these conversions:
- Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
- Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
- Open file to Photoshop
- Apply a Unsharp mask tuned to the camera, here 200%, Radius 0.3, Threshold 0
- Save as a TIFF (for cropping) and as a JPEG quality 11 for download
|JPEG (4288 x 2848) 3.9MB||RAW (4288 x 2848) 3.2MB|
The crops above demonstrate that not only is the X100 capable of capturing an impressive level of detail, but also that the JPEG engine does an exceptionally good job of rendering it. Indeed there's scarcely any resolution advantage to be gained from shooting raw, thanks to the X100's extremely well-balanced default sharpening: the ACR conversion renders just a little more image structure right up to Nyquist, but this comes at the cost of colour moiré, which the JPEG engine does a much better job of removing. This all suggests that the X100 has a relatively light anti-aliasing filter.
Overall the X100 is capable of resolving all nine lines of our test chart quite clearly to about 2300LPH in both jpeg and raw, which is as good as we could expect from this 12Mp sensor. Obviously this can't quite match the current generation of 16-18Mp APS-C sensors, but you'd have to be looking closely at pretty large prints (maybe 16" x 12" or larger) to have any real chance of seeing this.