Are modern camera sensor pixels near the physical size limit set by light diffraction?
Asked 6/2/2015
123 views
2 answers
0
I’ve read that visible light and diffraction impose a fundamental resolution limit, so making pixels ever smaller eventually stops improving real detail. Is that the right way to think about it? If so, how close are current camera sensors to that limit, and what determines it most strongly?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
6
We're there.
Diffraction and color (wavelength) determine the physical limits on resolution at the sensor surface. The best explanation of this (and the many related practical considerations for digital imaging sensors) is from http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm:
Once two airy disks become any closer than half their width, they are also no longer resolvable (Rayleigh criterion). Diffraction thus sets a fundamental resolution limit that is independent of the number of megapixels, or the size of the film format. It depends only on the f-number of your lens, and on the wavelength of light being imaged.
At an aperture of f/1.2 (which would produce the least diffraction) the Airy width for visible light is 1.6 microns. For a typical sensor (which is designed as a Bayer array) in an otherwise perfect electro-optical system this means that pixels smaller than about 0.7 microns offer no increase in resolution.
We have the technical ability to mass-produce image sensors with pixels that small, but the smallest I've seen in production is just over 1 micron (common on cell phone cameras). Note that premium production cameras still typically have a "pixel pitch" of a least 4 microns. Apparently the primary motivation for larger pixels is their improved signal-to-noise ratio. Presumably in a perfect electronic system that wouldn't be a factor and all sensors would sport pixels about 1 micron in width.
Originally by user27832. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user27832
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes. The practical limit is set less by a single photon’s “location” and more by diffraction from the lens plus wavelength-dependent blur at the sensor. A lens does not focus light to a perfect point; it forms an Airy disk, and once details are closer than that blur allows, smaller pixels cannot recover more true optical resolution.
That limit depends mainly on f-number and wavelength, not directly on sensor format. At very wide apertures such as f/1.2, the diffraction blur for visible light is already on the order of a few microns, with a quoted Airy width around 1.6 µm in the community answer. Since many modern sensors have pixel pitches in the low-micron range, we are essentially already in that territory.
So: yes, the limit is relevant, and modern sensors are very close to it. Smaller pixels can still help with sampling, demosaicing, and avoiding aliasing, but they do not guarantee more resolved scene detail once lens diffraction is the bottleneck. In real photography, lens quality, aperture choice, diffraction, and color filter design matter at least as much as pixel size alone.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Are small sensors or pixels fundamentally limited in dynamic range?
Why are thermal imaging cameras still much more expensive than visible-light cameras?
Why are image sensors less sensitive to blue light?
How do digital camera sensors compare with image-intensifier night vision in very low light?
Do any image sensors measure per-pixel time-to-saturation to increase dynamic range?