On 3/2/2013 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

it depends on the subject. take a photo where there's very little
detail, such as a solid colour wall, and there won't be any aliasing.
take a photo of something with a lot of detail and there will be.

And your experience using one is?
Or is your comment made based on a survey.

What he said is *precisely* correct.

displaying your ignorance again, i see.

it's based on a solid understanding of signal theory and aliasing,
something you apparently lack and something that affects *all* digital
cameras. if there's detail beyond nyquist and no antialias filter to
bandlimit it, there *will* be aliasing, guaranteed.

That is absolutely and unequivocally true. (Granted
that it is a technical statement requiring the reader
understand what is meant by both "nyquist" and "no
antialias filter", which as it happens is not the case
for most readers here.)

It's not quite that simple. If you wade through all of
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml you will
eventually reach the conclusion:

Do you understand what he said, or what these
"conclusions" are saying?

It should also be pointed out that the anti-alias
filtering effectiveness of lens diffusion is very
ineffective compared to a properly designed birefringent
optical filter (which incidentally is itself relatively
low on the scale of effectiveness compared to digital or
analog electronic filter).

"Conclusions

So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use,
the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small
format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases
they are lens-limited in terms of resolution.

That is only specifically true, and not generally true.
Few lenses are so poor at all apertures that they can
provide an adequate anti-aliasing filter, and few are so
good that at all apertures they do not provide at least
some of the desired affect of an anti-aliasing filter.

But virtually none of them are good anti-aliasing
filters.

It is easier to
correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can
approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The
signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the
effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot
noise.

That last sentence is out of context and has no
significant meaning.

Note that the above section contradicts the statement
just above it claiming that "in most caes they are
lens-limited in terms of resolution". In fact, they are
not.

Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of
real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of
aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully
exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with
regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

The last sentence is pure fabrication.

You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems
looking at a print because the variables that determine the
subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide
comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of
confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit
of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum
circle of confusion.."

That is correct.

One of my friends, a fashion photographer, uses his D800E. His results
are fantastic. A well respected fine art photographer also uses one, and
she is quite happy with the results. The main reason I did not get one,
is that I didn't nbeed that feature for the type of shooting I do.

that's nice.

being happy with the results has absolutely nothing to do with whether
or not there is aliasing.

Dead on correct! Nobody would be able to spot aliasing
distortion in a single image. And if shown two
identical images differring only in the amount of
aliasing distortion (an exceedingly difficult
comparison to generate) most people might well be able
to see some difference, but virtually none would be able
to identify the cause. Worse yet, some people in some
cases would prefer the image that has the aliasing
distortion!

He may be technically correct,

at least you finally admit i'm correct.

Only partially.



but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results.

no it isn't.
than you changed it without fair notice.


the original post to which i responded was about *sampling* *errors*,
not what is commercially acceptable:
No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities.

yes they do.

Typical ****ing from you.

They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

that's true, but it does not negate knowing about the technical side of
things.

the truly successful ones understand both.

They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results.

BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and
categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you
don't know WTF you are talking about.
--
PeterN