As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

On 3/5/2012 9:24 AM, Bruce wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 3/5/2012 8:53 AM, Bruce wrote:
Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some
don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast
majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time
with no AA filters.

But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't.

Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can
easily be avoided.

How do you avoid it?

1) go to f/11 or f/16 to let diffraction do the job. Downside:
loss of background blurring.

2) Slightly defocus the afflicted region. This might or might not
be useful in any given case.

3) Use a crappy lens.

4) if studio photography, remove the offending object.

4) Get a filter for the lens that intentionally blurs the picture
by having a somewhat lumpy surface polish. This is a panacea,
but you might need different filters for different f/numbers.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this.


I presume you were joking when you came up with these ideas.

Whatever, thanks for making me laugh. ;-)

No I was NOT joking ... are you? What do YOU propose to do about it
other than ignore it? You simply CAN'T be seriously arguing that
it never happens ... because it WILL happen ... just that it will
RARELY ever be a problem ... with which, of course, I quite
fully agree.

Again: what do you propose to do about it when it happens?

Doug McDonald

Bruce wrote:
Rich wrote:

There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter, where have you been?

Probably spending days in front of his computer in his underclothes,
rarely venturing outside, rarely experiencing fresh air or sunlight.
There is a core of people doing the same thing, spouting nonsense and
pet theories that they will never put to the test because they can't
afford any of the equipment they criticise or comment on, and wouldn't
know how to use it if they could. Theorising is all they have left,
and their sole motivation is to make others unhappy with equipment
they own or are considering buying.

Jealousy is a strong driver of such behaviour - if you can't afford it
or understand it, diss it. Leica users have to put up with this sort
of crap all the time, always from people who cannot afford Leica gear,
don't know how to use it, or most often both.

You've posted that crap previously in response to my comments.
I responded with this comment before, and post it now again:

"Rather than argue with facts, all you can do is produce
Ad Hominem attacks claiming you know things about the
people you disagree with that in fact you don't know.

The charts that I posted were done by Marianne Oelund,
who personally shoots with a D3S. The same data was
essentially produce by Bill Claff. In both cases the
data was derived from actual measurement on images
released by Nikon in the case of the D4 and D800 and
compared the their own images shot with D3 and D3S
cameras. Interestingly enough when Bill Claff first did
an analysis on D4 images he engaged in a short discussion
about the techniques he was using with Eric Fossum, joined
by Marianne and others. Claff and Oelund are design
engineers, Fossum of course is a research engineer."

Plus I provided a URL for the homepage of each of those people.

Which of Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, Eric Fossum or
myself, is it you are saying fits your repulsive
description (which clearly is a bit of projection)? It
seems that I and all of those listed above that my
comments reference for factual data, with the possible
exception of Eric Fossum, own and use exactly the
equipment you say "they can't afford any of the
equipment they criticise or comment on, and wouldn't
know how to use it if they could."

If Fossum doesn't own a D3S, does that matter? Are
you claiming he can't afford one and doesn't know how
it works anyway?

Very clearly all of us know a great deal more about how
to use it that you!

Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some
don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast
majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time
with no AA filters.

But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't.

It isn't... under certain circumstances. They are
basically confined to that set of circumstances by the
equipment they use. And it happens that is an
acceptable consequence that can be dealt with in that
particular type of work. For others, it is
unacceptable.

Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can
easily be avoided. However, it is being whipped up on online forums
into something far worse by a group of profoundly ignorant people who
simply haven't a clue about what they are talking about.

It cannot "easily be avoided" if you are not aware that
it exists. One problem with it is that it requires
immediate inspection of the image to determine if a shot
is usable.

Shots that are not repeatable *cannot avoid moiré* when it
does exists.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 8:53 AM, Bruce wrote:
Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some
don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast
majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time
with no AA filters.

But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't.

Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can
easily be avoided.

How do you avoid it?

Well, to begin with that last thing you'd want to do is
sweep it under the rug and try to unsult everyone that
says it actually is a problem and then tries to explain
why and also how to deal with it. That's Bruce's
method. It's funny as Hell when he says nobody else has
the money or the knowledge, and he is talking
specifically about Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, and Eric
Fossum who seem to be the ones leading the pack at
spreading information about this topic. Bruce doesn't
have a clue...

1) go to f/11 or f/16 to let diffraction do the job. Downside:
loss of background blurring.

Not at all a valid approach. Why use a camera for it's
extra ability to capture high frequency detail and then
use the worst possible low pass filter (which removes an
excessive amount of detail if it is sufficient to remove
the moiré). Better would be a camera that has the
*best* anti-aliasing filter!

2) Slightly defocus the afflicted region. This might or might not
be useful in any given case.

Same as above.

3) Use a crappy lens.

Same as above

4) if studio photography, remove the offending object.

This is certainly a valid mechanism. It has limited value though.

4) Get a filter for the lens that intentionally blurs the picture
by having a somewhat lumpy surface polish. This is a panacea,
but you might need different filters for different f/numbers.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this.

Such filters are available, and as you say they have to
be matched to the f/number. If I remember, they are
expensive and tedius to use.

However, you missed the best mechanism for dealing with
moiré, which is to reposition the camera or the object.
This of course also can have problems too, because while
it removes moiré from one object or part of an object,
it can also cause it to appear in another part of the
image. Think in terms of buildings or other large
structures, where shooting at one place and angle
results in moiré one one part, say the top, and moving
back eliminates it... and causes it to appear at the
bottom.

Moiré can be a tough nut to crack.

I just bought a Canon 7D instead of a 5DMkIII ... and I noticed
moire in many of the images I found on the web. However, this
was very minor. It also means Canon makes really good lenses.
I'm not worried!

I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good
lenses, but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good
lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that
Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be
negligable is not correct.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:24 AM, Bruce wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 3/5/2012 8:53 AM, Bruce wrote:
Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some
don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast
majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time
with no AA filters.

But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't.

Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can
easily be avoided.

How do you avoid it?

1) go to f/11 or f/16 to let diffraction do the job. Downside:
loss of background blurring.

2) Slightly defocus the afflicted region. This might or might not
be useful in any given case.

3) Use a crappy lens.

4) if studio photography, remove the offending object.

4) Get a filter for the lens that intentionally blurs the picture
by having a somewhat lumpy surface polish. This is a panacea,
but you might need different filters for different f/numbers.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this.


I presume you were joking when you came up with these ideas.

Whatever, thanks for making me laugh. ;-)

No I was NOT joking ... are you? What do YOU propose to do about it
other than ignore it? You simply CAN'T be seriously arguing that
it never happens ... because it WILL happen ... just that it will
RARELY ever be a problem ... with which, of course, I quite
fully agree.

Again: what do you propose to do about it when it happens?

He's not joking, he just doesn't know anything about this topic.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

I just bought a Canon 7D instead of a 5DMkIII ... and I noticed
moire in many of the images I found on the web. However, this
was very minor. It also means Canon makes really good lenses.
I'm not worried!

I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good
lenses,

if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail
above the Nyquist frequency.

but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good
lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that
Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be
negligable is not correct.


Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point:
they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep
to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast
color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing
in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition
(i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.)

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

I just bought a Canon 7D instead of a 5DMkIII ... and I noticed
moire in many of the images I found on the web. However, this
was very minor. It also means Canon makes really good lenses.
I'm not worried!

I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good
lenses,

if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail
above the Nyquist frequency.

No, that's not true. Even most of the worst lenses around
will allow some detail at those frequencies.

Lens resolution is not a very good anti-aliasing filter,
though it will work. But it takes a *terrible* lens.

but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good
lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that
Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be
negligable is not correct.


Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point:
they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep
to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast
color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing
in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition
(i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.)

And the common examples being show where it destroys the image?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Bruce wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
I just bought a Canon 7D instead of a 5DMkIII ... and I noticed
moire in many of the images I found on the web. However, this
was very minor. It also means Canon makes really good lenses.
I'm not worried!

I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good
lenses,

if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail
above the Nyquist frequency.

but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good
lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that
Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be
negligable is not correct.


Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point:
they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep
to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast
color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing
in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition
(i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.)

Thanks for your support, Doug, but I never claimed that moire was
"negligible".

It isn't possible to have a civilised discussion with people who twist
my words and argue against something I never said, which is why Floyd
L Davidson will be staying in my kill file for an extremely long time.

Hiding from reality doesn't change it.

"Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only
occasionally and can easily be avoided." -- Bruce

Which is to say: Bruce said moiré negligible!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Bruce wrote:

Now that fact should tell you *all you need to know about moire*.

Meanwhile, there are some seriously deranged people who would have you
believe otherwise. ;-)

Bruce put me into his killfile to avoid answering the question I've
posed about that sort of insulting reference to people who disagree
with him.

I've posted data from Marianne Oelund, and commented that she,
Bill Claff, and Eric Fossum are the people "who would have you
believe otherwise". Bruce says they can't afford to buy those
cameras, don't understand them anyway, and disparage them out of
jealousy! What a hoot.

I've mentioned before that Oelund and Claff definitely own Nikon
D3S cameras; but I don't know if Eric Fossum does, and don't believe
it makes any difference either.

It is just hilarious for Bruce to make such claims!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

John A. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:14:58 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
I just bought a Canon 7D instead of a 5DMkIII ... and I noticed
moire in many of the images I found on the web. However, this
was very minor. It also means Canon makes really good lenses.
I'm not worried!

I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good
lenses,

if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail
above the Nyquist frequency.

but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good
lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that
Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be
negligable is not correct.


Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point:
they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep
to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast
color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing
in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition
(i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.)

Thanks for your support, Doug, but I never claimed that moire was
"negligible".

It isn't possible to have a civilised discussion with people who twist
my words and argue against something I never said, which is why Floyd
L Davidson will be staying in my kill file for an extremely long time.

Hiding from reality doesn't change it.

"Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only
occasionally and can easily be avoided." -- Bruce

Which is to say: Bruce said moiré negligible!

Negligible would mean avoiding it is unnecessary.

Would you kindly look the word up in a dictionary.

He is saying it should not be considered, and that
means it is negligible.

If he said "a stalled car in the middle of an otherwise empty highway
is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can easily
be avoided" would you say that he was claiming such an occurrence
would require no adjustment to the path of your car - that the
presence of that stalled car can be safely neglected?

Such occurance should not affect which car you buy or
which road you drive.

But regardless, the presense of that stalled car can
safely be neglected by everyone! The highway is
otherwise empty, therefore no cars need be concerned
because they are all somewhere else. It's a fact, just
the same, that traffic jams in New York City have
negligible effect on my driving for the same reason: I
ain't there!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Me writes:

On 3/03/2012 6:03 p.m., Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Downsize the D4 images or whatever, but the output from the D3S is
still the best of any DSLR.

http://tinyurl.com/7mmbmkq

Perhaps your subjective opinion is... eerrrrrr, less that valid?

Here's something a little less difficult for you the
analyze. See if you can tell us in what way it supports
your bull**** opinion?

http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO200snr.gif
http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO3200snr.gif
http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/Te...SO12800snr.gif

What you are most interested in, since you probably
don't know, is where the graphs show different cameras
in each ISO at the -6 EV and lower. Specifically the
D3S is the light green color, while a normalized to 12
MP D800 graph is in red and a normalized to 12 MP D4
graph is in blue.

In all cases, but particularly at ISO 200, the D4 and
D800 both have better SNR than the D3 and D3S.

This information (collated by Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, and others)
just ain't going to "get through". The forums on DPReview are full of
it.
I'd hoped the 5dIII would have been near enough to 36mp to quell
inter-brand BS on what "perfect pixel density" is. Dammit, now the
Canon 5DII apologists will be arguing for exactly what they argued
against when Canon had more pixels.

It'll be good practice; teaches mental flexibility, etc. :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info