If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
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. but the discussion is about commercially acceptable results. no it isn't. 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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I knew it, I KNEW IT! New D7100 24mp NO AA filter!!! | David Taylor | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 25th 13 03:52 AM |
Would Nikon release new telescopes? | Paul Furman | Digital Photography | 7 | August 31st 10 04:16 AM |
Nikon Afficionado's New Release Due When?? | uw wayne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 37 | May 3rd 06 05:02 AM |
FA: Nikon N70 AF Black Body and Nikon Remote Shutter release | J N | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 24th 03 07:51 PM |
FA: Nikon N70 AF Black Body and Nikon Remote Shutter release | J N | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | September 24th 03 07:51 PM |