Nikon new release D7100

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:57:52 +0000, David Taylor
wrote:
: On 03/03/2013 18:40, Alfred Molon wrote:
: []
: Have you seen the image of the jacket with all that aliasing?
: And you still have doubts that aliasing can happen with clothes?
:
: I hope that no-one has doubts that aliasing /can/ and /does/ exist.
:
: However, there is the question whether given (a) a sufficiently high
: number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane), (b) a lens with
: either a very shallow depth of field or being slightly out of focus,
: (c) a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial
: frequency, whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently
: great an amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.

Fair enough, but one is still left with the central question: Is the alleged
benefit of a non-AA camera (a barely perceptible increase in sharpness of the
average picture) sufficient to motivate a prudent photographer to take the
risk? The orange blotches on the aforementioned jacket would seem to suggest
that the answer is "no". And the fact that one can envision a camera/lens
system that lowers that risk by some hard-to-determine amount, doesn't do much
to change that answer.

Bob

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob said:

On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
aperture.

Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
sensor.

Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
technology is just around the corner and will likely be
available in the next decade.



The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
thinking storage space.

Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)

How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-03-10 13:56:05 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob said:

On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
aperture.

Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
sensor.

Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
technology is just around the corner and will likely be
available in the next decade.



The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
thinking storage space.

Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)

How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?


The 50GB buffer will handle that issue. ;-)

Well beyond the hypothetical fantasy consider the following:

If you consider that many SSD's currently have read/write specs at
559/527 MB/s, a 44MB file should be written in 0.0835 seconds. A 10
shot continuous burst should be captured in less than 1 second. It is
the buffer together with the card write speed which limits your
continuous high burst shot capacity.

Given that you can currently buy a 480GB OWC SSD for $569, compared to
the fastest UDMA 32GB CF cards with write speeds of 145MB/s. at B&H
sale prices of $132.95. So even if compared to a 120GB SSD @ $150 the
equivalent capacity (let's say 4 x 32GB UDMA-7 CF cards, not an
unreasonable purchase for a pro) at a quarter the speed would cost that
pro $531.80.

....and since the CF card is nothing but a slowish, miniaturized SSD,
why not develop an appropriately dimensioned high performance SSD for
pro-camera use?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

David Taylor wrote:
On 10/03/2013 14:00, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
I implied no such thing. There are just different
effects with a 36MP sensor from having or not having an
anti-aliasing filter. Personally I chose to have the
filter, others choose not to. Each has it's upside, and
a downside too.

As I said, it's in part a personal choice.

The point was that 36MP is not high enough resolution
that diffraction effectively acts as an anti-aliasing
filter unless the aperture is extremely small. Note
that typical lenses are not even diffraction limited at
f/5.6, so the idea that such a lens would function as an
anti-aliasing filter is nonsense.

I am not suggesting that. At the Nyquist frequency if
the amplitude of the image components is sufficiently
low, the aliasing effects will similarly be of a low
amplitude, and may therefore be more tolerable.

You are erroneously claiming that a 36MP sensor puts the
Nyquist frequency above the resolving power of typical
lenses. The fact is that it doesn't even come close.

You apparently don't understand what the significance of
an anti-aliasing filter is, and is not.

Actually, I understand quite well.

If that were true you would not continue with the above
erroeous assertions.

One needs to
consider the total image chain (source characteristics,
atmospheric MTF, lens, focussing etc). rather than a
single perfect-lens/sensor calculation, to estimate how
bad aliasing may be in practice. We are moving towards
a point where the sensor will not be the limiting factor
in aliasing, and for some purposes that point has
already been reached. For you, perhaps not, and I'm
quite happy to accept that.

Yes, for some purposes it has been reached: shooting
pictures of very smooth blank walls that have zero
texture.

Do you do that often?

If you so much as have a fly land on that wall, it will
have detail above the Nyquist Limit.

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

On 11/03/2013 7:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob said:

On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
aperture.

Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
sensor.

Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
technology is just around the corner and will likely be
available in the next decade.



The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
thinking storage space.

Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)

How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?



That's not as funny as it sounds, if you have ever used the D100, were
they sloooow, the D200 became usable.

Savageduck wrote:
...and since the CF card is nothing but a slowish,
miniaturized SSD, why not develop an appropriately
dimensioned high performance SSD for pro-camera use?

It's called an XQD card.

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

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:48:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-10 13:56:05 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob said:

On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
aperture.

Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
sensor.

Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
technology is just around the corner and will likely be
available in the next decade.



The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
thinking storage space.

Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)

How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?


The 50GB buffer will handle that issue. ;-)

Well beyond the hypothetical fantasy consider the following:

If you consider that many SSD's currently have read/write specs at
559/527 MB/s, a 44MB file should be written in 0.0835 seconds. A 10
shot continuous burst should be captured in less than 1 second. It is
the buffer together with the card write speed which limits your
continuous high burst shot capacity.

You have to fill the buffer first and it is noticable that cameras
with large sensors are slower to fill the buffer than cameras with a
smaller sensor. I don't know where the bottle neck actually is but I
suspect that is the processing off the sensor.

Given that you can currently buy a 480GB OWC SSD for $569, compared to
the fastest UDMA 32GB CF cards with write speeds of 145MB/s. at B&H
sale prices of $132.95. So even if compared to a 120GB SSD @ $150 the
equivalent capacity (let's say 4 x 32GB UDMA-7 CF cards, not an
unreasonable purchase for a pro) at a quarter the speed would cost that
pro $531.80.

...and since the CF card is nothing but a slowish, miniaturized SSD,
why not develop an appropriately dimensioned high performance SSD for
pro-camera use?

No doubt something like this will eventually happen but even now we
are pushing the limits in a number of respects.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:00:32 +1100, Rob wrote:

On 11/03/2013 7:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob said:

On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
aperture.

Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
sensor.

Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
technology is just around the corner and will likely be
available in the next decade.



The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
thinking storage space.

Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)

How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?



That's not as funny as it sounds, if you have ever used the D100, were
they sloooow, the D200 became usable.

I didn't mean it to be funny. It's a serious problem.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-03-10 15:37:01 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
...and since the CF card is nothing but a slowish,
miniaturized SSD, why not develop an appropriately
dimensioned high performance SSD for pro-camera use?

It's called an XQD card.

Well, OK then!
So the future is sort of now, but so far only offered for the D4.
....and still a write speed of 145MB/s (1100x), which is basically the
same speed as the Lexar UDMA-7 at 145MB/s (1000x) at a cost difference
of $160. Why bother?

Note: $299 for a 32GB XQD, $579.99 for a 64GB XQD. Still about a
quarter the speed and well above the cost of equivalent capacity SSD
(60GB SSD @ $84 & 527MB/s write speed)
Still behind SSD's in both performance and cost/GB.

So my question remains, why not develop an appropriately dimensioned
high performance SSD for pro-camera use?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-03-10 16:06:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:48:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-10 13:56:05 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:45:01 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-03-09 19:20:01 -0800, Rob said:

On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
aperture.

Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
sensor.

Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
technology is just around the corner and will likely be
available in the next decade.



The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
thinking storage space.

Not to worry. It will come with its very own SATA SSD slot/dock.
...but no CF or SDHC slot. ;-)

How many seconds per shot on Continuous High?


The 50GB buffer will handle that issue. ;-)

Well beyond the hypothetical fantasy consider the following:

If you consider that many SSD's currently have read/write specs at
559/527 MB/s, a 44MB file should be written in 0.0835 seconds. A 10
shot continuous burst should be captured in less than 1 second. It is
the buffer together with the card write speed which limits your
continuous high burst shot capacity.

You have to fill the buffer first and it is noticable that cameras
with large sensors are slower to fill the buffer than cameras with a
smaller sensor. I don't know where the bottle neck actually is but I
suspect that is the processing off the sensor.

Then the time has come to develop faster processors for that very purpose.
First for the Pro, with the trickle down to the peons.


Given that you can currently buy a 480GB OWC SSD for $569, compared to
the fastest UDMA 32GB CF cards with write speeds of 145MB/s. at B&H
sale prices of $132.95. So even if compared to a 120GB SSD @ $150 the
equivalent capacity (let's say 4 x 32GB UDMA-7 CF cards, not an
unreasonable purchase for a pro) at a quarter the speed would cost that
pro $531.80.

...and since the CF card is nothing but a slowish, miniaturized SSD,
why not develop an appropriately dimensioned high performance SSD for
pro-camera use?

No doubt something like this will eventually happen but even now we
are pushing the limits in a number of respects.

Just one, my wallet?


--
Regards,

Savageduck