Nikon talks about the D800E

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

Well, that goes without saying. Anyone who actually took (and understood)
the core undergraduate engineering courses knows that digital imaging
without an AA filter is completely and totally bogus.

Sorry for the double reply but I forgot to ask my hypothetical
question in my last response:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

Steve

TheRealSteve wrote:
Sorry for the double reply but I forgot to ask my hypothetical
question in my last response:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

That's a totally bogus question.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin if the
engineers at Nikon have more coffee in the morning than
usual?

(If you don't know, think about limiting the pixel count
to about 500 MP or lower. It might make at least a
little sense.)

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

"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

How much of a market is there where the added resolution
of the D800E is actually more significant than the added
aliasing?

But there isn't any added resolution. Really, there isn't. Removing the AA
filter can only reduce resolution. Patterns that are rendered with a given
level of accuracy with an AA filter are guaranteed to be rendered with less
accuracy without an AA filter, since removing the AA filter adds components
to the image that aren't there in the scene.

That's only true if the AA filter is perfectly sharp-cutting and at
exactly the right frequency for the lens-plus-sensor combination.

That's never actually true.

Therefore your statement isn't practically true; it's true only in
theory-land (a lovely place, I live too much of my life there).

Of course, this assumes you care that your photographs are accurate
representations of the things you take photographs of...

Which most of us don't. Most of us want our photographs to be good
representations of our mental impressions of a place.
--
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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

"Completely reverses"? There is bound to be some residual effect of two
unnecessary items in the optical path, even if they are perfectly aligned.
But at least everyone can now be happy now, and make their own choice
according to their own preferences and subject matter. It will be
interesting to see whether Canon copies this feature.

That is true, but given that half of the required
components to form a low pass filter have been removed,
even if the replacement component does not perfectly
cancel the other, it still does not form a low pass
filter. It's what, a one half-wave delay plate followed
by another...

and only in one dimension. the other dimension is unaffected.

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

that's my take on it too.

How much of a market is there where the added resolution
of the D800E is actually more significant than the added
aliasing? Add noise to the entire image to get a couple
added lines per millimeter? It isn't as if the
distinction is anything like the resolution increase
over something like a D3X! That is actually measurable,
but the D800E over the D800 is miniscule.

at best, it will be minor, but that's what fuels pixel peepers.

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

There is bound to be some effect of having the two AA filters present,
rather than an air path, but Nikon will have both calculated and measured
the effect, and deemed it acceptable to their target market. It's a
clever solution, requiring minimum changes to the camera between the two
models.

if they completely removed it, the optical path would be different. the
way they implemented it, both versions have filters and the rest of the
camera won't need any changes.

In article , TheRealSteve
wrote:

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

Well, that goes without saying. Anyone who actually took (and understood)
the core undergraduate engineering courses knows that digital imaging
without an AA filter is completely and totally bogus.

How much of a market is there where the added resolution
of the D800E is actually more significant than the added
aliasing?

But there isn't any added resolution. Really, there isn't. Removing the AA
filter can only reduce resolution. Patterns that are rendered with a given
level of accuracy with an AA filter are guaranteed to be rendered with less
accuracy without an AA filter, since removing the AA filter adds components
to the image that aren't there in the scene.

Of course, this assumes you care that your photographs are accurate
representations of the things you take photographs of...

I'll go with Nikon on this one since they know a few things you don't.

true. nikon discovered a way to get around the laws of physics and
mathematics and they haven't shared it with anyone. it's too bad,
because they could really capitalize on such a breakthrough.

On 2012-02-17 08:46 , TheRealSteve wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Floyd L. wrote:

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

Well, that goes without saying. Anyone who actually took (and understood)
the core undergraduate engineering courses knows that digital imaging
without an AA filter is completely and totally bogus.

Sorry for the double reply but I forgot to ask my hypothetical
question in my last response:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

If the lens could deliver that resolution then yes.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:38:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-02-17 08:46 , TheRealSteve wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Floyd L. wrote:

Strikes me as the whole thing is a marketing plot, much
like Leica uses, to attract those who are gullible. My
bet is that most of the people who order the D800E will
in fact be the ones who *don't* actually understand it.

Well, that goes without saying. Anyone who actually took (and understood)
the core undergraduate engineering courses knows that digital imaging
without an AA filter is completely and totally bogus.

Sorry for the double reply but I forgot to ask my hypothetical
question in my last response:

Is digital imaging without an AA filter "totally bogus" if you have,
say, a 10,000MP FF sensor using today's available lenses? Will you
get aliasing?

If the lens could deliver that resolution then yes.

But that's not the question TheRealSteve asked.

Floyd has dodged it by denying the hypothetical 10,000MP FF sensor.

You have dodged it by assuming lens performance better (I think) than
TheRealSteve specified.

I always get suspicious when advocates for a particular opinion start
dodging questions.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:38:05 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Feb 17, 6:52*am, "David J Taylor" david-
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

...









"David J Taylor" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
Bowser wrote:
[]
Both models have an AA filter.

Oh, the pointless pedantry!

Let's not try to complicate this. *The 800E has a primary AA filter
and a secondary filter that completely reverses its effect. *For all
intents and purposes, it effectively has no AA filter.

"Completely reverses"? *There is bound to be some residual effect of two
unnecessary items in the optical path, even if they are perfectly
aligned.

Obviously, as Nikon never do any testing or development of their
products, they wouldn't have thought of that, so perhaps it's about
time you called them to give them the benefit of your expertise?

Nikon will be so grateful to have their omission pointed out to them.

There is bound to be some effect of having the two AA filters present,
rather than an air path, but Nikon will have both calculated and measured
the effect, and deemed it acceptable to their target market. *It's a
clever solution, requiring minimum changes to the camera between the two
models.

David

Still wondering why they claimed having the move the sensor backward
(i.e., cast a new body) would have been so expensive? They gave that
as the reason they didn't dispense with the AA filter completely in
the D800E.

This way the same body serves both models. That's worth a considerable
saving on the production line.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:49:23 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

There is bound to be some effect of having the two AA filters present,
rather than an air path, but Nikon will have both calculated and measured
the effect, and deemed it acceptable to their target market. It's a
clever solution, requiring minimum changes to the camera between the two
models.

if they completely removed it, the optical path would be different. the
way they implemented it, both versions have filters and the rest of the
camera won't need any changes.

Possibly software.

Regards,

Eric Stevens