Nikon talks about the D800E

On 2/17/2012 3:38 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

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.


At 10,000 MP FF, ALL lenses are diffraction limited.

A 25 MP FF camera has roughly 5 microns pixel pitch.
A 10,000 MP FF camera has roughly 0.25 micron pixel pitch.
To resolve that requires a lens with a numerical aperture
about one ... i.e. f/0.5 in air.

Doug McDonald

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

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

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

Doug McDonald wrote:
On 2/17/2012 3:38 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

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.


At 10,000 MP FF, ALL lenses are diffraction limited.

Try 500 MP. No need to be utterly preposterous.

A 25 MP FF camera has roughly 5 microns pixel pitch.
A 10,000 MP FF camera has roughly 0.25 micron pixel pitch.
To resolve that requires a lens with a numerical aperture
about one ... i.e. f/0.5 in air.

Doug McDonald

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

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:43:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

Which wasn't an answer to TheRealSteve's question.

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:43:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

Which wasn't an answer to TheRealSteve's question.

It was. You just don't understand the significance of a 500 MP CFA sensor
in relation to diffusion.

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

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:45 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:43:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

Which wasn't an answer to TheRealSteve's question.

It was. You just don't understand the significance of a 500 MP CFA sensor
in relation to diffusion.

Of course I do. TheRealSteve was trying to make the point that you
don't ned an AA filter when the best point source that a lens can
focus amounts to a fuzzy blob spread over several dozen pixels. You
can't get Moire worth a damn in that situation.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:45 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:43:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

Which wasn't an answer to TheRealSteve's question.

It was. You just don't understand the significance of a 500 MP CFA sensor
in relation to diffusion.

Of course I do. TheRealSteve was trying to make the point that you
don't ned an AA filter when the best point source that a lens can
focus amounts to a fuzzy blob spread over several dozen pixels. You
can't get Moire worth a damn in that situation.

See, there you go... "over several dozen pixels" is an
indication that you don't actually understand what is
required (it certainly is not dozens of pixels).

Again, try 500 MP. Work out the effects. No AA filter
needed. The spatial bandwidth is more than twice what
is usable, hence the relatively poor performance of
lens diffraction as an AA filter is no longer
significant. Indeed the "poor performance" of that
filter then becomes "high performance" in terms of lower
distortion due to filter effects. For example because
the slope for frequency roll off is lower less
sharpening is required, and thus the signal to noise
ratio is improved at higher frequencies.

Then, if you want an even more interesting concept,
think about a sensor with perhaps only twice the pixel
count of the D800, say 72MP... and instead of an AA
filter it might physically dither the image an
appropriate amount that depends on the lens aperture and
at a physical speed that depends on the shutter speed.
(It might move the sensor in a circle over the time the
shutter is open, and the circle diameter would be larger
at wider apertures.)

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

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:09:58 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:45 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:43:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

Which wasn't an answer to TheRealSteve's question.

It was. You just don't understand the significance of a 500 MP CFA sensor
in relation to diffusion.

Of course I do. TheRealSteve was trying to make the point that you
don't ned an AA filter when the best point source that a lens can
focus amounts to a fuzzy blob spread over several dozen pixels. You
can't get Moire worth a damn in that situation.

See, there you go... "over several dozen pixels" is an
indication that you don't actually understand what is
required (it certainly is not dozens of pixels).

Required for what? Your flaneleinG

Again, try 500 MP. Work out the effects. No AA filter
needed. The spatial bandwidth is more than twice what
is usable, hence the relatively poor performance of
lens diffraction as an AA filter is no longer
significant. Indeed the "poor performance" of that
filter then becomes "high performance" in terms of lower
distortion due to filter effects. For example because
the slope for frequency roll off is lower less
sharpening is required, and thus the signal to noise
ratio is improved at higher frequencies.

It sounds luvverly but bull**** baffles brains, as an old friend of
mine used to say. Why not go to the real heart of the matter as
originally posed by TheRealSteve and reitterated by me?

Then, if you want an even more interesting concept,
think about a sensor with perhaps only twice the pixel
count of the D800, say 72MP... and instead of an AA
filter it might physically dither the image an
appropriate amount that depends on the lens aperture and
at a physical speed that depends on the shutter speed.
(It might move the sensor in a circle over the time the
shutter is open, and the circle diameter would be larger
at wider apertures.)

I'm sorry: I don't smoke that stuff.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:09:58 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:45 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:43:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

Which wasn't an answer to TheRealSteve's question.

It was. You just don't understand the significance of a 500 MP CFA sensor
in relation to diffusion.

Of course I do. TheRealSteve was trying to make the point that you
don't ned an AA filter when the best point source that a lens can
focus amounts to a fuzzy blob spread over several dozen pixels. You
can't get Moire worth a damn in that situation.

See, there you go... "over several dozen pixels" is an
indication that you don't actually understand what is
required (it certainly is not dozens of pixels).

Required for what? Your flaneleinG

Again, try 500 MP. Work out the effects. No AA filter
needed. The spatial bandwidth is more than twice what
is usable, hence the relatively poor performance of
lens diffraction as an AA filter is no longer
significant. Indeed the "poor performance" of that
filter then becomes "high performance" in terms of lower
distortion due to filter effects. For example because
the slope for frequency roll off is lower less
sharpening is required, and thus the signal to noise
ratio is improved at higher frequencies.

It sounds luvverly but bull**** baffles brains, as an old friend of
mine used to say. Why not go to the real heart of the matter as
originally posed by TheRealSteve and reitterated by me?

Then, if you want an even more interesting concept,
think about a sensor with perhaps only twice the pixel
count of the D800, say 72MP... and instead of an AA
filter it might physically dither the image an
appropriate amount that depends on the lens aperture and
at a physical speed that depends on the shutter speed.
(It might move the sensor in a circle over the time the
shutter is open, and the circle diameter would be larger
at wider apertures.)

I'm sorry: I don't smoke that stuff.

Whoosh.

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

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:57:56 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:09:58 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:47:45 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:43:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
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 totally missed the technical significance of the answer I gave.

Which wasn't an answer to TheRealSteve's question.

It was. You just don't understand the significance of a 500 MP CFA sensor
in relation to diffusion.

Of course I do. TheRealSteve was trying to make the point that you
don't ned an AA filter when the best point source that a lens can
focus amounts to a fuzzy blob spread over several dozen pixels. You
can't get Moire worth a damn in that situation.

See, there you go... "over several dozen pixels" is an
indication that you don't actually understand what is
required (it certainly is not dozens of pixels).

Required for what? Your flaneleinG

Again, try 500 MP. Work out the effects. No AA filter
needed. The spatial bandwidth is more than twice what
is usable, hence the relatively poor performance of
lens diffraction as an AA filter is no longer
significant. Indeed the "poor performance" of that
filter then becomes "high performance" in terms of lower
distortion due to filter effects. For example because
the slope for frequency roll off is lower less
sharpening is required, and thus the signal to noise
ratio is improved at higher frequencies.

It sounds luvverly but bull**** baffles brains, as an old friend of
mine used to say. Why not go to the real heart of the matter as
originally posed by TheRealSteve and reitterated by me?

Then, if you want an even more interesting concept,
think about a sensor with perhaps only twice the pixel
count of the D800, say 72MP... and instead of an AA
filter it might physically dither the image an
appropriate amount that depends on the lens aperture and
at a physical speed that depends on the shutter speed.
(It might move the sensor in a circle over the time the
shutter is open, and the circle diameter would be larger
at wider apertures.)

I'm sorry: I don't smoke that stuff.

Whoosh.

More like squink.

Regards,

Eric Stevens