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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
On 3/2/2013 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
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. Only partially. but the discussion is about commercially acceptable results. no it isn't. than you changed it without fair notice. 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. Typical ****ing from you. 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. They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results. BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you don't know WTF you are talking about. -- PeterN |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
On 3/2/2013 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
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. displaying your ignorance again, i see. Yes I am totally ignorant of the factual basis for your statement. at least you admit it, and the more you babble the more clear it becomes. All I know is what works and what doesn't. Your past history gives us little reason to accept your conclusion, without proof. This is especially true since you appear never to have used the cameras under discussion. this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular camera. it's how *all* digital cameras work (and cd players and much more). go read a book on signal theory if you want proof, not that i expect you to understand much past the first page. 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. 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. For the individuals I mentioned being happy means they are well paid. Any any faults you claim to exist are well within the bounds of high standard commercial acceptability. Just as circles of confusion can be commercially acceptable. once again, being happy with the results or having something that's commercially acceptable doesn't mean there isn't aliasing. if there's detail beyond nyquist, there *will* be aliasing. period. there is no getting around this. BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and Eizo, at the upper end. so what? different tools for different jobs. apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more. So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their budget. Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products. -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
PeterN wrote:
the truly successful ones understand both. They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results. BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you don't know WTF you are talking about. Peter, you are full of prunes. Take a hike and talk to yourself, nobody else need hear this crap. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
In article , PeterN
wrote: BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and Eizo, at the upper end. so what? different tools for different jobs. apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more. So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their budget. your point itself is irrelevant. this isn't about undertone subtlety or what apple sells. this discussion is about aliasing until you tried to twist it into something else because you have nothing better to do than argue. apple caters to the masses while eizo caters to the pros who do precise colour work. if you think apple should make high end displays or eizo should make low end displays, feel free to contact either company and voice your concerns. either way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of aliasing and the nikon d800e and its lack of an aa filter. Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products. nobody but you gives a **** if it outsells apple products. different products for different tasks. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
In article , PeterN
wrote: He may be technically correct, at least you finally admit i'm correct. Only partially. nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on signal theory. but the discussion is about commercially acceptable results. no it isn't. than you changed it without fair notice. i didn't change a thing. 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. Typical ****ing from you. 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. They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results. they can't get results if technical issues prevent it. nobody, not even creative directors, can get around sampling theory. BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you don't know WTF you are talking about. except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking about. furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them, although i suspect not. but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be *very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
On 3/2/2013 1:30 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: BTW I suspect that you are not aware that for high fashion the results from Apple monitors and unacceptable, because they do not accurately produce the necessary gradations in the shadows. For that work people use other monitors such as high end NEC, LaCie, at the lower end and Eizo, at the upper end. so what? different tools for different jobs. apple targets the masses. for every eizo that's sold, apple sells hundreds of imacs, macbooks, displays, iphones, ipads and more. So that's irrelevant to my point. Non-avid photographers do not want, or see the need for undertone subtlety. Or, the cost may be outside their budget. your point itself is irrelevant. this isn't about undertone subtlety or what apple sells. If you bother reading, I said that Apple monitors are unsuitable for critical photographic work. I'm glad you agree. this discussion is about aliasing until you tried to twist it into something else because you have nothing better to do than argue. apple caters to the masses while eizo caters to the pros who do precise colour work. if you think apple should make high end displays or eizo should make low end displays, feel free to contact either company and voice your concerns. either way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of aliasing and the nikon d800e and its lack of an aa filter. Just where did I ever say there was no aliasing? The issue is how the filter, or lack thereof affects the image. Or, have you forgotten that the purpose of photography is to create images. Yes but this is a photography group. Many of us like to discuss what's best for photographic purposes, within our spending budgets. While I would like a LaCie, or an Eizo, Both are outside my budget. So I settle for an NEC, which BTW may, or may not outsell Apple products. nobody but you gives a **** if it outsells apple products. different products for different tasks. So you have never ranted about sales of Apple products. If you make it worth my while, I could easily show your unsupported claims about Apple sales. Even in this thread, you were the first to mention: "apple [sic] caters to the masses. Oh! I get it. Apple wants to become a priest. BTW: It is easy to tell when you are losing an argument. Like all trolls you resort to personal insults. -- PeterN |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
On 3/2/2013 1:17 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote: the truly successful ones understand both. They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results. BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you don't know WTF you are talking about. Peter, you are full of prunes. Take a hike and talk to yourself, nobody else need hear this crap. Wattasmatter Floyd, have you lost interest in reality, or is the Winter getting to you. -- PeterN |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
On 3/2/2013 1:30 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: He may be technically correct, at least you finally admit i'm correct. Only partially. nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on signal theory. i only care how it affects my photography. You have yet to produce any image. but the discussion is about commercially acceptable results. no it isn't. than you changed it without fair notice. i didn't change a thing. So you lost your ability to read, or is it your ability to comprehend what you write? 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. Typical ****ing from you. 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. They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results. they can't get results if technical issues prevent it. nobody, not even creative directors, can get around sampling theory. BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you don't know WTF you are talking about. except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking about. furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them, although i suspect not. I used to know an engineer who was only interested in producing a perfectly shaped wave. His company went out of business. but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be *very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk. Maybe they are. All I care about is image production. Other than that you can take your theory and...... Bye. -- PeterN |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon new release D7100
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 13:30:41 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: He may be technically correct, at least you finally admit i'm correct. Only partially. nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on signal theory. but the discussion is about commercially acceptable results. no it isn't. than you changed it without fair notice. i didn't change a thing. 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. Typical ****ing from you. 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. They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results. they can't get results if technical issues prevent it. nobody, not even creative directors, can get around sampling theory. BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you don't know WTF you are talking about. except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking about. furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them, although i suspect not. but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be *very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk. I think he is claiming that your knowledge of creative directors is bunk. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
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 04:52 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 |