Nikon new release D7100

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:19:13 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

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.

It's not quite that simple.

yes it is. go read a book on signal theory. obviously there's much more
to the topic than just that, but it's a good summary.

If you wade through all of
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml you will
eventually reach the conclusion:

the only conclusion i've reached by reading that site is michael
reichmann wouldn't know aliasing if it bit him on the ass.

he loves foveon cameras because he thinks they have incredible detail
when it's really nothing more than a lot of alias artifacts, excessive
sharpening and a boost in contrast. that's the entire 'secret sauce' of
foveon.

in other words, he is fooled into thinking alias artifacts is real
detail, not the false detail it actually is.

The article about which you are so steaming is not by Michael Reichman
but "by Rubén Osuna and Efraín García"
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

they're not unsuitable and many people use them for exactly that
purpose, however, it doesn't mean that for some purposes there are
better choices.

nikon and canon are unsuitable for critical photographic work too. a
much better choice is a medium format camera with a phase one back.

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.

then why did you bring up apple and shadow detail?

Or, have
you forgotten that the purpose of photography is to create images.

since when do you speak for everyone?

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.

no, you don't get it.

BTW:
It is easy to tell when you are losing an argument. Like all trolls you
resort to personal insults.

that makes you a troll. glad we cleared that up.

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.

then go learn about it.

You have yet to produce any
image.

wrong, but more importantly, how many images i've produced doesn't
change the math, physics or sampling theory that governs all cameras.

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?

neither.

I used to know an engineer who was only interested in producing a
perfectly shaped wave. His company went out of business.

that's nice. what does that have to do with anything?

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......

in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

and he's wrong.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you wade through all of
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml you will
eventually reach the conclusion:

the only conclusion i've reached by reading that site is michael
reichmann wouldn't know aliasing if it bit him on the ass.

he loves foveon cameras because he thinks they have incredible detail
when it's really nothing more than a lot of alias artifacts, excessive
sharpening and a boost in contrast. that's the entire 'secret sauce' of
foveon.

in other words, he is fooled into thinking alias artifacts is real
detail, not the false detail it actually is.

The article about which you are so steaming is not by Michael Reichman
but "by Rubén Osuna and Efraín García"

that doesn't matter. it's on reichmann's site. he is hosting it. he
knows full well what it says and he isn't about to post anything that
he doesn't think is true. if you think either one of those two authors
hacked lula and uploaded it without reichmann knowing, you're crazy.

In article , PeterN
says...
He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 3/2/2013 7:29 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , PeterN
says...
He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.


Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.



Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

On 3/2/2013 5:31 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


Snce I don't know what his knowledge of creative directors is, I cannot
make that claim. But, his statements so far have indicated that I could
indeed make such a claim in good faith.


I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
was made.

I am also claiming that the "perfect engineering" solution, is not
always a good business decision.
I have yet to see a logical argument that would refute my claim.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

Snce I don't know what his knowledge of creative directors is, I cannot
make that claim. But, his statements so far have indicated that I could
indeed make such a claim in good faith.

and you'd be very, very wrong.

I am simply claiming that good creative directors are far more concerned
with the impact of the image and the legality of its use, than how it
was made.

you just contradicted that in another post.

I am also claiming that the "perfect engineering" solution, is not
always a good business decision.
I have yet to see a logical argument that would refute my claim.

nobody said 'perfect engineering'.

you're all over the map.