Nikon D800; it's going to be fascinating

"David J Taylor" wrote:
The AA filter is compromised/optimized in one direction
and the lens is optimized/compromised in the other
direction, and you are saying that since they aren't
exactly perfect that they might be the same, which just
isn't true.

No. I'm saying that if the MTF of the lens is small at the Nyquist
frequency, there is little for the AA filter to do as there will be only a
small amount of high frequency information present.

If the MTF is what you say, you don't have a lens even
close to worth using. If the lens is even close to
usable as a lens, the MTF will not be what you say.

If the AA filter would do "virtually nothing", then why
go to the expense of a high resolution sensor? It's a
two bit lens and a two bit sensor will be quite good
enough for the 50 cent results.

Indeed - why do people need 36 MP sensors in DSLRs, or 16 MP sensors in
consumer cameras where the prints won't be bigger than 6 x 4 inches (or
whatever)?

Because *often* the prints in fact *are* larger. If the
camera can produce good 16x20 prints, it can also
produce fine 6x4 prints, but the opposite is not
necessarily true.

You may be stuck with a higher sensor resolution than you need
just because you have bought the camera for its other features.

So you want manufacturers to build a separate version
customized for each and every different customer! I'll
settle for buying a much cheaper camera due to economies
of scale when Nikon rolls out more than 5,000 identical
cameras a month for 2 or 3 years, rather than the one of
a kind you suggest. And I'll just have to settle for it
having features I never use. Besides, to be honest I
don't know today which features in my next camera will
be the ones I never use. Nikon graciously included
features in the last one I bought that I'd never thought
of, and even when I first noticed them I didn't realize
how useful they'd be.

With high-resolution sensors, and good quality lenses, I would not
recommend using a camera without an AA filter.

But you do seem to be recommending high resolution sensors
using broken coke bottle bottoms retrieved from a 1950's
dump... all to avoid an unnecessary AA filter.

(You may notice that I've stopped taking anything you say
on this topic as serious...)

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

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
[]
If the MTF is what you say, you don't have a lens even
close to worth using. If the lens is even close to
usable as a lens, the MTF will not be what you say.

I might be inclined to agree with your first point, but I would like to
see data to substantiate the second.

Because *often* the prints in fact *are* larger. If the
camera can produce good 16x20 prints, it can also
produce fine 6x4 prints, but the opposite is not
necessarily true.

So you would go both for good sensors and good optics, should you want
large prints.

So you want manufacturers to build a separate version
customized for each and every different customer! I'll
settle for buying a much cheaper camera due to economies
of scale when Nikon rolls out more than 5,000 identical
cameras a month for 2 or 3 years, rather than the one of
a kind you suggest. And I'll just have to settle for it
having features I never use. Besides, to be honest I
don't know today which features in my next camera will
be the ones I never use. Nikon graciously included
features in the last one I bought that I'd never thought
of, and even when I first noticed them I didn't realize
how useful they'd be.

It was Rich who suggested that might happen, not me.

But you do seem to be recommending high resolution sensors
using broken coke bottle bottoms retrieved from a 1950's
dump... all to avoid an unnecessary AA filter.

(You may notice that I've stopped taking anything you say
on this topic as serious...)

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

No, that's not what I'm recommending at all. And I'm no recommending
avoiding the AA filter!

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" wrote:

It was Rich who suggested that might happen, not me.

When you align yourself with Rich...

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

When you align yourself with Rich...

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

Discussing AA filters says nothing about "alignment".

David

David J Taylor wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
Very interesting.

Does this mean (changing the subject to compact small-sensor cameras)
that there may actually be a point to all this pixel cramming --
things like putting 16 megapixels on a 1/2.3" sensor?

I'm assuming that such cameras have been using AA filters all along
too.

Having a fixed lens, where you can then design the lens and the
sensor as an integrated system, may well allow you to get better
results than having a "general purpose" sensor onto which a wide
range of lens types can be installed.

That makes sense to me, though I'm speaking as one who has a pitifully small
understanding of how exactly the AA filter does what it does. I will need to
do a good deal more reading on all this.

It could well be that limiting
the MTF of the lens not to exceed the sensor needs is one design
option.
In the limit, if you have a fixed sensor size, and a fixed display
size, how does the pixel density affect things? In the past smaller
pixels have meant a poorer light collection efficiency, and hence a
poorer overall signal to noise ratio. If that's fixed with
micro-lenses, then the pixel size primarily affects system MTF, and
that is becoming more and more lens-limited. Not to mention
diffraction limited for the small-sensor camera.

It raises the question as to what is the resolution requirement of the
final image. An 8 x 10 inch print at 250 ppi? 5 MP. So could the
eye actually see a significant difference between a 5 MP and a 15 MP
sensor (if they are equally efficient)?

It doesn't seem so.

And might the 16 MP sensor
not require an AA filter as the lens doesn't justify it? And might
that save cost, and make the camera /sound/ better?

I see what you mean. Would saving the cost of an AA filter balance the
presumably greater cost of the 16MP sensor, though? (I have absolutely *no*
idea of the relative cost of these parts.)

I'm sure you're right that the 16MP camera would be of benefit in marketing,
if nothing else.


Having thought it through, no, I'm not convinced that the saving of
cost by not having an AA filter would alone justify the move to
high-MP sensors, but it might be a side-benefit, particularly on
cheaper cameras.
Just some initial ideas - your thoughts welcomed.

Thanks. In the words of Jack Benny, "I'm thinking it over." :-)

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
I see what you mean. Would saving the cost of an AA filter balance the
presumably greater cost of the 16MP sensor, though? (I have absolutely
*no* idea of the relative cost of these parts.)

I'm sure you're right that the 16MP camera would be of benefit in
marketing, if nothing else.

In the small-sensor cameras (the 16 MP point-and-shoots I had in mind when
making my remarks about the sensor and lens being designed as one unit) I
would expect the cost of the AA filter to be very low - it doesn't require
accurate alignment on the sensor, unlike the Bayer colour filter mask. My
estimate is that the sensor cost is a rather small fraction of the cots of
such P&S cameras, but I don't know the real costs.

I do hope that Nikon don't start claiming some spurious resolution gain
should they actually omit the AA filter as an option! All the Nikon DSLRs
I've used so far have had very sensible AA filters, and have produced
excellent quality images.

Cheers,
David

Neil Harrington wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
Very interesting.

Does this mean (changing the subject to compact small-sensor cameras)
that there may actually be a point to all this pixel cramming --
things like putting 16 megapixels on a 1/2.3" sensor?

I'm assuming that such cameras have been using AA filters all along
too.

Having a fixed lens, where you can then design the lens and the
sensor as an integrated system, may well allow you to get better
results than having a "general purpose" sensor onto which a wide
range of lens types can be installed.

That makes sense to me, though I'm speaking as one who has a pitifully small
understanding of how exactly the AA filter does what it does. I will need to
do a good deal more reading on all this.

There's a nice explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

Andrew.

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:



The bottom line is that using the lens as an AA filter
will result in a low resolution image that also has
effects from aliasing. Or, "What's the point?"

Whatever, I'll be just really amazed if Nikon has a model
without an AA filter.


I hope they do, I figure they won't as modularity isn't in the Japanese
manufacturing genetic code. Like I've said befo
DSLR, interchangeable sensors. Would sell hugely, Japanese mindset too
narrow to consider.

On 1/3/2012 10:37 PM, Rich wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:



The bottom line is that using the lens as an AA filter
will result in a low resolution image that also has
effects from aliasing. Or, "What's the point?"

Whatever, I'll be just really amazed if Nikon has a model
without an AA filter.


I hope they do, I figure they won't as modularity isn't in the Japanese
manufacturing genetic code. Like I've said befo
DSLR, interchangeable sensors. Would sell hugely, Japanese mindset too
narrow to consider.

Submit your CV.
You are right:
My Nikon F3 never had an interchangeable viewfinder. No Japanese camera
was ever made with interchangeable lenses. None of my old lenses from my
F3 work on my D300. There is no similarity in menus between any two
cameras in the Nikon or Canon lines.
No motor drives were ever made for any Japanese made camera, work on any
other model. Especially my old FM & FE.

There are no common wiring harnesses for models of any Lexus, Infinity,
Toyota, etc.
IOW your usual prejudiced and unknowledgeable BS.

Perhaps that's why they are made in Indonesia.


--
Peter

Andrew Haley wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
Very interesting.

Does this mean (changing the subject to compact small-sensor
cameras) that there may actually be a point to all this pixel
cramming -- things like putting 16 megapixels on a 1/2.3" sensor?

I'm assuming that such cameras have been using AA filters all along
too.

Having a fixed lens, where you can then design the lens and the
sensor as an integrated system, may well allow you to get better
results than having a "general purpose" sensor onto which a wide
range of lens types can be installed.

That makes sense to me, though I'm speaking as one who has a
pitifully small understanding of how exactly the AA filter does what
it does. I will need to do a good deal more reading on all this.

There's a nice explanation at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

Andrew.

Thanks very much, I will read that.