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 D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote: Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time). so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias artifact or actual detail. That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it "looks right", not that it *is* right. it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject. That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that will largely go unnoticed. sometimes. the problem is you never know ahead of time what you might get. some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so they want the artifacts to stay. And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently. medium format backs have a much higher resolution, so there's going to be less aliasing. they may also shoot subjects where it's not likely to be a problem, such as glassware or food. And one can often (always, with enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.) that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from scratch because it's full of artifacts? Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time you win. actually artifacts are not that rare at all, and worse, you can't know they're there until you inspect the image, which is not going to happen for most situations. if the shot was a once in a lifetime opportunity, you're screwed no matter what you do. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
nospam writes: In article , David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time). so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias artifact or actual detail. That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it "looks right", not that it *is* right. it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject. That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that will largely go unnoticed. No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if there are no patterns. It's something similar to flare, where you have the common belief that if you don't see reflections of a light source in the image it is absolutely not being affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare. In both cases the specifics can be very difficult to detect by visual inspection. some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so they want the artifacts to stay. And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently. It's all a matter of perspective. When you look at the resulting images and make direct comparisons, or even just judgments about a single image being adequate, that provides a useful product in the end. But if everyone were a Luddite and refused to give a new technology that in theory is better a try, we'd have a very different world. The fact is that newer technology will indeed produce equal or better results. But that does not also mean that the older equipment does not *also* produce useful results. That is, the D800E does not make a D700 a bad camera, nor did that make a D1 bad. But here we are in 2012 and you may note that *nobody* uses a D1 for serious work professionally... And one can often (always, with enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.) that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from scratch because it's full of artifacts? Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time you win. It isn't that they are "very very rare". There are relatively common. That doesn't mean that most of them are other than negligible for the desired output. But even those that cannot be ignored are all too common. Plus as technology advances what people will accept as negligible is going to change. A year from now the minimum acceptable levels will be significantly elevated from today's standards... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
nospam writes:
In article , David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time). so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias artifact or actual detail. That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it "looks right", not that it *is* right. it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject. That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that will largely go unnoticed. sometimes. the problem is you never know ahead of time what you might get. Depending on how often it happens, and how you shoot, it may or may not be a problem to have to check carefully while shooting. some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so they want the artifacts to stay. And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently. medium format backs have a much higher resolution, so there's going to be less aliasing. they may also shoot subjects where it's not likely to be a problem, such as glassware or food. You may perhaps have noticed that one way the D800 differs from the D700 is the resolution. And one can often (always, with enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.) that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from scratch because it's full of artifacts? Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time you win. actually artifacts are not that rare at all, and worse, you can't know they're there until you inspect the image, which is not going to happen for most situations. if the shot was a once in a lifetime opportunity, you're screwed no matter what you do. It's almost impossible to get except with man-made objects (nature doesn't tend towards regular grids). Most of the things people shoot and want serious high-res for are not "grab shots", either. But absolutely, the D800E is NOT the camera for photojournalists, sports photographers, most portraitists, or many architectural or studio shooters (depending on how slowly and carefully they normally work; if you see the moire problem immediately, you can usually find a very slight variation of the setup that eliminates it). -- 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes: David Dyer-Bennet wrote: nospam writes: In article , David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time). so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias artifact or actual detail. That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it "looks right", not that it *is* right. it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject. That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that will largely go unnoticed. No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if there are no patterns. Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire. You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It *added noise*, and the image does not show what was in the original scene. It's something similar to flare, where you have the common belief that if you don't see reflections of a light source in the image it is absolutely not being affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare. I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting just around my home. Yuck. But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix. The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast, so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image quality. In both cases the specifics can be very difficult to detect by visual inspection. some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so they want the artifacts to stay. And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently. It's all a matter of perspective. When you look at the resulting images and make direct comparisons, or even just judgments about a single image being adequate, that provides a useful product in the end. But if everyone were a Luddite and refused to give a new technology that in theory is better a try, we'd have a very different world. The fact is that newer technology will indeed produce equal or better results. But that does not also mean that the older equipment does not *also* produce useful results. That is, the D800E does not make a D700 a bad camera, nor did that make a D1 bad. But here we are in 2012 and you may note that *nobody* uses a D1 for serious work professionally... Clearly AA is the current frontier. The digital backs and Leica have played with it already, now Nikon is. Oh, and the Fuji EVIL camera is without AA and doing stuff with Bayer filter layout to avoid color artifacts. Yep, and it is possible (though maybe not) that Nikon will have a signficiantly greater effect on the public awareness of what it all means. Instead of market hype from Leica we will have a much better informed and larger group of people who will actually have experience. It will be a different game 12 months from now... And one can often (always, with enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.) that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from scratch because it's full of artifacts? Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time you win. It isn't that they are "very very rare". There are relatively common. That doesn't mean that most of them are other than negligible for the desired output. But even those that cannot be ignored are all too common. Plus as technology advances what people will accept as negligible is going to change. A year from now the minimum acceptable levels will be significantly elevated from today's standards... I'm betting that will go the other way in regards to moire. I doubt that! As people become aware of it, and the fact that it need not be acceptable, it won't be. Fashion is where everyone thinks non-AA filtered cameras are used, and I doubt they will decide on the D800E rather than the D800! Actually, I don't see any mass market segment picking up on the D800E for a specific product. It's going to appeal to the same kind of folks that buy the Leica M9. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) writes: David Dyer-Bennet wrote: nospam writes: In article , David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Once the alias artifacts are recorded by the sensor, it's extremely difficult to remove, because it's up right near the limiting resolution of the system (meaning very small bits to edit one at a time). so extremely difficult, that it's actually impossible to remove after it's sampled. there's no way to know whether something is an alias artifact or actual detail. That's relevant for certain kinds of scientific photography, but not for artistic photography. Different kinds of documentary photography fall somewhere in between. For nearly all portraits, what matters is that it "looks right", not that it *is* right. it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject. That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that will largely go unnoticed. No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if there are no patterns. Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire. You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It *added noise*, and the image does not show what was in the original scene. You're defining "at variance to reality" as "a problem". For most photography, that's not accurate. It's something similar to flare, where you have the common belief that if you don't see reflections of a light source in the image it is absolutely not being affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare. I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting just around my home. Yuck. But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix. The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast, so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image quality. Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image quality; the images look sharper to people. In both cases the specifics can be very difficult to detect by visual inspection. some people are fooled by that (sigma/foveon users in particular), so they want the artifacts to stay. And users of most medium-format digital bakcs, apparently. It's all a matter of perspective. When you look at the resulting images and make direct comparisons, or even just judgments about a single image being adequate, that provides a useful product in the end. But if everyone were a Luddite and refused to give a new technology that in theory is better a try, we'd have a very different world. The fact is that newer technology will indeed produce equal or better results. But that does not also mean that the older equipment does not *also* produce useful results. That is, the D800E does not make a D700 a bad camera, nor did that make a D1 bad. But here we are in 2012 and you may note that *nobody* uses a D1 for serious work professionally... Clearly AA is the current frontier. The digital backs and Leica have played with it already, now Nikon is. Oh, and the Fuji EVIL camera is without AA and doing stuff with Bayer filter layout to avoid color artifacts. Yep, and it is possible (though maybe not) that Nikon will have a signficiantly greater effect on the public awareness of what it all means. Instead of market hype from Leica we will have a much better informed and larger group of people who will actually have experience. It will be a different game 12 months from now... And I'm not prepared to bet much of anything on any prediction of details of that different game :-). It'd be better, certainly, if it were based on buyers knowing more about these choices. And one can often (always, with enough work) repair the moire so that it looks right. (Proof: people can paint photo-realistic paintings from scratch; therefore they can, if they want to badly enough, replace the areas damaged by moire or whatever from scratch, if no lesser fix is satisfactory.) that's one of the most ridiculous things i've read in ages. why even use a camera at all you are going to repaint the whole image from scratch because it's full of artifacts? Because actual visible artifacts are very very rare; so most of the time you win. It isn't that they are "very very rare". There are relatively common. That doesn't mean that most of them are other than negligible for the desired output. But even those that cannot be ignored are all too common. Plus as technology advances what people will accept as negligible is going to change. A year from now the minimum acceptable levels will be significantly elevated from today's standards... I'm betting that will go the other way in regards to moire. I doubt that! As people become aware of it, and the fact that it need not be acceptable, it won't be. Fashion is where everyone thinks non-AA filtered cameras are used, and I doubt they will decide on the D800E rather than the D800! Actually, I don't see any mass market segment picking up on the D800E for a specific product. It's going to appeal to the same kind of folks that buy the Leica M9. Fashion? No; not me, not anybody I've heard talk. Fashion is full of regular patterns, from the actual weave of materials on up. It's pretty much the worst-case environment for moire. The place that it seems to me to make sense, from reports of people using other non-AA gear, is for landscape photos, nature photos, wildlife, macro, and such -- when there's nothing manmage, nothing regularly patterned, in the scene. -- 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote: it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject. That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that will largely go unnoticed. No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if there are no patterns. Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire. You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It *added noise*, and the image does not show what was in the original scene. You're defining "at variance to reality" as "a problem". For most photography, that's not accurate. of course it's a problem. accurately reproducing the subject is the goal. if you want to modify it later, such as something artsy and surrealistic, that's something separate. It's something similar to flare, where you have the common belief that if you don't see reflections of a light source in the image it is absolutely not being affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare. I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting just around my home. Yuck. But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix. The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast, so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image quality. Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image quality; the images look sharper to people. if people think aliased images are higher quality then they're ignorant about what it is they're looking at. the images might have more 'zing,' but they're full of bogus details, sometimes disturbingly so. sharpening is separate, and a lot of people also mistake high amounts of sharpening to mean higher quality. in fact, that's the whole secret sauce to sigma/foveon. lots of aliasing and lots of sharpening. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
nospam writes:
In article , David Dyer-Bennet wrote: it's relevant for all photography. aliasing means it won't look right because there are details in the photo that *weren't* in the subject. That's incorrect. Some blatant situations like moire will certainly look wrong, but aliasing that DOESN'T build up global patterns like that will largely go unnoticed. No, he is absolutely right. Aliasing is actually spread throughout the frequency spectrum below Nyquist (I believe it was you who said it was all bunched close to Nyquist.) It doesn't necessarily form patterns, which are what the human eye is sensitive too. When it does it is very easy to detect and identify, and not so if there are no patterns. Exactly; I didn't say there was no aliasing, I said there was no visual problem, unless the aliasing built up into larger patterns like moire. You said he was "incorrect", but what he said was absolutely correct. The visual problems may not be easy to identify as aliasing, but they are still there. It *added noise*, and the image does not show what was in the original scene. You're defining "at variance to reality" as "a problem". For most photography, that's not accurate. of course it's a problem. accurately reproducing the subject is the goal. if you want to modify it later, such as something artsy and surrealistic, that's something separate. Not everybody has that definition of photography. And many people who might say they do don't behave in practice as if they did. B&W is not "accurately reproducing". Using a red filter to darken skies is not "accurately reproducing". It's something similar to flare, where you have the common belief that if you don't see reflections of a light source in the image it is absolutely not being affected by flare; which is not at all the case. Flare in it's most common manifestation merely reduces the contrast of an image. Most folks don't notice it at all, and might even consciously dial in extra contrast to correct for flare and yet claim there is no flare. I replaced the 18-70 kit lens (which I'd bought used to try out) with the 17-55/2.8 because of its fondness for veiling glare when shooting just around my home. Yuck. But at least even veiling glare is fairly easy to fix. The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast, so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image quality. Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image quality; the images look sharper to people. if people think aliased images are higher quality then they're ignorant about what it is they're looking at. the images might have more 'zing,' but they're full of bogus details, sometimes disturbingly so. Or have different preferences than you do. -- 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote: B&W is not "accurately reproducing". Using a red filter to darken skies is not "accurately reproducing". b&w falls into the artsy category, especially when done with filters. The point is still that just as flare reduces contrast, so do aliasing artifacts affect the overall image, and reduce the accuracy of the data, which is lower image quality. Not to most people. In fact, to many people, it's *higher* image quality; the images look sharper to people. if people think aliased images are higher quality then they're ignorant about what it is they're looking at. the images might have more 'zing,' but they're full of bogus details, sometimes disturbingly so. Or have different preferences than you do. maybe so, but it does not change the fact that images with alias artifacts are *not* higher quality and do *not* resolve more detail. the 'extra detail' is false. however, some people do prefer that. sigma caters to them. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D800/E $3000, cheaper than I thought
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:48:15 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
: It's almost impossible to get [Moiré patterns] except with man-made objects : (nature doesn't tend towards regular grids). Most of the things people : shoot and want serious high-res for are not "grab shots", either. : : But absolutely, the D800E is NOT the camera for photojournalists, sports : photographers, most portraitists, or many architectural or studio : shooters (depending on how slowly and carefully they normally work; if : you see the moire problem immediately, you can usually find a very : slight variation of the setup that eliminates it). I made the following point earlier in a slightly different form, but I'm not sure anybody noticed. It's my strong suspicion that the D800E will sell well enough to justify its existence, but will be almost nobody's only camera. A pro or semi-pro photog has to have a backup camera and might well buy both the D800 and the D800E. I suppose I might have done exactly that myself if I were a well-heeled Nikonian. I use two cameras for most of my event photography anyway, and in event photography Moiré is unlikely to be a problem. But in a situation where I thought I needed the highest possible resolution, the E version would be available. Under this assumption David, Floyd, Bruce, nospam, and the rest of the contestants of this issue could all be right, and it wouldn't make any difference. Am I all wet or onto something? Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D800; it's going to be fascinating | Rich[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | January 4th 12 03:19 PM |
Nikon D800; it's going to be fascinating | Rich[_6_] | Digital Photography | 2 | December 26th 11 08:51 AM |
BWL (Big White Lens) Rental Cheaper than I thought | SMS | Digital Photography | 6 | May 11th 06 11:24 PM |
BWL (Big White Lens) Rental Cheaper than I thought | SMS | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | May 11th 06 11:24 PM |
Nikon D50 30% cheaper than Canon XT | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 16 | January 1st 06 11:52 PM |