As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

Bruce wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
[]
You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with people who postulate
from theory but don't ever seem to look at the images being discussed.

They argue that a DSLR with an AA filter gives sharper and more
detailed results than one without despite the evidence of images that
show the complete opposite.

Not so. With an AA filter the results will be more accurate, but will
appear /less/ "sharp". This has been explained many times.

But always in theory, and never on the basis of images that tell a
very different story to the ones that theorists peddle.

Perhaps one day you will be able to own some of the professional grade
equipment that you pontificate about. Perhaps then you will be able
to tell us the truth based on what you see, rather than what your
precious theories tell you might be the case, but isn't.

Not for the first time, I caution you about extrapolating your limited
experience of using junk zoom lenses on an obsolete consumer-grade
DSLR into areas that are far beyond your practical knowledge of
photography. Of course your *theoretical* knowledge knows no bounds,
but when applied to the real world, it is just plain wrong.

Rather than argue with facts, all you can do is produce
Ad Hominem attacks claiming you know things about the
people you disagree with that in fact you don't know.

The charts that I posted were done by Marianne Oelund,
who personally shoots with a D3S. The same data was
essentially produce by Bill Claff. In both cases the
data was derived from actual measurement on images
released by Nikon in the case of the D4 and D800 and
compared the their own images shot with D3 and D3S
cameras. Interestingly enough when Bill Claff first did
an analysis on D4 images he engaged in a short discussion
about the techniques he was using with Eric Fossum, joined
by Marianne and others. Claff and Oelund are design
engineers, Fossum of course is a research engineer.

(It's true that I don't know if Eric Fossum has ever own
a D3S or the equivalent, or if he is even a photographer.
*It doesn't really any difference though*, does it!)

Marianne Oelund: http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/
Bill Claff: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/
Eric Fossum: http://ericfossum.com

You can of course be foolish and argue that you are
better qualified than they are to either measure or
understand digital imaging. Should be good for a laugh
or two.

BTW, just to demonstrate how foolish it is to make
the kind of arguments you've provided, I own and use
a Nikon D3S. Where does that leave this:

You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with
people who postulate from theory but don't ever seem
to look at the images being discussed.
...
Of course the ultimate irony is that none of these
idiot obsessives will ever be able to afford the
cameras they are criticising, so they are blathering
about things they know nothing about."

Seems that you descriptions of other people fit *you*!

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

On 2012-03-04 10:06 , David J Taylor wrote:
that desire, so there is no need for your personal attacks.

Of course there is a need for his personal attacks.

The need is his.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
The charts that I posted were done by Marianne Oelund,
who personally shoots with a D3S. The same data was
essentially produce by Bill Claff. In both cases the
data was derived from actual measurement on images
released by Nikon in the case of the D4 and D800 and
compared the their own images shot with D3 and D3S
cameras. Interestingly enough when Bill Claff first did
an analysis on D4 images he engaged in a short discussion
about the techniques he was using with Eric Fossum, joined
by Marianne and others. Claff and Oelund are design
engineers, Fossum of course is a research engineer.

(It's true that I don't know if Eric Fossum has ever own
a D3S or the equivalent, or if he is even a photographer.
*It doesn't really any difference though*, does it!)

Marianne Oelund: http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/
Bill Claff: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/
Eric Fossum: http://ericfossum.com

Sorry, I left out the URL to the discussion referenced above:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=40331476

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

RichA wrote:
Then why don't actual images support this?

Rather clearly the actual images do support this. This
entire set of data was generated from images. This is
not dreamed up by your or Bruce, it was measured by
people who have the equipment and the software (and the
know how).

Also, that user you
referenced mentioned in that thread her conclusions are an "educated
guess."

That is true. She has D3 and D3S image that she took
using her own camera. The D4 and D800 images available
have not been taken under strictly controlled
circumstances, and are merely what Nikon has made
available on the net.

The guesses are "educated", but since everyone who has
done the same analysis has arrived at virtually
identical results, it does appear that they results are
probably accurate enough. (I would suggest you read
with more care and not try to shift or exaggerate the
viewpoint of those you are citing.)

Also, they are talking about DR, and I was referencing noise.

And DR has nothing to do with noise, right?

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

In article , Bruce
wrote:

You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with people who postulate
from theory but don't ever seem to look at the images being discussed.

actually, it's you who is wasting breath, because you haven't an
inkling of a clue about what you're talking about.

They argue that a DSLR with an AA filter gives sharper and more
detailed results than one without despite the evidence of images that
show the complete opposite.

bull****.

if you have images that prove longstanding signal theory is wrong, by
all means present them. quite a few people will be interested in seeing
such evidence, far more than just the readers of this newsgroup. you
could turn the entire industry on its head. you'd be famous.

the reality is, you can't because no such images exist. you're talking
out your ass. you don't even understand the theories you claim are
shown to be wrong.

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:

RichA wrote:
Then why don't actual images support this?

Rather clearly the actual images do support this. This
entire set of data was generated from images. This is
not dreamed up by your or Bruce, it was measured by
people who have the equipment and the software (and the
know how).

Also, that user you
referenced mentioned in that thread her conclusions are an "educated
guess."

That is true. She has D3 and D3S image that she took
using her own camera. The D4 and D800 images available
have not been taken under strictly controlled
circumstances, and are merely what Nikon has made
available on the net.

The guesses are "educated", but since everyone who has
done the same analysis has arrived at virtually
identical results, it does appear that they results are
probably accurate enough. (I would suggest you read
with more care and not try to shift or exaggerate the
viewpoint of those you are citing.)

Also, they are talking about DR, and I was referencing noise.

And DR has nothing to do with noise, right?


It has absolutely nothing to do with noise unless you artificially
compress DR in order to accentuate noise. If the DR of the new camera is
better than the D3S AND it has more visible noise, then it really is a
step backward.

nospam wrote in news:040320120926345162%
lid:

In article , Bruce
wrote:

You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with people who postulate
from theory but don't ever seem to look at the images being discussed.

actually, it's you who is wasting breath, because you haven't an
inkling of a clue about what you're talking about.

They argue that a DSLR with an AA filter gives sharper and more
detailed results than one without despite the evidence of images that
show the complete opposite.

bull****.

if you have images that prove longstanding signal theory is wrong, by
all means present them. quite a few people will be interested in seeing
such evidence, far more than just the readers of this newsgroup. you
could turn the entire industry on its head. you'd be famous.

There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter, where have you been? As for moire, no one is arguing that you
can experience moire without an AA filter, but the question is, how much
is too much and is trading off 20% linear resolution from EVERY image
worth eliminating a small risk of moire?

Rich wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:

RichA wrote:
Then why don't actual images support this?

Rather clearly the actual images do support this. This
entire set of data was generated from images. This is
not dreamed up by your or Bruce, it was measured by
people who have the equipment and the software (and the
know how).

Also, that user you
referenced mentioned in that thread her conclusions are an "educated
guess."

That is true. She has D3 and D3S image that she took
using her own camera. The D4 and D800 images available
have not been taken under strictly controlled
circumstances, and are merely what Nikon has made
available on the net.

The guesses are "educated", but since everyone who has
done the same analysis has arrived at virtually
identical results, it does appear that they results are
probably accurate enough. (I would suggest you read
with more care and not try to shift or exaggerate the
viewpoint of those you are citing.)

Also, they are talking about DR, and I was referencing noise.

And DR has nothing to do with noise, right?


It has absolutely nothing to do with noise unless you artificially
compress DR in order to accentuate noise. If the DR of the new camera is
better than the D3S AND it has more visible noise, then it really is a
step backward.

You are simply wrong, on all counts.

First, the charts were not for Dynamic Range, but rather
for Signal to Noise Ratio.

But even then DR and SNR are simply a way of putting
noise values into context.

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

Rich wrote:
nospam wrote in news:040320120926345162%
:

In article , Bruce
wrote:

You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with people who postulate
from theory but don't ever seem to look at the images being discussed.

actually, it's you who is wasting breath, because you haven't an
inkling of a clue about what you're talking about.

They argue that a DSLR with an AA filter gives sharper and more
detailed results than one without despite the evidence of images that
show the complete opposite.

bull****.

if you have images that prove longstanding signal theory is wrong, by
all means present them. quite a few people will be interested in seeing
such evidence, far more than just the readers of this newsgroup. you
could turn the entire industry on its head. you'd be famous.

There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter, where have you been?

Your imagination is running wild again. Take your meds
or consult the doc for a different prescription.

As for moire, no one is arguing that you
can experience moire without an AA filter, but the question is, how much
is too much

Good right down to that point. But then you slide
off the hill again with this:

and is trading off 20% linear resolution from EVERY image
worth eliminating a small risk of moire?

A 20% linear resolution??? You are a real hoot.

Do you realize that 300 PPI D800 images printed at 8x10
leaves only 40% of the resolution? It dropped from the
original 106 lp/mm down to 42 lp/mm.

Maybe you need the context explained... If the 106
lp/mm resolution was reduced by 20%, that would be a
loss of about 21 lpmm, to 85 lp/mm. And obviously on an
8x10 print, that can show only 42 lp/mm, or half of
that, it makes no difference at all! And would not
be measureable, much less visible, with a 16x20 print.

I'll leave it to you to figure out how large an image
has to be to even see your imaginary 20% reduction, never
mind what really exists.

Also, while in fact the reduction is nothing close to
any 20%, it does exist but is also offset by the
increased aliasing distortion that is distributed
through out the spacial bandwidth of the image. Worse
yet, it takes a lot of extreme technique to retain the
upper limits of resolution for even the D800 with an AA
filter, never mind the D800E without it. Most exposures
simply will not capture resolution in that range to
begin with (due camera shake, diffraction, etc).

For those who don't normally print at 30x36 sizes, the
D800E is not appropriate. For those who do it might
well be the right camera.

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

On 3/5/2012 8:53 AM, Bruce wrote:


Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some
don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast
majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time
with no AA filters.

But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't.

Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can
easily be avoided.

How do you avoid it?

1) go to f/11 or f/16 to let diffraction do the job. Downside:
loss of background blurring.

2) Slightly defocus the afflicted region. This might or might not
be useful in any given case.

3) Use a crappy lens.

4) if studio photography, remove the offending object.

4) Get a filter for the lens that intentionally blurs the picture
by having a somewhat lumpy surface polish. This is a panacea,
but you might need different filters for different f/numbers.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this.

I just bought a Canon 7D instead of a 5DMkIII ... and I noticed
moire in many of the images I found on the web. However, this
was very minor. It also means Canon makes really good lenses.
I'm not worried!

Doug McDonald