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
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
On 3/5/2012 9:24 AM, Bruce wrote:
Doug wrote: 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 presume you were joking when you came up with these ideas. Whatever, thanks for making me laugh. ;-) No I was NOT joking ... are you? What do YOU propose to do about it other than ignore it? You simply CAN'T be seriously arguing that it never happens ... because it WILL happen ... just that it will RARELY ever be a problem ... with which, of course, I quite fully agree. Again: what do you propose to do about it when it happens? Doug McDonald |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Bruce wrote:
Rich wrote: There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA filter, where have you been? Probably spending days in front of his computer in his underclothes, rarely venturing outside, rarely experiencing fresh air or sunlight. There is a core of people doing the same thing, spouting nonsense and pet theories that they will never put to the test because they can't afford any of the equipment they criticise or comment on, and wouldn't know how to use it if they could. Theorising is all they have left, and their sole motivation is to make others unhappy with equipment they own or are considering buying. Jealousy is a strong driver of such behaviour - if you can't afford it or understand it, diss it. Leica users have to put up with this sort of crap all the time, always from people who cannot afford Leica gear, don't know how to use it, or most often both. You've posted that crap previously in response to my comments. I responded with this comment before, and post it now again: "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." Plus I provided a URL for the homepage of each of those people. Which of Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, Eric Fossum or myself, is it you are saying fits your repulsive description (which clearly is a bit of projection)? It seems that I and all of those listed above that my comments reference for factual data, with the possible exception of Eric Fossum, own and use exactly the equipment you say "they can't afford any of the equipment they criticise or comment on, and wouldn't know how to use it if they could." If Fossum doesn't own a D3S, does that matter? Are you claiming he can't afford one and doesn't know how it works anyway? Very clearly all of us know a great deal more about how to use it that you! 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. It isn't... under certain circumstances. They are basically confined to that set of circumstances by the equipment they use. And it happens that is an acceptable consequence that can be dealt with in that particular type of work. For others, it is unacceptable. Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can easily be avoided. However, it is being whipped up on online forums into something far worse by a group of profoundly ignorant people who simply haven't a clue about what they are talking about. It cannot "easily be avoided" if you are not aware that it exists. One problem with it is that it requires immediate inspection of the image to determine if a shot is usable. Shots that are not repeatable *cannot avoid moiré* when it does exists. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Doug McDonald wrote:
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? Well, to begin with that last thing you'd want to do is sweep it under the rug and try to unsult everyone that says it actually is a problem and then tries to explain why and also how to deal with it. That's Bruce's method. It's funny as Hell when he says nobody else has the money or the knowledge, and he is talking specifically about Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, and Eric Fossum who seem to be the ones leading the pack at spreading information about this topic. Bruce doesn't have a clue... 1) go to f/11 or f/16 to let diffraction do the job. Downside: loss of background blurring. Not at all a valid approach. Why use a camera for it's extra ability to capture high frequency detail and then use the worst possible low pass filter (which removes an excessive amount of detail if it is sufficient to remove the moiré). Better would be a camera that has the *best* anti-aliasing filter! 2) Slightly defocus the afflicted region. This might or might not be useful in any given case. Same as above. 3) Use a crappy lens. Same as above 4) if studio photography, remove the offending object. This is certainly a valid mechanism. It has limited value though. 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. Such filters are available, and as you say they have to be matched to the f/number. If I remember, they are expensive and tedius to use. However, you missed the best mechanism for dealing with moiré, which is to reposition the camera or the object. This of course also can have problems too, because while it removes moiré from one object or part of an object, it can also cause it to appear in another part of the image. Think in terms of buildings or other large structures, where shooting at one place and angle results in moiré one one part, say the top, and moving back eliminates it... and causes it to appear at the bottom. Moiré can be a tough nut to crack. 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! I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good lenses, but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be negligable is not correct. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:24 AM, Bruce wrote: Doug wrote: 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 presume you were joking when you came up with these ideas. Whatever, thanks for making me laugh. ;-) No I was NOT joking ... are you? What do YOU propose to do about it other than ignore it? You simply CAN'T be seriously arguing that it never happens ... because it WILL happen ... just that it will RARELY ever be a problem ... with which, of course, I quite fully agree. Again: what do you propose to do about it when it happens? He's not joking, he just doesn't know anything about this topic. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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! I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good lenses, if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail above the Nyquist frequency. but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be negligable is not correct. Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point: they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition (i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.) Doug McDonald |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: 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! I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good lenses, if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail above the Nyquist frequency. No, that's not true. Even most of the worst lenses around will allow some detail at those frequencies. Lens resolution is not a very good anti-aliasing filter, though it will work. But it takes a *terrible* lens. but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be negligable is not correct. Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point: they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition (i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.) And the common examples being show where it destroys the image? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Bruce wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote: On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: 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! I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good lenses, if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail above the Nyquist frequency. but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be negligable is not correct. Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point: they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition (i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.) Thanks for your support, Doug, but I never claimed that moire was "negligible". It isn't possible to have a civilised discussion with people who twist my words and argue against something I never said, which is why Floyd L Davidson will be staying in my kill file for an extremely long time. Hiding from reality doesn't change it. "Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can easily be avoided." -- Bruce Which is to say: Bruce said moiré negligible! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Bruce wrote:
Now that fact should tell you *all you need to know about moire*. Meanwhile, there are some seriously deranged people who would have you believe otherwise. ;-) Bruce put me into his killfile to avoid answering the question I've posed about that sort of insulting reference to people who disagree with him. I've posted data from Marianne Oelund, and commented that she, Bill Claff, and Eric Fossum are the people "who would have you believe otherwise". Bruce says they can't afford to buy those cameras, don't understand them anyway, and disparage them out of jealousy! What a hoot. I've mentioned before that Oelund and Claff definitely own Nikon D3S cameras; but I don't know if Eric Fossum does, and don't believe it makes any difference either. It is just hilarious for Bruce to make such claims! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S
Me writes:
On 3/03/2012 6:03 p.m., Floyd L. Davidson wrote: wrote: Downsize the D4 images or whatever, but the output from the D3S is still the best of any DSLR. http://tinyurl.com/7mmbmkq Perhaps your subjective opinion is... eerrrrrr, less that valid? Here's something a little less difficult for you the analyze. See if you can tell us in what way it supports your bull**** opinion? http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO200snr.gif http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO3200snr.gif http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/Te...SO12800snr.gif What you are most interested in, since you probably don't know, is where the graphs show different cameras in each ISO at the -6 EV and lower. Specifically the D3S is the light green color, while a normalized to 12 MP D800 graph is in red and a normalized to 12 MP D4 graph is in blue. In all cases, but particularly at ISO 200, the D4 and D800 both have better SNR than the D3 and D3S. This information (collated by Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, and others) just ain't going to "get through". The forums on DPReview are full of it. I'd hoped the 5dIII would have been near enough to 36mp to quell inter-brand BS on what "perfect pixel density" is. Dammit, now the Canon 5DII apologists will be arguing for exactly what they argued against when Canon had more pixels. It'll be good practice; teaches mental flexibility, etc. :-) -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
As suspected, it's crap | Bowser | Digital Photography | 3 | December 9th 10 06:03 PM |
What is the best way to clean lenses | Dave | Digital SLR Cameras | 12 | January 13th 06 10:24 AM |
how to clean a lens | pug brian | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 13 | November 14th 05 08:08 PM |
SUSPECTED FRAUD WARNING! | Frank Malloway | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 6 | July 4th 03 09:17 PM |
SUSPECTED FRAUD WARNING! | Frank Malloway | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 3rd 03 04:36 PM |