Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?

In article , Rich
wrote:

Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
organizations? Be interesting.

and stupid.

Tell it to Fuji.

fuji doesn't have random pixel size or organization

On 10-03-28 18:12 , Rich wrote:
wrote in news:270320101912492482%
lid:

In article
,
wrote:

Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
organizations? Be interesting.

and stupid.

Tell it to Fuji.

What's random about it? Oh, diagonal is "random" to you.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 03/29/2010 12:14 AM, nospam wrote:
In articleJOKdnSHtbdDcSTLWnZ2dnUVZ_gY3AAAA@giganews. com, Rich
wrote:

Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
organizations? Be interesting.

and stupid.

Tell it to Fuji.

fuji doesn't have random pixel size or organization
That's funny, they used to sell a lot of one-shot sensors with randomly
organized photo sites of varying sizes -- on rolls.
-- Hans

RichA wrote in
:

Maybe it's time for a sensor produced with random pixel sizes and
organizations? Be interesting.

That would make images a bit more aesthetically pleasing than using an
unfiltered uniform sensor with the same average pixel size, but it will
still be error-prone at low densities. It would simply avoid simple
repeating aliasing patterns; there would still be false detail. A system
where a white pixel can exist next to a black one (in the same color
channel, of course) can never give accurate imaging.

RichA wrote in news:21f2ae10-efbc-4b02-a0c7-
:

We've seen the before and after shots from cameras on the web. I
think it is a barrier.

If you always shoot at high f-stops, shutter speeds that are too low, or
are always out of focus, then you don't need an AA filter, even with big
pixels.

Some people *like* aliasing, because they are optically naive and don't
recognize real detail vs aliased apparent detail.

Me, personally, I get a very disturbing feeling when looking at aliased
images. Even downsampled, sharp images from the Sigma SD9 give me the
heeby-jeebies. They look like a small nearest-neighbor downsample of a
much larger image; with entire columns and rows of pixels removed, and the
remainder expanding to fill in the gaps.

nospam wrote in news:270320101900106899%
lid:

In article
,
RichA wrote:

We've seen the before and after shots from cameras on the web. I
think it is a barrier.

it's not a barrier. the solution is to use a higher resolution sensor.

Yes. When I get my 250MP FF sensor, I don't want the AA filter dropped. I
just want its radius small enough to prevent aliasing with sharp, fast
lenses. An appropriate AA filter for a 250MP FF would not adversely affect
images with higher f-stops; blur (radius) adds in quadrature, and the
contribution of the AA would be negligible.

In article , John Sheehy
wrote:

Some people *like* aliasing, because they are optically naive and don't
recognize real detail vs aliased apparent detail.

that's sigma's secret sauce. the aliasing doesn't have false colour so
they can get away with it (and even claim an anti-alias filter isn't
needed). a lot of people fall for it.

Me, personally, I get a very disturbing feeling when looking at aliased
images. Even downsampled, sharp images from the Sigma SD9 give me the
heeby-jeebies. They look like a small nearest-neighbor downsample of a
much larger image; with entire columns and rows of pixels removed, and the
remainder expanding to fill in the gaps.

not only are the images aliased like crazy but they're *also*
oversharpened. it really hurts.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:10:56 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , John Sheehy
wrote:

Some people *like* aliasing, because they are optically naive and don't
recognize real detail vs aliased apparent detail.

that's sigma's secret sauce. the aliasing doesn't have false colour so
they can get away with it (and even claim an anti-alias filter isn't
needed). a lot of people fall for it.

Me, personally, I get a very disturbing feeling when looking at aliased
images. Even downsampled, sharp images from the Sigma SD9 give me the
heeby-jeebies. They look like a small nearest-neighbor downsample of a
much larger image; with entire columns and rows of pixels removed, and the
remainder expanding to fill in the gaps.

not only are the images aliased like crazy but they're *also*
oversharpened. it really hurts.

We're all still waiting for just one image from any camera you've ever
touched in life. But we all know better, don't we. You're a
pretend-photographer troll who's never touched any real camera in your
lifetime.