mjh Posted September 16, 2008 Share #281 Posted September 16, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) And I don't think the lack of AA has that much big effect on the file quality. Quality encompasses many different things, so any general way of relating the presence or lack of an antialiasing filter with quality would most likely be overstating the actual effect. Still, the influence of the antialiasing filter on sharpness and resolution is huge. There is a rumour to the effect that Canon wants to get rid of the antialiasing filter eventually, and I tend to believe it. The strongest argument in favour of an antialiasing filter is that it simplifies the internal image processing. Eliminating moiré algorithmically is a hard problem, and the existing solutions require more powerful CPUs than those typically found in cameras. That’s why the cameras lacking an antialiasing filter are generally those geared towards a raw workflow, which is true of MF cameras, but also of the DMR and the M8. Once someone, be it Canon or another vendor, should manage to implement an effective and efficient moiré-removal algorithm in-camera, we will see less and less sensors with antialiasing filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 16, 2008 Posted September 16, 2008 Hi mjh, Take a look here Some News (or Rumor) About R10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
R10dreamer Posted September 16, 2008 Share #282 Posted September 16, 2008 What a truly bizarre and mathematical way to compare. It is quite easy to compare cameras. You take a picture with each, and compare them. If you like one better, buy that camera. Hypothetical relationship between pixel densities and crop factors are uninteresting, because in the end we compare images, not tech. Wisdom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share #283 Posted September 16, 2008 Quality encompasses many different things, so any general way of relating the presence or lack of an antialiasing filter with quality would most likely be overstating the actual effect. I absolutely agree with you on that, Michael. And I was not denying the pixel casualty due to the use of an AA filter. However, I really doubt that how much contribution it would be in terms of gain in sharpness and resolution due to the lack of one. Color Foto has a test for the DMR with the 100 APO Macro, in their case, the DMR resolves 1313 lp/ph at ISO 100, they've also done a test for the 5D with a 50/2.5 Macro, and the result is 1358 lp/bh, which is apparently higher WITH an AA filter. I've seen several other tests, the results are pretty much in line. FotoMagzin you've written for probably has done similar tests too but I can't recall it. These test results don't make sense at all if you believe that the lack of AA "should" improve the sharpness/resolution under similar test conditions. So I was suggesting that the only valid test would be to use the same camera, same lens, but with a removable AA, then we can get the ultimate answer, and of course, the conclusion could be way different due to different strength of the AA too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share #284 Posted September 16, 2008 A long time ago I saw a comparison article about a Nikon camera with AA filter and with AA filter removed. The visul difference regarding sharpness/clarity was significant, stronger than 20% pixels more or less. That was impossible, if you could show me the actual proof. I offer to disappear from this forum indefinitely. If Nikon could do that, who don't they save some cost on AA and command much higher price for better picture quality? LOL Nikon couldn't even build a sensor of their own. I certainly hope your post doesn't reflect any part of German culture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted September 16, 2008 Share #285 Posted September 16, 2008 this isn't a forum for tossers Oh yes it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 16, 2008 Share #286 Posted September 16, 2008 Color Foto has a test for the DMR with the 100 APO Macro, in their case, the DMR resolves 1313 lp/ph at ISO 100, they've also done a test for the 5D with a 50/2.5 Macro, and the result is 1358 lp/bh, which is apparently higher WITH an AA filter. Given its higher megapixel figure, the 5D should have resolved 1481 lp/bh then, assuming for the moment that resolution did depend on the number of pixels alone. Anyway, when JPEGs are compared, the 5D should win. That’s what I said: as of now, cameras without an antialiasing filter can only excel when used in raw mode. But the state of the art is evolving and it may not stay this way. So I was suggesting that the only valid test would be to use the same camera, same lens, but with a removable AA, then we can get the ultimate answer, and of course, the conclusion could be way different due to different strength of the AA too. Those comparisons have been made (see Hot Rod Visible, although one might argue they aren’t necessarily impartial). One might also compare images taken with the Mamiya ZD with and without its removable antialiasing filter, but then the ZD didn’t impress me even without the filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 17, 2008 Author Share #287 Posted September 17, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) One might also compare images taken with the Mamiya ZD with and without its removable antialiasing filter, but then the ZD didn’t impress me even without the filter. Actually, is there an optional AA solution from Hasselblad? they probably couldn't care less ... but if so, then you could conduct a direct comparison with the 39 or maybe 50 MP backs. It would be very interesting to see one possible ultimate answer to the question. If you look at the EXIF in the hot rod shots closely enough, you can find the test is invalid, and metering, WB settings are wrong due to the possible IR mess up because the 5D used a sandwich filter with AA, IR cut and cover glass cemented together. The material Canon used is crystal instead of glass, that makes it absolutely impossible for the modifier to find a proper substitute after they remove the original one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 17, 2008 Share #288 Posted September 17, 2008 To clear it up, my posts was only regarding EH21's comment below, in which he says: And I don't think the lack of AA has that much big effect on the file quality. That's it. No one is comparing the DMR to the 5D. If you always feel the urge to jump the gun and take on topics you don't even bother to read from the beginning, carry on. What is up with you? You posted after my post with no context whatsoever, so I naturally assumed you were answering me. I did read the whole thread, I have no idea what major brain malfunction causes you to think that I didn't. Btw, please stop with the prejudiced comments about Germans. They are not funny, and they are not correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted September 17, 2008 Share #289 Posted September 17, 2008 That was impossible, if you could show me the actual proof. I offer to disappear from this forum indefinitely. If Nikon could do that, who don't they save some cost on AA and command much higher price for better picture quality? LOL ... I certainly hope your post doesn't reflect any part of German culture. You know we have been urged to adopt an average European mix of cultures with some North American influences. Does that apologies something? But, I was precise (good old German style) and talked about picture sharpness, not overall picture quality. Since I don't want you to disappear, I can not provide the link. But look at what Michael posted and look at the different pages of that website. When I see these Nikon comparisons I'm not so sure that I remembered them correctly. The filter-removed-pictures look a bit faked, not showing the real clearity that I remembered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 17, 2008 Author Share #290 Posted September 17, 2008 Since I don't want you to disappear, I can not provide the link. But look at what Michael posted and look at the different pages of that website. Mr. Like-No-Other, the sample shots on the Hot Rod site are a fake, if you extract the FULL EXIF from the file they've provided, you'll find the comparison shots were taken at different settings. The so-called hot rod camera was deliberately set at a higher sharpness custom setting. Plus, after the original filter is replaced. white balanced setting was completed screwed up. The hot rod shot was taken at a Tungsten WB setting in daylight. Why would we give a damn to a shameless fake? LOL Please don't take my some other comments too seriously, when we don't have a R10 to talk about, this is how we have fun and kill some time ... till next Monday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH21 Posted September 17, 2008 Share #291 Posted September 17, 2008 Back to discussion on a possible R10 or other new camera from Leica.... There's been a little bit of chatter on the Luminous-Landscape and also here too about invitations to Monday night event to announce the new camera. Lot's of speculation about if this is a S2 type or other MF camera or possibly a R10. One of the posters at LL stated that his invitation had a picture of the camera on it and that it looked like a regular 35mm camera. Sounds good too me if true since I have lots of R glass. I'm hoping this is a R compatible camera. I can't imagine Leica being able to bring out both a MF camera and also a new R at the same time (unless they are one and the same), Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorlol Posted September 17, 2008 Share #292 Posted September 17, 2008 Thought I might pay a return visit to a very favourite website. Nothing has changed, it appears. You are awaiting the coming of the messiah, in the shape of the R10. Yet Canon and Nikon are forging ahead. Having sold all of my Leica R8 kit and lenses and using a D3, I must leave you to your navel gazing, and hope that Photokins 2012, might be the show for the R10. Must say I do miss the 'red dot'! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooky Posted September 17, 2008 Share #293 Posted September 17, 2008 doctorlol, I've never been able to give up, or give in yet to another 35 system. I have tried though, and when I was trying, I kept the R equipment put away to give the possible replacement a fair shake - then I eventually sold the newcomer - and went back to the R.... Wait til Photokina 2012? No. Or 2010? No. It will be here sooner than that. Good Luck - though - something tells me you'll be back....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 17, 2008 Share #294 Posted September 17, 2008 Amazing how many people who used to use Leicas, or have never used Leicas, are suddenly coming back to the forum to see what's happening here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 17, 2008 Share #295 Posted September 17, 2008 Thought I might pay a return visit to a very favourite website. Nothing has changed, it appears. You are awaiting the coming of the messiah, in the shape of the R10. Yet Canon and Nikon are forging ahead. Having sold all of my Leica R8 kit and lenses and using a D3, I must leave you to your navel gazing, and hope that Photokins 2012, might be the show for the R10. Must say I do miss the 'red dot'! Red dots are available as replacement part and are self-adhesive. No problem sticking one on your Nikon.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 17, 2008 Share #296 Posted September 17, 2008 Actually, is there an optional AA solution from Hasselblad? For Hasselblad, having no antialiasing filter is a crucial part of their „Star Quality“ strategy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 17, 2008 Author Share #297 Posted September 17, 2008 For Hasselblad, having no antialiasing filter is a crucial part of their „Star Quality“ strategy. That's what I figured too, they'd only care about extreme quality. I know they don't have one on the sensor but have wondered if there's such a thing (optionally) ever existed. Thanks a lot for letting me know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 17, 2008 Share #298 Posted September 17, 2008 That's what I figured too, they'd only care about extreme quality. I know they don't have one on the sensor but have wondered if there's such a thing (optionally) ever existed. Thanks a lot for letting me know. I am not aware of an AA filter for any of the current models, even if it was for in-house testing purposes. And I think I would know if there was. But then, doing without an antialiasing filter is pretty much the standard in the medium-format world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Leicame Posted September 18, 2008 Share #299 Posted September 18, 2008 Red dots are available as replacement part and are self-adhesive. No problem sticking one on your Nikon.... Cool! I'll take 3,ahhh how much?,,i know..... if i have to ask then i prolly can't afford it, though would love to stick one on my fujifilm s5 that i mostly use with a 20+YO nikkor 50 1.4 in velvia F2 mode.deelishush!.thankfully i kept all my nikkor glass and F3 camera that to this day works without so much as a hiccup,and my dealer sed i wuz crazy selling my R4 that may have been the most defective piece of photograpghic equipment ever sold,and all that R glass that one day may be usefull on a R10?what's that gonna cost,7 D3's? .Heck i'm going to sell my M6 and all my M glass,had enough of paying thru my once upturned nose. Goodbye Leica,ya were'nt all that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 18, 2008 Share #300 Posted September 18, 2008 That was impossible, if you could show me the actual proof. I offer to disappear from this forum indefinitely. Not that I want you to leave, or anything, but: Nikon D200HR Read it and weep folks - AA filters have a horrible effect on not just resolution but also edge contrast and color clarity (read the introduction). If you don't know that you ain't edgicated. Oh - and here's the 5D with and without the AA filter. Eeeeew! Hot Rod Visible BTW I just noticed that this place also does conversions of the infrared filtering - If some brave soul REALLY BELIEVES that the M8 would not suffer image degradation with a stronger IR filter and wants to try it, it looks like these guys could put a stronger filter on for you to try...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.