Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1Ds MKIII and Optical Low Pass filtering  (Read 119942 times)
luong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2007, 12:56:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, the article certainly provides an insight into why it is thought AA filters are needed, but doesn't really explain why Bayer type cameras without either AA filters or microlenses, those ridiculously expensive MFDBs that knock your socks off, get by without them.


I think it is a matter of expectations and workflow, rather than a technical one.

With a DSLR, it is expected that you will shoot hundreds, or even thousands of frames in a day (if covering an event).  At the end of the shoot, you want to have images that are immediately usable. A slight loss of resolution that still makes it possible for you to produce a great 20x30 print (according to MR's eyes) doesn't make the image as unusable as some strange artefacts.

With a MFDB, you are supposed to work much more carefully and slowly, producing less frames, examining them one at a time. Since you spent the same amount of money as for as for two cars just for the sake of superior resolution over a product that was already pretty good,  you also expect to get the ultimate resolution, so anything that impacts it should be avoided.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2007, 12:57:43 PM by luong » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8849


« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2007, 03:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think it is a matter of expectations and workflow, rather than a technical one.

With a DSLR, it is expected that you will shoot hundreds, or even thousands of frames in a day (if covering an event).  At the end of the shoot, you want to have images that are immediately usable. A slight loss of resolution that still makes it possible for you to produce a great 20x30 print (according to MR's eyes) doesn't make the image as unusable as some strange artefacts.

With a MFDB, you are supposed to work much more carefully and slowly, producing less frames, examining them one at a time. Since you spent the same amount of money as for as for two cars just for the sake of superior resolution over a product that was already pretty good,  you also expect to get the ultimate resolution, so anything that impacts it should be avoided.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147237\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had similar thoughts myself. I think this is probably the correct explanation.

I get the impression that most people who use DSLRs shoot jpeg most of the time. They don't expect or want to have deal with moire issues and I believe that once the moire effects have been converted and compressed to jpeg, it's more difficult to remove them, is it not?

Perhaps the time has come for Canon to offer two versions of its DSLRs, starting with the 40D and 1Ds3; one with an AA filter for the happy snapshooter and one without an AA filter for the agonised, creative perfectionist.
Logged
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2007, 03:55:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you happy with the 16II?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have tried 4 copys. 3 were really bad. The 4th was much better then the old 16-35mm. I really don't understand the quality control of Canon. I bought the 50mm f1.2.  A lot of CA. I went to the sevice of Canon. They could make it a little better but the lens still gives at f5.6 more CA then all other lenses including a chaep Sigma 50 lens. Hopefully I can get a better copy.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8849


« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2007, 04:00:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, in  fact it might bring us back to square -3 since aliasing will be apparent (and mixed with the signal) at frequencies lower than the cutoff frequency.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you amplify on that please. Are you saying you can have aliasing artifacts, specifically moire, which is of a lower frequency than natural detail in the image which is unaffected by aliasing?
Logged
Ralph Eisenberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2007, 04:36:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you happy with the 16II?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I feel it is a significant improvement over the v1 that I had and as such am very pleased with it on my 1Ds2.
Logged

Ralph
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2007, 08:30:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you amplify on that please. Are you saying you can have aliasing artifacts, specifically moire, which is of a lower frequency than natural detail in the image which is unaffected by aliasing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BTW, JPEGs don't make it harder to remove moire - it's just as hard with RAW - once it's "in" it's "in".

Yes, aliasing is caused by there being, like a "mirror" at the highest frequency that a sampling system can sample, and this mirror "folds back" any too high detail into lower levels of detail. Ever seen a cart wheel appear to run backwards on film - that's a great example of aliasing (temporal aliasing in that example. The more excessive the high frequencies you try to put in, the lower the frequency of the alias. That's how they can corrupt an image so badly you can't remove them.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
httivals
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2007, 08:55:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure, moire can corrupt an image, but it's rare.  I've been playing with some RAW images from a 5D that had the AA removed by Marc McCalmont (he generously lent them to me to examine).  I see a lot more false color fringing at high contrast borders than moire.  The high contrast edge color fringing is eliminated pretty much 100% by the Lightroom, remove color fringing from "all edges" command. . . .

And, yes, the files are sharper.  But I'm not sure it's a very significant difference, after I go through my normal sharpening routine.  I'm trying to figure out if I think I can make a good enough 30" print from a 5D without AA filter to make it worthwhile.  At this point, my tentative conclusion is that whether the 5D has an AA filter or not, the maximum print size that I feel is of exhibition quality does not change -- usually 24" in the long dimension, though for some images I can go to 28" in the long dimension (again with or without the AA filter).  What's missing from the 5D prints when you enlarge them past 24", to my eyes, is not sharpness but detail.  The detail is in the files with the 5D with AA; it's just not as sharp.  But the files are sharp enough, when properly post-processed.  For files from either with or without an AA filter, I find it's important to add digital grain before printing above 18".  It adds a false impression of detail that's convincing.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2007, 01:39:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you happy with the 16II?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am happy with the copy i purchased. It is sharper than my 17-40mm f4 and sharper than my 24-105mm f4 (where they overlap). It is probably as good as it gets for Canon at present. The main difference I have noticed with this lens, is the lack of CA compared to the 17-40mm.

Dave
down in NZ
Logged

seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2007, 02:07:46 PM »
ReplyReply

the main reason for me not to buy the 16-35 II is the 82mm filter
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2007, 11:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the main reason for me not to buy the 16-35 II is the 82mm filter

That's a rather foolish criterion for buying/not buying a lens. You might look into considering other things like image quality, sharpness, maximum aperture, etc. when making a lens purchase.
Logged

seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2007, 11:49:37 PM »
ReplyReply

the new 16-35 II is not  better than the 17-40 , or not  enough to change (for me of course)
and the cost of my 77mm filters is higher than the price of the lens, only the Singh Ray Vari ND filters cost 400$

if this lens had the same quality than the  Canon EF 85 L II I'll buy it at once


a main reason is also that for a landscape photographer f/2.8 is  stupid when you allways use f/11 to f/16

your reasons and mine are different


 I am still waiting for a  great Canon 24 mm
« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 12:14:30 AM by seberri » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2007, 01:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the new 16-35 II is not  better than the 17-40 , or not  enough to change (for me of course)
and the cost of my 77mm filters is higher than the price of the lens, only the Singh Ray Vari ND filters cost 400$

WTF??? The 16-35 is over $1200; the only filters you need are a circular polarizer (a good B+W brand one is less than $300) and UV/protection filter (<$100). Definitely not "more than the cost of the lens".
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8849


« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2007, 01:59:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
WTF??? The 16-35 is over $1200; the only filters you need are a circular polarizer (a good B+W brand one is less than $300) and UV/protection filter (<$100). Definitely not "more than the cost of the lens".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do serious photographers still bother with UV filters? I thought it had been established that modern lens coatings are so hard there's really no need for an additional piece of protective glass.
Logged
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2007, 02:17:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
WTF??? The 16-35 is over $1200; the only filters you need are a circular polarizer (a good B+W brand one is less than $300) and UV/protection filter (<$100). Definitely not "more than the cost of the lens".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


as I said a vari-ND filter alone cost 400 $, a good slim POl filter >= 150 $, GND filters each one > 100 $

I am not using UV filter ...  or  time to time a special UV-IR filter for high mountain
« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 02:21:46 AM by seberri » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2007, 06:22:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do serious photographers still bother with UV filters? I thought it had been established that modern lens coatings are so hard there's really no need for an additional piece of protective glass.

In most cases, no; a lens hood does a better job of protecting the front element from accidental impacts. But with wide angle lenses like the 17-40 and 16-35, the lens hood is too stubby to offer much protection, so a UV filter still makes sense in situations where encounters with rocks and such are possible.

But GND filters are unnecessary with digital; HDR blending works better in a lot more situations and is much cheaper. There's no reason to spend that much on filters any more.
Logged

seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2007, 06:29:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan  I am afraid you dont understand much about landscape photography

HDR is one thing , shooting in the field  another one
« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 06:31:30 AM by seberri » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2007, 07:00:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan I am afraid you dont understand much about landscape photography

HDR is one thing , shooting in the field another one

Let's see, I've shot over 20,000 frames in Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Zion National Park, as well as a bunch of less well-known places all over the US. Except in certain areas of Nebraska, the Dakotas, and other plains areas, or out in the middle of a large body of water, how many times have you encountered a photogenic landscape scene where the division between bright and dark areas followed a straight line? In my experience, there's generally things like mountains, trees, buildings, and other things that start looking very unnatural when they cross the line of a grad filter, and fixing them is a huge hassle of burning and dodging in Photoshop.

If you expose properly, you can get a good image with a single capture in most instances, and if you can't, HDR blending works far better than ND grads with most subjects.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 07:03:04 AM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2007, 07:03:20 AM »
ReplyReply

ok Jonathan :-) ... do as you like
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7746



WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2007, 07:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan  I am afraid you dont understand much about landscape photography

HDR is one thing , shooting in the field  another one
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan isn't the only one not to understand much about landscape photography then... I agree 100% with his conclusions on this topic.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
seberri
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2007, 07:19:44 AM »
ReplyReply

do as you like
I keep  using  Singh Ray GND filters, and their very good ND filters

for exposure I am using a Sekonic LD 758  DR
« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 07:33:52 AM by seberri » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad