Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A Biased Evaluation of The Differences...  (Read 108368 times)
Steven Draper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2008, 11:14:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Fike. I've lost interest in the other site too for the same reasons.

In the film days my little NikonF301 would, with the same lens and film, produce very close to the same capture data as the F3 would, provided of course I was inside the F301's operational envelope.

I guess it would be true that the F301 and F6 with same lens and film would be close within the F301's envelope too as the camera was largely - in a very crude sense - a device to keep the film dark and connect a lens to the front and offer an interface in which to make creative decisions regarding speed, aperture, ISO.

Digital cameras are unfortunately very different as the way the sensor collects the light data is an area of technology that is moving forward at incredible pace. Therefore each new advance renders previous generations of digital cameras less able to do what the latest technology offers. Brilliant for Nikon & Canon who now know that folks will feel compelled to upgrade more frequently than in the past!

Also it means A D40 user cannot get the same result as a D3 user given the same lens and taking a picture on both that it within the D40 envelope anymore.

In 50 years time I predict that it is very unlikely that many people - there will always be a few! - that will be searching e-bay for early digital cameras, still working computers of the period and the suitable software, and going out and making pictures in the same way that many still enjoy running film through old classic film cameras today.
Logged

image examples are at my website  stevendraperphotography.com   and Polepics is      "Here"
richs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2008, 12:29:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Another good usability over pixel peeping review is Bjorn Rorslett's one.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev00.html

Regards,

Richard
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 12:30:06 PM by richs » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2008, 12:55:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I always enjoy hearing Michael move past the pixel peeping and on to other important issues like usability in the field. 

I frequently tell non-photographer friends who want to spend $600 on a DSLR that it just doesn't matter too much which one they pick.  At that price, the differences are minor.  Pick one of the major brands that has the features and usability they like.  Much usability, from a photographers point of view, is sacrificed in this price-range, and they all have similar liabilities. 

When you move up the food chain a bit, the decisions becomes more complex because you learn to value specific features, properties, and capabilities more.  Michael's reviews always bring these elements to the fore.

Nikon, Canon....on the surface, it doesn't matter much....what are you looking for?

It is for this reason that I can't read DPReview forums because of the constant bickering over a gnats @ss of image quality difference.   

I was disappointed by this statement:
 This statement is just an extension of the non-photographer's statement "That is a great picture, what kind of camera did you use."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"I was disappointed by this statement...."

Errm - no, actually.

You canīt have been reading the other thread, close to this one, on the Leica M8. In the pro world it does matter very much the sort of equipment that you use.

Basically, you are in the business of taking money from your clientīs bank account and putting it into yours. In order to do this, you generally need a client with more money than you have. And that client must be reassured that he isnīt being taken for a ride, that you are the right guy with whom he should be spending his money. And that feeling is very well helped along by the showing of the trimmings of success.

Succes is what the client wants for himself and it is your success in your field that is attracting him to you, not your pleasing voice, your lovely eyes nor the sweet smile you can summon at the merest challenge; there may be exceptions, but we neeed not go there.

So yes, flash the cameras, the cars and the cards: it all says good things about you in the busines sense. Your wife might know better, but she usually isnīt your client, thank God.

Itīs the same with your competitors: you donīt want them to feel that they are doing better than you are, worst of all, you would hate their sympathy. So hit them in the eyes as well: good news is the only news you need to pass along the line. It never did anyone any harm for the competition to feel it wasnīt worth their trouble in going to see your clients. A little weakness will open the floodgates.

False? Unpleasant? Who ever pretended it could be any different? If you want honesty and photographic good times without obligations,  go be an amateur and please only yourself; but do understand that the two - pro and am - are worlds apart, hardly the same species even.

Rob C
Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2008, 01:44:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"I was disappointed by this statement...."

Errm - no, actually.

You canīt have been reading the other thread, close to this one, on the Leica M8. In the pro world it does matter very much the sort of equipment that you use.

Basically, you are in the business of taking money from your clientīs bank account and putting it into yours. In order to do this, you generally need a client with more money than you have. And that client must be reassured that he isnīt being taken for a ride, that you are the right guy with whom he should be spending his money. And that feeling is very well helped along by the showing of the trimmings of success.

Succes is what the client wants for himself and it is your success in your field that is attracting him to you, not your pleasing voice, your lovely eyes nor the sweet smile you can summon at the merest challenge; there may be exceptions, but we neeed not go there.

So yes, flash the cameras, the cars and the cards: it all says good things about you in the busines sense. Your wife might know better, but she usually isnīt your client, thank God.

Itīs the same with your competitors: you donīt want them to feel that they are doing better than you are, worst of all, you would hate their sympathy. So hit them in the eyes as well: good news is the only news you need to pass along the line. It never did anyone any harm for the competition to feel it wasnīt worth their trouble in going to see your clients. A little weakness will open the floodgates.

False? Unpleasant? Who ever pretended it could be any different? If you want honesty and photographic good times without obligations,  go be an amateur and please only yourself; but do understand that the two - pro and am - are worlds apart, hardly the same species even.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow, a lot of anger in that response.  I am admittedly ignorant of the world you describe, and I am probably happier for it.  While I wouldn't be surprised by those attitudes in fashion, high-end event photography, or commercial product work, I am surprised that you feel it is the prevalent attitude in Fine Art Landscape Photography, which is the subject of the Luminous Landscape website.  

My landscape photo customers rarely see my camera.  99.9% of all our customers couldn't tell the difference between a print made with a 20D or a D3.  99.9% of our customers couldn't tell the difference between a print made with loving precision using a R2400 or an R11880. Certainly the opposite is true and many cr@ppy prints are made with great equipment every day.

I was disappointed because people who know better than to equate equipment with artistic quality (which includes the forum members and all of the excellent contributors to this site) would be the last ones who I would expect to propagate the myth that the gear makes the artist.

Put another way, if I went to one of Michael's expeditions or seminars, would I be considered inferior if I showed up with a two year old camera? A 300D?  We have all been to places where that sort of elitism has excluded people.  I never previously got that vibe from Michael or the contributors to this site.  

I buy new equipment because it allows me to do something new creatively or to grow as an artist, not to impress people.  If there was a purple-plastic digicam that did the trick, I would be there in a heartbeat.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Nemo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2008, 02:17:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I would like to make two additional points about this report.

1. The Nikon camera has the base ISO value at 200, and Canon cameras start at ISO 100. This is a whole stop of difference. Between the base ISO and any other ISO value there are fewer "jumps" if the former is higher. It makes sense for a (fast) reportage camera, but it would be a relative disadvantage for a studio camera. All these cameras try to be versatile, but Canon's 1Ds series are designed with studio photography in mind. This difference in the base ISO explain the better signal/noise ratio, to some extent. The size of the "pixels", the design of the microlenses, the electronics for noise handling (hardware) and the software programming are other variables at play. In any case, I think the Canon 5D (more than two years old) is a similar performer at a much lower price, considering the weaker body and the lower ISO base value. This is a lesson for Canon: reportage cameras cannot be designed like studio cameras. The Nikon D3 is a very powerful and versatile reportage camera (social events, journalism, sports, travel...), very well designed for a particular kind of use. Leica designed the M8 in this way as well.

2. The anti-alias filter is a nightmare when you increase the sampling frequency (number of "pixels" for a given sensor size) beyond some point. Consider this: the 1Ds Mark III has 30% more pixels than the 1Ds Mark II. This is a 15% linear increase in sampling frequency. But I think the real gain in detail resolved is much lower, due to a couple of factors: a) this additional sampling frequency (sensor "resolution") is dedicated to resolve signal from the lens with lower contrast (finer details); b ) the anti-alias filter blurres this finer detail ! The result is much bigger files (in part this is due to the deeper bits tonal separation) and not so much additional detail resolved! From a cost-benefit analysis, does it make sense? Many photographers think it doesn't at those prices, if you already have the 1Ds Mark II. I cannot understand why Canon didn't take out this filter. Moiré could appear in some situations, but professionals shoot in RAW mode, and it is very easy to selectively correct this problem by software. This is a lesson for Nikon: if you make a studio camera with 24 MP, make a good cost-benefit balance for the potential users, and take out the AA filter! Leica will present a digital R10 camera at Photokina 2008 with this criteria in mind.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 03:36:34 PM by Nemo » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2008, 04:12:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was disappointed by this statement:

 This statement is just an extension of the non-photographer's statement "That is a great picture, what kind of camera did you use."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, photography is a very competitive area. We are in a period where there are still significant enhancements from one generation to the next.

In this context, it would not be wise to use tools that are behing those used by your competition, and your competition will typically be shooting with a D3.

Besides, as Rob said, the way a photography looks is important as well exactly because of the "That is a great picture, what kind of camera did you use" comment that many customers will make.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2008, 04:15:37 PM »
ReplyReply

But you're reducing the pixel size down to that of the 20D, where the OLPF works fine. You may think moire is removable in post, but I disagree. You can to an extent, blur out of existence chroma moire, but not luma moire.

Removing an OLPF also makes demosaicing doubly hard and artifact prone.
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2008, 04:24:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Wow, a lot of anger in that response.  I am admittedly ignorant of the world you describe, and I am probably happier for it.  While I wouldn't be surprised by those attitudes in fashion, high-end event photography, or commercial product work, I am surprised that you feel it is the prevalent attitude in Fine Art Landscape Photography, which is the subject of the Luminous Landscape website. 

My landscape photo customers rarely see my camera.  99.9% of all our customers couldn't tell the difference between a print made with a 20D or a D3.  99.9% of our customers couldn't tell the difference between a print made with loving precision using a R2400 or an R11880. Certainly the opposite is true and many cr@ppy prints are made with great equipment every day.

I was disappointed because people who know better than to equate equipment with artistic quality (which includes the forum members and all of the excellent contributors to this site) would be the last ones who I would expect to propagate the myth that the gear makes the artist.

Put another way, if I went to one of Michael's expeditions or seminars, would I be considered inferior if I showed up with a two year old camera? A 300D?  We have all been to places where that sort of elitism has excluded people.  I never previously got that vibe from Michael or the contributors to this site. 

I buy new equipment because it allows me to do something new creatively or to grow as an artist, not to impress people.  If there was a purple-plastic digicam that did the trick, I would be there in a heartbeat.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As an overly enthusiastic amateur I can't really comment, but I can say as a professional musician when I turn up to play at a wedding I have a nice car, new suit, obviously professional sound gear etc etc. I don't think this is a shallow thing, but rather showing respect to my clients and their guests: I know I can do the job but it is important to be seen to do it. So if I need equipment I spend whatever it takes and my accountants do amazing things with the figures. The creativity happens away from prying eyes when I can compose in peace, and amongst my musician acquaintances it is the quality of the work that matters, and no-one mentions gear much, the assumption being that whatever you own must be doing the right job for you. Cheers, David
Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2008, 04:48:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As an overly enthusiastic amateur I can't really comment, but I can say as a professional musician when I turn up to play at a wedding I have a nice car, new suit, obviously professional sound gear etc etc. I don't think this is a shallow thing, but rather showing respect to my clients and their guests: I know I can do the job but it is important to be seen to do it. So if I need equipment I spend whatever it takes and my accountants do amazing things with the figures. The creativity happens away from prying eyes when I can compose in peace, and amongst my musician acquaintances it is the quality of the work that matters, and no-one mentions gear much, the assumption being that whatever you own must be doing the right job for you. Cheers, David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I sense I am fighting a losing battle on this one (in my own mind and on the forums).  Presenting a professional and competent appearance is not what I am debating.  I agree whole heartedly that there is a price doing business and that means getting the right equipment to do the job.  No argument!

What frustrates me is the perception that a photographer needs to go out and always have the latest and greatest to be taken seriously.  Canon and Nikon love that attitude. So, I show up in a well tailored two-year-old suit.  So my car is a clean and well kept four-year-old SUV.  So my camera is 18 months old.  

Generally speaking most generational jumps from one camera to the next are incremental.  20D to 30D was very minor.  30D to 40D was more substantial, but somewhat incremental.  Am I a happier, better photographer if I upgrade?  I doubt it. will I make more sales?  I doubt it.  

Michael certainly has a legitimate reason to upgrade frequently. As an educator and reviewer it helps him to do his job and to make a living.  What I don't like to see is the idea that I (or any other budding pro) would be perceived as inferior if I chose to wait a couple years between upgrades.  

Consuming less (mercury laden electronics) should be considered a virtue, not a liability.  I photograph the landscape.  I love nature.  I have seen the wasteland that is a country like Taiwan where so many of our products were made 5 years ago.  The rapid-fire development and throw-away cycle of everything we buy needs to end.  

WOW!  I have gotten pretty far afield here.  

I will say it again, "I agree whole heartedly that there is a price doing business and that means getting the right equipment to do the job.  No argument! " But, does it all need to be brand-spanking new?
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
dilip
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2008, 04:59:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I will say it again, "I agree whole heartedly that there is a price doing business and that means getting the right equipment to do the job.  No argument! " But, does it all need to be brand-spanking new?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Does it all have to be brand spanking new?  I think that the general consensus is that it depends on your audience.  If you shoot landscapes and sell prints, then no one needs to see the equipment and no, you don't need the top end gear.

If you're teaching, consulting, or shooting in front of the person who pays the bills the camera might matter.  I was at a wedding recently, and a friend commented that the photographer was probably sub-par due to the fact that my amateur (but well heeled friend) had a newer body.  My reaction was to point out that he was likely more skilled, and had some really nice glass.  With reactions like my friend's it's completely understandable that professionals feel that they have to stay on the curve.

In the end, it all comes down to who is paying the bills.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3538



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2008, 05:03:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have to say that I'm surprised at the apparent naivety of this comment.

Writing about equipment is part of how I make my living, along with lecturing, leading field workshops, consulting with companies in the industry, and of course publishing this site, videos, books, and tutorial downloads, all of which incur expenses along with the revenues. For me this is not a hobby, it's part of my likelihood.

That means that equipment that I buy is just that, a business expense. I could and sometimes do take "loaners", but these are sort term, and I need to be able to report on and teach about my long-term experience with various pieces of gear. I never accept "gifts", for all the obvious reasons.

Would you criticize a mechanic for buying a specialized set of tools so that he could do certain jobs? Likely not. Then why use a double standard?

My total cost for two Nikon bodies and six lenses was about $10,000. Frankly for any professional in almost any field this is, if not a trivial cost, then at least a low one compared to its revenue generation potential. Take into account the cost of money, and amortize over three years, and the expenditure is not even worth discussing so long as it generates moderate revenue, which I anticipate that this system will in terms of my ability to reach a new audience, teach new skills, publish new related articles on the web and in magazines, and maybe even do some photography with them that might not have otherwise been possible with the other tools that I own.

I think it's  you who might want to examine how far removed you are from professional financial realities.

With all due respect,

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you have completely miscontrued what I wrote. I simply observerved how different you are from pro photographers financially and I certainly am not criticising you for buying the kit as I am fully aware that your setup is not like that of a professional photographer, and your financal reasoning is quite different , so buying a duplicate system for you makes good business sense. Unlike for a working pro photgrapher who as you mention it would not be an option.
Though, surely in the interests of a balanced view, you should have bought a Nikon system a lot sooner as well as Pentax/Sony/Olympus systems too!  

 BTW buying a D3 body here in the UK would cost me US$6800 dollars alone, ouch!      Not to mention the fact that in the UK,  computers and software etc can be double the price it is in the US, yet photographers certainly do not earn double or anywhere near it of our US counterparts. I shall be visiting New York sometime soon to go shoping for that very reason!
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2008, 08:56:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In any case, I think the Canon 5D (more than two years old) is a similar performer at a much lower price, considering the weaker body and the lower ISO base value. This is a lesson for Canon: reportage cameras cannot be designed like studio cameras. The Nikon D3 is a very powerful and versatile reportage camera (social events, journalism, sports, travel...), very well designed for a particular kind of use.

The 5D is not in the same class of noise performance as the 1Dsmk3 or the D3, each of which has about double the photon collection of the 5D with the same exposure, and 1/2 stop less read noise across the board at all ISOs at the pixel level (and a lot more pixels on the 1Dsmk3 to make the "image" read noise even lower).

Quote
2. The anti-alias filter is a nightmare when you increase the sampling frequency (number of "pixels" for a given sensor size) beyond some point. Consider this: the 1Ds Mark III has 30% more pixels than the 1Ds Mark II. This is a 15% linear increase in sampling frequency. But I think the real gain in detail resolved is much lower, due to a couple of factors: a) this additional sampling frequency (sensor "resolution") is dedicated to resolve signal from the lens with lower contrast (finer details); b ) the anti-alias filter blurres this finer detail ! The result is much bigger files (in part this is due to the deeper bits tonal separation) and not so much additional detail resolved! From a cost-benefit analysis, does it make sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, it doesn't, but not in the way you suggest.  It doesn't make sense because it isn't true.  AA filters get scaled in their design so that the radius of their influence is proportional to the pixel pitch.  If this ideal is maintained, then the maximum linear resolution of the image (as determined by the sensor, say, as if, it were recording a fine laser beam instead of normal optics) is proportional to the square root of the pixel count.  I seriously doubt that Canon would use an AA filter in the 1Dsmk3 that had a wider spread than the mk2, not only in pixels, but in microns as well.

The real issues in viewing resolution on the mk3 are probably due to looking at the pixels themselves, which, with the same lens *should* usually be a little softer, due to the limits of the lens, and this doesn't necessarily go away when you view or print the images from both at the same size, if the downsizing methods used are not true resampling.  Even $600 photoshop uses a quick and dirty method of downsizing images that maintains individual original pixel limitations, in terms of noise and resolution.  Who knows what it does when it goes to print, too.  It may use methods that maintain individual pixel characteristics, too, when it sends the print driver the data in its native color pixel resolution.

And let's face it, Canon's wide lenses are not stellar performers, especially in the corners and wide open, so if you're going for minimum DOF with them, your "in-focus" areas aren't always going to be as sharp as you want.  AA filters only "ruin" a very narrow range of optical MTFs; the range that is otherwise just a little sharp, but not completely sharp.  The really sharp parts should have the AA filter, and the soft areas, due to optical limits or being OOF are hardly affected by the AA filter at all.

It really makes me sad to see all the current backlash against AA filters.  I personally can't fathom why anyone would want to look at or capture an aliased image; they look totally unnatural to me, like an image viewed through fractured glass that just happens to break in simple grid pattern.  The sharpness is clearly false, with high-contrast edges in discreet, non-analog, "snap-to-grid" positions.

The ultimate solution to issues like this is higher pixel density; once you get to a certain pixel density, you're going to outresolve the lenses anyway so no AA filter is needed.  Noise energy will also be concentrated at frequencies beyond the resolution of the lens, and noise can therefore be discarded in processing without losing subject detail.  The issues, of course, with higher pixel density are slower camera operation and computer processing time, and storage space, so growth in those areas are necessary, to make super-high-resolution practical.
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2008, 09:10:26 PM »
ReplyReply

John, I agree. There seems to be a current fad for people to want to remove OLPFs. I personally find this strange. Of course, the request comes from people who don't engineer / design cameras and sensors, or the software that reconstructs the Bayer pattern to RGB afterwards. They come form people who want "more resolution", because more has to be better, right? Just remove the OLPF and you'll get 10% extra free resolution! If only it were so simple.... If it was as simple as that, your Canon and Nikon would come without an OLPF, but they don't. There's a simple reason: it makes the camera work "properly" and if you let aliasing into a system, you can't get it out again without destroying the image.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2008, 01:36:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I sense I am fighting a losing battle on this one (in my own mind and on the forums).  Presenting a professional and competent appearance is not what I am debating.  I agree whole heartedly that there is a price doing business and that means getting the right equipment to do the job.  No argument!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For what it's worth (not a lot) I totally agree with you. I also agree with the point that there is a vast gulf between people who take photos to sell them to other people, and people who take photos for their intrinsic value, regardless of whether others will like them or not.  And of course there are people who take photos in order to justify buying expensive gear.

Outside of the still narrow focus of the web, there are, remarkably, still a good number of people doing good, revenue generating work for major publishers using film or "old" digital gear. A pro travel / landscape photographer I know - who is doing pretty well - currently uses a pair of EOS-1n (film) cameras which she has been using for about 10 years...

By the way, I have been on one of Michael's workshops, and there was certainly no gear snobbery or condescending of any kind from Michael or any of his team.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
Nemo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2008, 04:03:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 5D is not in the same class of noise performance as the 1Dsmk3 or the D3, each of which has about double the photon collection of the 5D with the same exposure, and 1/2 stop less read noise across the board at all ISOs at the pixel level (and a lot more pixels on the 1Dsmk3 to make the "image" read noise even lower).

The "pixel" size (in fact, spacing) of the 5D is similar to that of the D3, and much bigger than those of the 1Ds Mark III. Photo collection and read noise strongly depend on "pixel" size (thermal or reset noise depend on other factors, for instance).

It is an older design, as I have said, but in practical terms is a similar performer in terms of noise than the 1Ds Mark III, not worse.


Quote
I seriously doubt that Canon would use an AA filter in the 1Dsmk3 that had a wider spread than the mk2, not only in pixels, but in microns as well.

I doubt it too.

Quote
The real issues in viewing resolution on the mk3 are probably due to looking at the pixels themselves, which, with the same lens *should* usually be a little softer, due to the limits of the lens.

This is what I have explained. Additional or newly resolved detail (finer detail) has lower contrast. This "lower quality" additional detail is the gain. On the other hand, you can cleanly resolve more high contrast detail when you increase the sampling frequency (Nyquist Theorem).

Quote
AA filters only "ruin" a very narrow range of optical MTFs; the range that is otherwise just a little sharp, but not completely sharp. 

It is like pushing the MTF graph down. Of course, the "sharp" areas keep visible, and the "unsharp" curves or parts of the curves (low contrast zones) become invisible. How this affect real subjects, is another matter, but it has obvious effects on image sharpness (you can see it easily).

Quote
It really makes me sad to see all the current backlash against AA filters.  I personally can't fathom why anyone would want to look at or capture an aliased image; they look totally unnatural to me, like an image viewed through fractured glass that just happens to break in simple grid pattern.  The sharpness is clearly false, with high-contrast edges in discreet, non-analog, "snap-to-grid" positions.

I don't agree on the look of images coming from cameras without AA filters. Aliasing effects can occur even if you have an AA filter. I rarely see aliasing artifacts in my camera (without AA filter), and the real detail resolved "per pixel" is visibly superior to other cameras with AA-"protected" sensors.

Quote
The ultimate solution to issues like this is higher pixel density; once you get to a certain pixel density, you're going to outresolve the lenses anyway so no AA filter is needed.

That is not exactly true. This "certain" pixel density is the double of the higher frequency of the signal coming from the lens (a signal with very low contrast, anyway). Then, if the lens transmit 150 lp/mm at a sufficient level of contrast, the sensor would need at least... 300 lp/mm of sampling frequency (Nyquist Theorem)!

Higher pixel density reduces the problem, but is not and cannot be a complete solution to the potential aliasing problems. Higher sampling frecquency allows for a cleaner reproduction of high contrast signal, or signal related to a relevant range of detail (say 40 lp/mm in 35mm format, for instance, which you can resolve cleanly with 80 lp/mm of sampling frequency, etc.) and reproduction of new (lower contrast) detail. I see those gains very limited in the Mark III (compared to the Mark II).

Quote
Noise energy will also be concentrated at frequencies beyond the resolution of the lens, and noise can therefore be discarded in processing without losing subject detail.

I don't understand the meaning of this statement ("noise energy" and such).
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 08:31:15 AM by Nemo » Logged
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2008, 04:09:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Even $600 photoshop uses a quick and dirty method of downsizing images that maintains individual original pixel limitations, in terms of noise and resolution.  Who knows what it does when it goes to print, too.  It may use methods that maintain individual pixel characteristics, too, when it sends the print driver the data in its native color pixel resolution.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


John

can you elaborate on this please. I presume that for downsampling the optimum approach would use some form of averaging to reduce noise in the data - pretty simple at first glance for a linear halving of pixel count say - but you imply that this approach is not used as part of the photoshop downsizing algorithm?

Thanks

Mike
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2008, 08:15:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
John

can you elaborate on this please. I presume that for downsampling the optimum approach would use some form of averaging to reduce noise in the data - pretty simple at first glance for a linear halving of pixel count say - but you imply that this approach is not used as part of the photoshop downsizing algorithm?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When you explicitly downsize something, you are given a choice of methods, but when you are viewing something onscreen at anything but 100%, an inferior method is used.
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2008, 09:04:26 AM »
ReplyReply

But Photoshop uses bicubic for downsampling, which is hardly an optimum downsampling filter.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2008, 09:08:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That is not exactly true. This "certain" pixel density is the double of the higher frequency of the signal coming from the lens (a signal with very low contrast, anyway). Then, if the lens transmit 150 lp/mm at a sufficient level of contrast, the sensor would need at least... 300 lp/mm of sampling frequency (Nyquist Theorem)!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You need the number of samples to be at least double the frequency, so your above calculation is off by a factor of two as you've quoted 300lp/mm rather than 300 samples per mm.

Graeme
Logged

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

Posts: 276



« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2008, 09:58:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You need the number of samples to be at least double the frequency, so your above calculation is off by a factor of two as you've quoted 300lp/mm rather than 300 samples per mm.

Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The signal frequency is in line pairs as well.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad