In praise of AA filters

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,247
Like?
Re: Speaking of delusional...
In reply to Basalite, 11 months ago

Basalite wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Basalite wrote:

rovingtim wrote:

Once you take out the AA, the software of the camera necessarily much finish off partial signals. If it gets it 'right', it is rarely noticed. However, when it gets is wrong, we used to call that an artifact. Regardless, it is software invented 'detail'.

As someone point out to me, ever taken a shot of a stubbled man with a no AA camera and seen the occasional massive beard hair? Ever noticed how a camera with no AA will happily capture sharp detail of brickwork and then suddenly it go blank like someone blurred it in photoshop? Then a little further on, more sharp detail. No gentle transition.

Ever notice that some leaves on the trees look 'crunchy'? Ever notice that the colour shifts in busy areas of a landscape? For example, a clump of trees looks to be in a faintly purple shadow where none exists.

Ever notice that some 'photographers' are constantly striving to improve their ability to overlook the increasing alias artifacts of modern cameras?

That doesn't apply to Sigma cameras with their Foveon sensors.

Indeed. But they do have to contend with other issues which are, arguably, more serious:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52373209

Nonsense. Anyone who looks at that amazing sample image I posted from a Sigma DP3 and concludes that it has "more serious" issues than the typical blurry mush produced by Bayer sensor cameras is either in denial or delusional.

...who posts a photo of a scene from Camera A and no corresponding photo of the scene from Camera B, and concludes that the sensor in Camera A is superior?

No need to, as there is no 15 megapixel Bayer sensor camera that can even begin to deliver image quality like that.

That said, Foveon sensors, as a general rule, resolve as well as Bayer sensors with double the pixel count. So, we'd compare the DP3 to 30 MP Bayer, in terms of resolution, which only a few current cameras are sporting.

No, you would not. The proper comparison is a 15 megapixel camera against the Sigma to produce the same image size. That just goes to show how crappy Bayer sensor cameras resolve detail, even those without an AA filter.

As for a "proper comparison", well, that depends on the two cameras that you're thinking of buying. For example, if you were debating between an RX100 and DPM3, then a comparison between those two would be "proper".

But when comparing resolving power between Foveon and Bayer, a Foveon sensor, on average, resolves as well as a Bayer sensor with double the pixel count, all else equal.

Also, the lens does play a role, as you may have guessed, and the DP3 has an excellent lens, which makes it an excellent camera for base ISO photography if you like that single focal length that you are locked into ('tis a pity that Sigma does not make those cameras with interchangeable lenses).

That's what the DSLR SD1 with the same sensor is for. There are also a number of lenses for the SD1 that deliver the same sharpness as the DP lenses.

But to deny that Foveon has issues, well, speaking of delusional...

Feel free to quote me even suggesting that.

The Foveon sensor is not good at high ISO. Does that make you feel better?

It is not even as good at base ISO, when comparing to Bayer sensors with double the pixel count.

In short, it's pretty clear that you're a Foveon fanboy, based on your posts in this thread, the likes of which are even known to Dr. Fossum:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52378381

So, aside from "entertainment value", I don't think there's much more to be gained here.

You actually expect to be taken seriously calling people such childish names?

No, I am someone that can recognize and appreciate superior image quality when I see it.

Superior to what and under what circumstances, exactly?  You see, it's hyperbolic unqualified statements like that that mark you as a fanboy.

Sadly most of you would rather talk about "Nyqvist frequency," "spacial frequencies," "sampling frequency," "non-causal filters," "single pixels," etc, etc, ad nauseam. I don't know whether to laugh or to feel sorry for you people.

As well as statements like that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow