Moiré disaster on the E-5

Started Jul 10, 2013 | Discussions
alatchin
Contributing MemberPosts: 759Gear list
Like?
Re: This can still occur in print
In reply to Sergey_Green, Jul 11, 2013

Sergey_Green wrote:

alatchin wrote:

Monitors Cause Moire, if you magnification and detail interfere with the monitor, Moise is created. Downressing can also cause moire... Sometimes when you want to send a lower res file to a client, you have to blur the original before you downres, otherwise you get moire.

This file is perfectly fine as far as i can see.

Or is this only a monitor thing?

I there is actual moire in the file, of course it can appear in print... Does this look like a moire disaster to you?

Actually, this picture did exactly the same thing on my computer as he is describing, I even had to blur the original before scaling down, as event the dimension reduction was causing patterning.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

 alatchin's gear list:alatchin's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alatchin
Contributing MemberPosts: 759Gear list
Like?
Re: Dan, (and others) here's a photo of my screen
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Barry,

That doesnt look like pattern fromt he sensor, the pattern is just too big relative to the weave of the jacket. That is an interference pattern between the weave of the jacket and you monitor. I got exactly the same thing with this shot from my OMD. Even with scaling down it appeared and I had to blur before downressing.

PM me if you like, and I will see how it works in Photoshop CC for you.

Here is the jacket that gave me the scare you are getting:

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

 alatchin's gear list:alatchin's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,573
Like?
Yikes!
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Thanks for going the extra mile, Dan. See... I'm not crazy!

Tell me this guy's suit jacket isn't made of plywood!

I took this shot of my computer screen with my E-PL5, to show what I am seeing at times.

The wood jacket makes him stand up nice and straight, but he has to take it off to drive his car!

Results of my iPod test: I had to e-mail the file, as I couldn't read straight off my compact disk card (only have an SD card reader — and the iPad only seems to like freshly-shot photos... no copies. Stupid thing, but that's another story). It looks just fine at all sorts of sizes on the iPad, viewed from e-mail. I couldn't get it into iPhoto, as it wasn't from a freshly-shot camera card.

-- hide signature --

Barry

Well, the fullsize photo you posted looks nothing like that on my monitor.  Basically, if it's the camera, then moire / aliasing is going to be visible in the original file at 100%.  If it only appears when downsampled, it's the downsampling software.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,847
Like?
I guess you already know this, but...
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

...there is no moire (at least, not something to be concerned about) in this image.

Also, when you look for deficiencies in an image you must look at it in 100%. A smaller, downsized image can exhibit all different strange patterns which can fool you to edit and PP until your hair turns gray and just make the image worse. While moire can in some cases be a problem, I think in most cases it is due to erroneous resizing, not the camera.

One way to avoid this is to explain customers how to dress (more like how NOT to dress) for a shooting. I know that is not always possible, but never the less, it is worth to advice them and also explain why. Ordinary people don't really think a lot about colour combinations and fabric issues which can be a problem with any camera, not just the E-5.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Art_P
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,089Gear list
Like?
Finally saw it... on my laptop
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

When I view the original at the fit-to-screen size on my laptop, the wood grain is visible.

But no problems on my desktop w higher res monitor.

-- hide signature --

Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 Art_P's gear list:Art_P's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,271Gear list
Like?
Re: What disaster? Stacey
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

If it doesn't show at 100%, it's -not- the camera. Software editing programs can do this at various "magnifications" soft proofing.

That's what I'm hearing from various people here. I guess I don't shoot a lot of suits like this one, because this is the first I've seen of this problem.

Are you saying that other cameras would be equally as likely to have this problem?

Yes. It's a software "preview" causing the problem. In general, any view that isn't 50%, 25%, 12.5% etc is very likely to have weird artifacts as what you are seeing is a low quality preview/downsampling designed for speed of rendering, not quality. Even at those % you aren't really seeing what a final downsampled image might look like exactly, it's simply a preview.

Bottom line in this case, this disaster only exists in software previewing downsampled sizes.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,271Gear list
Like?
Re: Moiré disaster on the E-5
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

OK try this.

I opened the original in CS2 at 100% I see nothing, at 33% I see the issue. If I bicubic downsample to 33% of the original size, it's not there either. This is a problem with soft previewing, not final image downsampling or the image itself.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Airmel
Regular MemberPosts: 305Gear list
Like?
Not exactly ...
In reply to Great Bustard, Jul 11, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

erichK wrote:

rovingtim wrote:

The moire you see at difference magnifications is the viewer, not the file. Moire like this can also be created by downsizing the file. It is not the fault of the E5.

However, there are colour distortions ... one of the most easily seen is just right of the lapel. You can see bands of colour running right to left that do not exist on other parts of the suit. Some of the worst magenta is near the pocket.

That is aliasing. A camera with a well engineered 'anti' would not have such colour distortions.

True. And as a long time photographer, I do find the current trend toward weak anti-aliasing, and even models completely without them a little ironic. After all, they were originally the way of dealing with this basic weakness of Bayer-type sensors.

...the simple fix is more pixels. which so many fight against. The more pixels the sensor has, the weaker the AA filter needs to be to avoid aliasing.

All other things being the same, the use of a higher resolution sensor ("more pixels") requires Anti Aliasing with a correspondingly higher cutoff frequency.

-- hide signature --

AirMel

 Airmel's gear list:Airmel's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Stewart
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,103Gear list
Like?
Re: Yikes!
In reply to Great Bustard, Jul 11, 2013

I'm glad to see that our standards are similar, GB.

If you'd like a plywood jacket, let me know. LOL!

-- hide signature --

Barry

 Barry Stewart's gear list:Barry Stewart's gear list
Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom Olympus Tough TG-3 Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus E-M1 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Stewart
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,103Gear list
Like?
Re: Finally saw it... on my laptop. My Macbook too
In reply to Art_P, Jul 11, 2013

I tried it on my Macbook and I believe it was three steps down from original size where the wood showed up. This would typically be my editing/viewing size, so I was right in the thick of it on most shots.

-- hide signature --

Barry

 Barry Stewart's gear list:Barry Stewart's gear list
Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom Olympus Tough TG-3 Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus E-M1 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Stewart
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,103Gear list
Like?
Stacey
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 11, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

OK try this.

I opened the original in CS2 at 100% I see nothing, at 33% I see the issue. If I bicubic downsample to 33% of the original size, it's not there either. This is a problem with soft previewing, not final image downsampling or the image itself.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Stacey, I'm coming to appreciate what you're saying... though I could make the grain show up at a variety of (de)magnifications from 100%.

My worry was that what I was seeing would turn up for my friend when he went to put his image on the company website — or even before that, when he was choosing which pose to use.

Surely he could/would see the same problem, if I sent shots via e-mail for him to preview. No?

-- hide signature --

Barry

 Barry Stewart's gear list:Barry Stewart's gear list
Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom Olympus Tough TG-3 Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus E-M1 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Stewart
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,103Gear list
Like?
Re: I guess you already know this, but...
In reply to olyflyer, Jul 11, 2013

olyflyer wrote:

...One way to avoid this is to explain customers how to dress (more like how NOT to dress) for a shooting. I know that is not always possible, but never the less, it is worth to advice them and also explain why. Ordinary people don't really think a lot about colour combinations and fabric issues which can be a problem with any camera, not just the E-5.

That's a huge topic on its own, Oly and many people — including myself — don't know a twill from a double-knit... nor which weave patterns are more likely to cause photo problems.

How would we tell a customer, over the phone, what to wear or what to bring to the shoot?

-- hide signature --

Barry

 Barry Stewart's gear list:Barry Stewart's gear list
Olympus C-5060 Wide Zoom Olympus Tough TG-3 Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus E-M1 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greynerd
Senior MemberPosts: 3,563
Like?
Re: I guess you already know this, but...
In reply to olyflyer, Jul 11, 2013

It seems a bit much for a photographer to tell a customer not to indulge their choice of fashion in clothing because the photographer wants to indulge in what seems to be the current photographic fashion of not having an anti-aliasing filter. Presumably cameras have had these anti aliasing filters in for a reason or has this purpose gone now. Is the tiny amount of extra resolution of any real use to the customer of a photographic shoot such that he has to avoid wearing his favourite suit?

All the reviews of cameras without these filters I have seen do show extra colour artifacts. What is the advantage?

olyflyer wrote:

One way to avoid this is to explain customers how to dress (more like how NOT to dress) for a shooting. I know that is not always possible, but never the less, it is worth to advice them and also explain why. Ordinary people don't really think a lot about colour combinations and fabric issues which can be a problem with any camera, not just the E-5.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alatchin
Contributing MemberPosts: 759Gear list
Like?
Re: Stacey
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

OK try this.

I opened the original in CS2 at 100% I see nothing, at 33% I see the issue. If I bicubic downsample to 33% of the original size, it's not there either. This is a problem with soft previewing, not final image downsampling or the image itself.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Stacey, I'm coming to appreciate what you're saying... though I could make the grain show up at a variety of (de)magnifications from 100%.

My worry was that what I was seeing would turn up for my friend when he went to put his image on the company website — or even before that, when he was choosing which pose to use.

Surely he could/would see the same problem, if I sent shots via e-mail for him to preview. No?

Hey Barry,

A soft blur of the image before downsizing for web use will eliminate this problem. It can happen when you downres because of the detail merging. The level of blur applied is only to prevent the patterning from happening and doesnt soften the reduced file.

Just an FYI, this can happen with many many cameras simply depending on the fabric, lens and distance of fabric to camera.

So just to reiterate, gentle Gaussian blur on the full size file and then reduce file size for web use and provide him with that file.

-- hide signature --

Barry

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

 alatchin's gear list:alatchin's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
petrbur
Senior MemberPosts: 1,102
Like?
Re: Stacey
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Surely he could/would see the same problem, if I sent shots via e-mail for him to preview. No?

Barry, because this case is a viewer-software related problem (not the camera problem), you have to expect that anybody receiving that photo from you in any electronic form (usually JPG file) may see some kind of problematic moiré.

This is also a general problem of such regular fine patterns.

I am afraid you can't avoid it.

-- hide signature --

Petr
Zenfolio gallery at http://medsved.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Airmel
Regular MemberPosts: 305Gear list
Like?
This is normal behavior
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

OK try this.

I opened the original in CS2 at 100% I see nothing, at 33% I see the issue. If I bicubic downsample to 33% of the original size, it's not there either. This is a problem with soft previewing, not final image downsampling or the image itself.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Stacey, I'm coming to appreciate what you're saying... though I could make the grain show up at a variety of (de)magnifications from 100%.

My worry was that what I was seeing would turn up for my friend when he went to put his image on the company website — or even before that, when he was choosing which pose to use.

Surely he could/would see the same problem, if I sent shots via e-mail for him to preview. No?

-- hide signature --

Barry

Barry,

As has been mentioned by several others, your original photo does not appear to contain a significant amount of aliasing artifacts (which are the actual cause of visible moire). Your photo does contain somewhat higher frequency content that you would see shooting something other than fabrics, but there is nothing wrong with this.

The aliasing artifacts which you find disturbing are created by sampling (downsizing) your photo without appropriate anti-aliasing first. The sampling theorem requires that inappropriate high frequency content be removed before the sampling act occurs in order that alias artifacts not be produced by the sampling process.

This effect is occurring post E-5 and has nothing to do with your camera. It is all about the viewing feature in your PC, iPad, Software, Dpreview web site, etc. When you make a change in viewing size, obviously your software must re-sample the photo, but in many cases it won't bother to anti-alias the data first because this takes time and CPU cycles.

On the other hand, when you re-sample your photo to a smaller permanent size (using Photoshop for example), the photo will certainly be anti-aliased before re-sampling and these disturbing artifacts won't be produced.

In short, don't assume that view resizing is the same as re-sampling to a smaller permanent file. These are often very different processes.

-- hide signature --

AirMel

 Airmel's gear list:Airmel's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,847
Like?
Re: I guess you already know this, but...
In reply to Greynerd, Jul 11, 2013

Greynerd wrote:

It seems a bit much for a photographer to tell a customer not to indulge their choice of fashion in clothing because the photographer wants to indulge in what seems to be the current photographic fashion of not having an anti-aliasing filter. Presumably cameras have had these anti aliasing filters in for a reason or has this purpose gone now. Is the tiny amount of extra resolution of any real use to the customer of a photographic shoot such that he has to avoid wearing his favourite suit?

The problem is not related to the E-5 or to any camera with weak AA filter. ANY camera can produce moire, depending on the fabric or the pattern.

Also, you misunderstood my point. The task of the photographer is to take good, PROFESSIONAL quality pictures, not just snapshots like anyone else can. This means that the composition is important. Composition has several elements, one is the pattern in the image, another is the contrast and the colors, the background and also the dress he/she is wearing and so on. It is the duty of the photographer to explain that to the customer in a way that the customer does not feel stupid for his/her not knowing it. It is of course not possible in every situation, but in some situation that is a perfectly good option, especially in planned studio shooting sessions. After all, the customer comes to you and pays a lot of money for your PROFESSIONAL images, so he/she definitely want to look good and wants your PROFESSIONAL opinion. This is why (for example) it is not wrong to put make-up on men if necessary to get rid of reflections on the forehead, or to point out a stain on a shirt or something similar. A trick I learned is to hand over a mirror before the shooting begins, or even better, to have a large mirror behind you in a way that it won't show up in the image but would invite the customer to have a look at him/herself to see small anomalies, comb hair and fix ties and so on. I know that all this is not possible to do in every situation, but yes, it is definitely an option to tell the customer before he arrives to the studio that his favorite suit might not look good on him on the image, so it would be better to have something else on. Of course, again, not everyone is capable of understanding that, so in the end, the customer decides but yes, it is the duty of the photographer to inform about possible improvements and you would be surprised to know how many customers would appreciate such advise.

All the reviews of cameras without these filters I have seen do show extra colour artifacts. What is the advantage?

Almost all cameras exhibit some moire. The advantage of not using strong AA filter is the increasing resolution since AA filters blur the image a bit. The higher the pixel density the less need there is for AA filter. Also, don't confuse the color moire with other type of color shifting, some can be caused by the fabric itself, which might work like a prism, breaking the light down to different colors, creating strange effects, some can be caused by the microlenses in front of the pixels, some can be caused by PP during conversion, resizing and so on. There are many reasons why color problems can occure, not just those which can be helped by the AA filter.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,847
Like?
Actually, you can avoid this.
In reply to petrbur, Jul 11, 2013

petrbur wrote:

Barry Stewart wrote:

Surely he could/would see the same problem, if I sent shots via e-mail for him to preview. No?

Barry, because this case is a viewer-software related problem (not the camera problem), you have to expect that anybody receiving that photo from you in any electronic form (usually JPG file) may see some kind of problematic moiré.

Hi Petr,

I hope you are doing well and everything is fine in Varberg.

This is also a general problem of such regular fine patterns.

I am afraid you can't avoid it.

The way to avoid this is to create two or even three different versions of the same image, risized to the final resolution using your own workflow and checking the critical parts out before handing over to the customer. I always create three different versions, assuming the images are given to anyone or shown in public.

  1. Original maximum number of pixels for printing large prints.
  2. Reduced to small web-size, or computer screen resolution, which in my case is 1920x1200, whichever fits best, depending on the image orientation.
  3. TV resolution in 1920×1080 pixels, again, whichever fits the image best, depending on orientation of the image.

This way, moire caused by the viewer software is most probably avoided, assuming you have done the resizing right. If the resizing is done wrong there can still be moire as a result of that. Of course, if the original image contains the moire pattern that is a different thing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,261
Like?
the clues
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Moire that only shows up with certain magnifications is almost certainly a monitor issue, because true in-camera moire will be independent of viewing size. This is unavoidable.

I was just scrolling through some of my photos takenof the same subject, but had been resized and sharpened differently. "Moire" popped in and out, depending on the photo and resolution viewed at. The original photo, viewed full size, had none.

I suspect it's the beating between the photo and monitor pixel patterns. Certain textures and pattens will exaggerate this. It's going to print fine, so don't worry.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greynerd
Senior MemberPosts: 3,563
Like?
Re: I guess you already know this, but...
In reply to olyflyer, Jul 11, 2013

Fair points. I have seen some truly dreadful pictures even to my amateur eye from people in the family portrait game who really could do with doing the preparation you talk about.

olyflyer wrote:

Greynerd wrote:

It seems a bit much for a photographer to tell a customer not to indulge their choice of fashion in clothing because the photographer wants to indulge in what seems to be the current photographic fashion of not having an anti-aliasing filter. Presumably cameras have had these anti aliasing filters in for a reason or has this purpose gone now. Is the tiny amount of extra resolution of any real use to the customer of a photographic shoot such that he has to avoid wearing his favourite suit?

The problem is not related to the E-5 or to any camera with weak AA filter. ANY camera can produce moire, depending on the fabric or the pattern.

Also, you misunderstood my point. The task of the photographer is to take good, PROFESSIONAL quality pictures, not just snapshots like anyone else can. This means that the composition is important. Composition has several elements, one is the pattern in the image, another is the contrast and the colors, the background and also the dress he/she is wearing and so on. It is the duty of the photographer to explain that to the customer in a way that the customer does not feel stupid for his/her not knowing it. It is of course not possible in every situation, but in some situation that is a perfectly good option, especially in planned studio shooting sessions. After all, the customer comes to you and pays a lot of money for your PROFESSIONAL images, so he/she definitely want to look good and wants your PROFESSIONAL opinion. This is why (for example) it is not wrong to put make-up on men if necessary to get rid of reflections on the forehead, or to point out a stain on a shirt or something similar. A trick I learned is to hand over a mirror before the shooting begins, or even better, to have a large mirror behind you in a way that it won't show up in the image but would invite the customer to have a look at him/herself to see small anomalies, comb hair and fix ties and so on. I know that all this is not possible to do in every situation, but yes, it is definitely an option to tell the customer before he arrives to the studio that his favorite suit might not look good on him on the image, so it would be better to have something else on. Of course, again, not everyone is capable of understanding that, so in the end, the customer decides but yes, it is the duty of the photographer to inform about possible improvements and you would be surprised to know how many customers would appreciate such advise.

All the reviews of cameras without these filters I have seen do show extra colour artifacts. What is the advantage?

Almost all cameras exhibit some moire. The advantage of not using strong AA filter is the increasing resolution since AA filters blur the image a bit. The higher the pixel density the less need there is for AA filter. Also, don't confuse the color moire with other type of color shifting, some can be caused by the fabric itself, which might work like a prism, breaking the light down to different colors, creating strange effects, some can be caused by the microlenses in front of the pixels, some can be caused by PP during conversion, resizing and so on. There are many reasons why color problems can occure, not just those which can be helped by the AA filter.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads