Moiré disaster on the E-5

Started Jul 10, 2013 | Discussions
Barry Stewart
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,043Gear list
Like?
Re: the clues
In reply to tko, Jul 11, 2013

tko wrote:

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.

Thanks for the feedback, tko. My worries were only about screen-based viewing, as the photo will likely never reach paper... other than a business card.

-- hide signature --

Barry

 Barry Stewart's gear list:Barry Stewart's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Stewart
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,043Gear list
Like?
Thanks, everyone
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Sorry for the panic — but it 'looked' like a disaster to me when I was editing.

If I can borrow the suit, I'll try shooting it with different cameras, just to settle it in my mind that it's nothing to do with the E-5.

BTW, I have asked DPR to adjust the title to Moiré "concern." We'll see where that goes. I'm surprised that no moderator dropped by...

-- hide signature --

Barry

 Barry Stewart's gear list:Barry Stewart's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,338
Like?
Re: Thanks, everyone
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 11, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Sorry for the panic — but it 'looked' like a disaster to me when I was editing.

If I can borrow the suit, I'll try shooting it with different cameras, just to settle it in my mind that it's nothing to do with the E-5.

Well, there is a bit of color moire on the right side (his left) of the suit, so another camera might not have that issue.  But it really is just a little bit -- no biggie, in my opinion.

BTW, I have asked DPR to adjust the title to Moiré "concern." We'll see where that goes. I'm surprised that no moderator dropped by...

Next time say something about Equivalence if you want a faster response. 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,338
Like?
Re: Not exactly ...
In reply to Airmel, Jul 11, 2013

Airmel wrote:

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.

True, but that's a plus, not a minus.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,981
Like?
Re: Thanks, everyone
In reply to Great Bustard, Jul 12, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Well, there is a bit of color moire on the right side (his left) of the suit, so another camera might not have that issue. But it really is just a little bit -- no biggie, in my opinion.

For some people, colour fidelity is more important than resolution.

Not sure if you know this, but excellent colour fidelity and IQ in general (except resolution) at the sensor was one of the first claims of the new 4/3rds standard. It was one of the things that drew me here in the first place. And the E1 delivered exactly as promised.

While I don't dispute those who prefer resolution (even false detail if it looks 'realistic') over all other things except noise, it pleases me not that photography has gone this way.

Next time say something about Equivalence if you want a faster response.

I think 'moire' and 'E5' is a bit of lightening rod on this forum as well. Not that I'm trying to diminish the awesome power of equivalence to bring a response ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,737
Like?
Re: I guess you already know this, but...
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 12, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

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...

...I belong to the same group as well, but I did not really mean the sewing and knitting part, more like some of the obvious ones, the ones almost anyone immediately can see when you meet a person face to face. Photographers are supposed to have a sensible eye for esthetics and composition, contrast and good looks.

Some example:

Many women use makeup on their faces and when they are in front of the camera you can see the starting line. That does not look good on a photo. If they stand in front of you with a deep decolletage that may be even more obvious, and even worse, causing reflection on their chest.

Men don't wear makeup (at least most don't) which is a drawback during photography and filming because they often have more reflection from their faces caused by studio light or other strong lights than women. Ask them to ask somebody to put makeup on their faces before a shooting, check when they arrive and correct if necessary.

Explain your customers how ugly a strong suntan and white dress/suit looks like in an image. This tasteless ugliness is reinforced if they also have very glossy lipstick on their lips. Strong suntan can be made less strong by the right makeup as well, so if somebody has it you could ask them to lighten it up with makeup.

Full body white (or black) dress/suit should be avoided. I know that is not possible to do in every situation due to traditions and fashion but white (or black) are difficult colors and most people don't look good dressed completely white or black.

Fabric with strong reflective surface or fabric should also be avoided unless that is exactly the goal or want to express some kind of special mood, taste or personality.

Fabric with fine pattern can cause color shifting or strange pattern. This is not new and is not really digital related.

Some fabrics break down the light into several color, like a prism. Not easy to describe without example images. This can in some cases be avoided with careful lighting but if possible, fabrics like that should not be used in a studio.

...and so on.

Like you say, this is a topic of it's own and is not really Oly related. If there isn't a book already about these things somebody should start writing one.

nor which weave patterns are more likely to cause photo problems.

Not easy, but if you experiment you can see that. Also most of the fabric related issues can be avoided if you are careful with light and chimp, as well as take a few test shots just to make sure.

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

Over the phone is not easy. One way is to have a web page with information and also sample images, a guide about the "How to look best on photographs". That page can also be printed and given to customers in advance. A third is to ask them to come and visit you before. What is important is to explain that it is not you who can't take images and that it is not your gear which is wrong but some things are similar because they are connected to scientific facts or esthetic "rules" of compositions, color combinations and so on. It is important not to make the customer fell stupid and also emphasize that it is not your professional knowledge what's lacking, quite the opposite, it is because you are real PROFESSIONAL that you give those advices.

Anyway, as a matter of fact I don't understand people who order a shooting over the phone, without having seen you or your work in advance. After all, for many of them it is a once in a lifetime event, so why hurry and stress to get over it as fast as possible and why not wanting to look best?

I know that all this is not simple, but I also feel that the responsibility of the photographer to make the best out of an event is also often ignored.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,737
Like?
Re: I guess you already know this, but...
In reply to Greynerd, Jul 12, 2013

Greynerd wrote:

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.

Exactly. Family portraits is a very good example. Another one is portraits of corporate executives.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mrmut
Contributing MemberPosts: 557Gear list
Like?
You can fix Moire with Capture One
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 12, 2013

I stayed with the E-5, though once I got back to my computer, I saw that his suit was turned into wood grain from all the moiré.

You can remove moire with Phase One Capture One software. I have used before to successfully remove more colorization and some patterns, and it worked fine.

 mrmut's gear list:mrmut's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-450 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital 25mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 8mm 1:3.5 Fisheye +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,982Gear list
Like?
MP race
In reply to rovingtim, Jul 12, 2013

rovingtim wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Well, there is a bit of color moire on the right side (his left) of the suit, so another camera might not have that issue. But it really is just a little bit -- no biggie, in my opinion.

For some people, colour fidelity is more important than resolution.

Not sure if you know this, but excellent colour fidelity and IQ in general (except resolution) at the sensor was one of the first claims of the new 4/3rds standard. It was one of the things that drew me here in the first place. And the E1 delivered exactly as promised.

While I don't dispute those who prefer resolution (even false detail if it looks 'realistic') over all other things except noise, it pleases me not that photography has gone this way.

I so agree with this. While the E1's 5MP would probably be enough, the 8MP of the E300 certainly would be for all my uses. I think making giant prints must be some sort of guy thing, I've -never- wanted to make 30X40 prints. And if I did, I would have no interest studying them from inches away. Even when I shot 4X5 film, most of my prints were 8X10 with an occasional 11X14. My main deal is good color (with a minimum of PP) and ease of handling/accurate AF good, simple to use flash support and things along those lines. I also now appreciate being able to use higher ISO settings and clean shadows that can be pulled when needed. Instead we now have 24MP APS and 36 and growing MP FF models.

It reminds me of automotive development, if they had focused on MPG (something important) rather that power and speed (marketing) cars would esily get 75MPG+ today without fooling with hybrid technology. The civic I owned in 1977 got better MPG than any car made today!
 I watch people raving about all the detail capture these new super high MP cameras can capture and wonder, would I ever see this detail in my final output? Nope, so why do I care? I don't!

-- 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
petrbur
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093
Like?
Re: Actually, you can avoid this.
In reply to olyflyer, Jul 12, 2013

olyflyer wrote:

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...

Hi Josef,

I'm fine, especially now when we experience so nice weather here at the same time when there is not so much what to do in our jobs. Quit a relaxing time

...is most probably avoided...

That is the problem I was afraid of in my answer to Barry. According to my own experience, whotever I do in my PP, I still have no control over the software/hardware utilized by the particular audience, if I sent the result to them.

The only way IMHO is to present such "problematic" photo as a real paper print-out or show it to audience on my own monitor/viewer - in both cases carefully prepared, of course. Otherwise the viewer may apply his/her own resizing, just on screen - for instance - when changing the window size etc...

-- hide signature --

Petr
Zenfolio gallery at http://medsved.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,737
Like?
Re: MP race
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 12, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

rovingtim wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Well, there is a bit of color moire on the right side (his left) of the suit, so another camera might not have that issue. But it really is just a little bit -- no biggie, in my opinion.

For some people, colour fidelity is more important than resolution.

Not sure if you know this, but excellent colour fidelity and IQ in general (except resolution) at the sensor was one of the first claims of the new 4/3rds standard. It was one of the things that drew me here in the first place. And the E1 delivered exactly as promised.

While I don't dispute those who prefer resolution (even false detail if it looks 'realistic') over all other things except noise, it pleases me not that photography has gone this way.

I so agree with this. While the E1's 5MP would probably be enough, the 8MP of the E300 certainly would be for all my uses. I think making giant prints must be some sort of guy thing, I've -never- wanted to make 30X40 prints. And if I did, I would have no interest studying them from inches away. Even when I shot 4X5 film, most of my prints were 8X10 with an occasional 11X14. My main deal is good color (with a minimum of PP) and ease of handling/accurate AF good, simple to use flash support and things along those lines. I also now appreciate being able to use higher ISO settings and clean shadows that can be pulled when needed. Instead we now have 24MP APS and 36 and growing MP FF models.

But... there is no contradiction between color accuracy and high resolution. I have no problems with the color out of my D800 and never heard anyone complaining about them, quite the opposite, so I don't understand the discussion. It is not that you have to chose between a 5MP camera with accurate colors and a 90MP camera with totally wrong colors. If that would be the case I am pretty sure no fashion photographer would use any Hassy or D800, but every one of them would go for the 5MP camera. A lot has happened since the E-1 so while I can not argue about it being a nostalgic and legendary (sort of) camera, every brand has it's legends and today's cameras are better, or at least as good, in competent hands. That goes even for cameras like the 10MP V1 or the 16MP G10, as well as many Fuji models and also others I don't know enough to discuss.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Olymore
Senior MemberPosts: 1,154
Like?
Re: MP race
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 12, 2013
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,981
Like?
Re: MP race
In reply to olyflyer, Jul 12, 2013

That you don't mind the colour of the D800 doesn't mean that everyone is okay with the colour consequences of its weak AA.

I'm not disputing your enjoyment of D800 colour.

My experience is I don't like the colour aliasing I see.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,978
Like?
Re: "Disaster" is a bit strong.
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 12, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

I see color moire on the right (his left) of the suit, but it's relatively mild, in my opinion. So, either I'm missing the disaster, or your standards are higher than mine.

GB: No, your photo standards are generally higher than mine, I'd say — but yes, all of you guys and myself are unable to see — via DPR — what I've seen today, straight from my camera card.

Believe me, all of you would be saying "Whoa!" if you could see what I can see on the original JPEGs. It may be my monitor and/or software — but it hasn't shown me that in the last 2.5 years.

I'm still open to suggestions.

Aliasing can happen in the capture, and it can also happen in the display processing.  Any software that resizes an image in such a manner that there isn't equal weighting from all original pixel or pixel fragments in the new pixel's area, will, by necessity, alias the display.  Also, any sharpening at the final pixel level increases aliasing, but it is generally not as bad as capture aliasing.

Try this; create a very large image that is a one-pixel B&W checkerboard, say 4000x4001 pixels, and then use your viewing software to view it at 100%, then reduce its magnification a little at a time and watch the image change.  A "good" resizing method will just reduce the over-all image, and fail to display details beyond the output resolution's capability at all, as opposed to displaying them distorted, fractionally, in the wrong places (snapped to the pixel grid, as there is no sub-pixel detail possible).

If you look at FastStone Image Viewer, it has a "Smooth" checkbox at the bottom, which turns on proper sampling, which would otherwise use a quick-and-dirty method that increases aliasing, and noise.  Unfortunately, many people do not realize how much difference the software can make, and have judged images repeated through a false view, assuming that there is too much noise at a certain ISO, etc.  You don't have to look at 100% pixel view to get a view in which noise is exaggerated; it happens with bad downsizing methods as well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,978
Like?
Re: Dan, (and others) here's a photo of my screen
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 12, 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!

Your resizing software sucks or has the wrong settings.  It is point-sampling, a good tool for a few select applications, but not for general image resizing.

Your original is slightly aliased. Bad software/settings exaggerate that exponentially. You would have had no problem, for instance, had the original been shot at an f-stop with significant pixel-level blur due to diffraction, or a soft, wide-open lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,978
Like?
Re: Not exactly ...
In reply to Airmel, Jul 12, 2013

Airmel wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

...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.

It's hard to tell why you're saying this.  You said the same thing as the Great Bustard, but in different words.  An infinite cutoff frequency would be no filter at all.

The issues are so simple when you put your DSLR or 4/3 lens on a camera like the Pentax Q with an adapter; you can simulate what you system would be like (at least in the center of the frame) with hundreds of MPs; no significant spatial artifacts, and a virtually analog capture of the lens projection with only lens issues remaining.  The images look much, much more natural and artifact-free, than cropping from the same lens with the camera made to work with the lens (large sensor with coarse pixels).

The fact is, in their sweet spots with good technique, DSLR and 4/3 lenses can have far too much resolution for their sensors.  Those who claim otherwise are generally people who ENJOY aliasing artifacts, and can't tell them from accurate, natural imaging due to a weak right hemisphere.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,978
Like?
Re: Thanks, everyone
In reply to Barry Stewart, Jul 12, 2013

Barry Stewart wrote:

Sorry for the panic — but it 'looked' like a disaster to me when I was editing.

If I can borrow the suit, I'll try shooting it with different cameras, just to settle it in my mind that it's nothing to do with the E-5.

BTW, I have asked DPR to adjust the title to Moiré "concern."

That's not necessary.  The list of thread titles for this forum is not alleged to be a list of facts.

The moire came from a combination of your slightly aliased original, and the downsizing software used.

The real disaster here is if you have been using the same downsizing technique for all your work, as, even if no moire became readily apparent, at the very minimum you are getting a lot more noise than you should.  "Nearest Neighbor" downsizing is a disaster, for most intents and purposes.  I only use it much for one purpose; to easily see which images were stable and focused when culling my images, as it exaggerates sharpness.  I would not use it for a finished product!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 15,978
Like?
Re: Moiré disaster on the E-5
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 12, 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.

For all the expense of and hoopla over Photoshop, it has traditionally had some of the lowest quality screen resampling known to man, a relic of a time when computers were slow, and quality resampling was painfully slow.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,982Gear list
Like?
Re: MP race
In reply to olyflyer, Jul 12, 2013

olyflyer wrote:

But... there is no contradiction between color accuracy and high resolution. I have no problems with the color out of my D800 and never heard anyone complaining about them, quite the opposite, so I don't understand the discussion.

The colors/OOC jepgs from my E1 are much better than anything I have gotten from my D7000, so much so I now am using a D200 for much of my work.

-- 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: 4,982Gear list
Like?
Re: MP race
In reply to Olymore, Jul 12, 2013

Olymore wrote:

http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/46917/HONDA-Civic-1.6-i-DTEC-SE-120PS-Diesel-Manual-6-speed

Cool, but I doubt this will ever make it to the US.

-- 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads