AA filter question - Joe?

Started Feb 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 39,699
Re: AA filter question - Joe?

Ben_Egbert wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Richard Frederick wrote:

Looking at both the Sony NEX-7 and and Nikon D800 pixel density, it seems to me that the sensors can now out-resolve most of the lenses used with them.

That is wrong. These sensors 'outresolve' very few current lenses, even low cost ones. In general, senors do not 'outresolve' lenses, not do lenses 'outresolve' sensors, because the final resolution is the combination of both, not one or the other.

Yes. I can't think of an existing lens where putting more pixels behind it will not result in more resolution.

Does this not remove the requirement for AA filters? Apparently not, otherwise the cameras would not be so equipped (D800E excepted).

They still need AA filters. Nikon (very honestly) gives an example of the kind of aliasing that might be expected with the D800E

The greater the pixel count, the less the AA filter "gets in the way", so the less "need" there is to get rid of the AA filter. In other words, the AA filter will do its job more effectively with more pixels.

Is it possible to do in camera sharpening at the raw level to cancel the AA effect?

No.

A well focused image should require zero sharpening.

No. I have a plethora of photos where the focus is critically accurate that benefit from sharpening.

There is no more hateful thing than sharpening an image because once its required, there is no standard and no limit.

The more pixels you have, the less the impact the artifacts from sharpening will have -- another unsung advantage of more pixels.

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