-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Want to see the effect of no OLPF on the D7100?
- Thread starter JimPearce
- Start date
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
No, not really anything like that type of thing. HDR indicates at least three exposures and a lot of post processing.
Looking through the other posts in your brief history, it seems you have appointed yourself as the debunker-in-chief of all photographic myths on various fora. Well, I'm here to tell you that your input is certainly tolerated but not required, especially since you have not got a picture in your gallery or a website or anything whatsoever which would establish your bona fides. Feel free to put up some really good full size shots you've taken which are more (truly) detailed than a D7100 and maybe we'll pay you some heed and mend our ways, lol.
According to you, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad, Phase One et al are out to lunch and imagining things and really the AA filter is the way to go. Try floating that thesis when you read your latest "research" at the next pro high dollar landscape or fashion photographers convention and see how far you get.
The fringing you see in the HDR is a consequence of the HDR process. Here is one I did to give it the "HDR" look. See the edges? They could be done differently if I had wanted. Mr. D could probably have eliminated the fringe (if it does exist - I don't see very much at all in his HDR shot) if he wanted to (or made them more noticeable).
Attachments
Last edited:
Well, when I hit "1:1 View 100%" I get an image which is 937x633, so I have no idea whether all the artifacting right in the center of the image has anything to do with the lack of LPF or whether it's just from downsizing and conversion to jpeg. So, I say i can't tell.
Yeah, like what?
So now we get to the point of things, attack the person because you don't agree with the ideas.
The fact is, I need never have taken a single photograph in my life to understand the basic theory behind spatial aliasing and even notice some of the practical effects.
Any of them could be "out to lunch" on a lot of things at any given time, but clearly they decided that the benefits were worth the tradeoffs. All I'm telling you that there are clear reasons to believe that there were tradeoffs.
"High dollar" landscape and fashion photographers are paid because they produce compelling images, not because they understand optics and signal processing and capture the "truth" better than anyone else.
Last edited:
First of all, I'm curious how you know the fringing was a consequence of the HDR process if you haven't seen which fringing I'm talking about.
Secondly, are you arguing that potential false color effects produced by a weak or omitted OPLF are not important because the processing applied produces so much false color that one couldn't tell the difference anyway?
Or more than one. You'd be a mess too if you were up all night eating mice. Of course you'll always see some mild artifacting in a "high quality" jpeg of a 100% crop showing fine feather detail. So far, I'm seeing no more aliasing than with my D300 and D300s - maybe less. It's too early to say.
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Oh, like every post of the hundred or so you've written.
No, merely your qualifications, which as far as anyone can tell are nil.
Which is of course the crux of the matter. Quit blabbing and put something up which will prove your point.
Point us out a single Phase One or Hasselblad MFDB photograph in whch tradeoffs were made, and exactly what they were, please. Show us all you're not operating in a vacuum.
Yes, you absolutely should care what the consensus is regarding imaging excellence.
How about some specifics instead of more false detail and color for a change?
If I'm so unqualified, it should be easy to respond to my points without ad-homs.
So given that you understand the causes behind aliasing and false color effects on a Bayer sensor, please explain to us how Nikon has magically made these effects disappear.
Point us out a single photograph, period, in which tradeoffs were not made. Or a camera design for that amtter.
If you can recommend any resources on optical design and signal processing written by landscape and fashion photographers which describes this consensus on imaging excellence, I would be very interested in reading them.
Last edited:
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
You're going around in circles trying to blur the issue, and I'll have none of it. Your main thesis that D7100 buyers are all dupes of Nikon's marketing department and that we don't know sharp from unsharp, real from imaginary is more than a little condescending. Begone. You're a waste of my time. Quit trolling and go out and show us poor saps how it should be done, Mr.ivory tower.
Over and out.
g
Over and out.
g
No, my main thesis is that the elimination of the OLPF has its pitfalls, which should be understood before declaring the removal of the filter an unmitigated success.
As a side point, I also maintain that it is necessarily true that, in the presence of aliasing, it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between the "truth" and false detail.
I'm sorry that a discussion over a technical detail has to become so personal. For what little it may be worth to you, I'd just like to say that I find many of the images in your gallery (the Beacon Rock picture included) to be quite visually interesting and compelling.
Anyway cheers, and out.
JimPearce wrote:
Please read up on HDR. I said that the fringe, if it does exist in his 'HDR' shot, (I made no determination that it did not, I said that I don't see very much at all) could be eliminated by altering the HDR setting a bit. I am not saying that the false color effect - when it is manifest - is not important. You happened to pick at random a HDR shot and attribute what you perceive as purple fringing to be due to the lack of an AA filter. The degree of fringing could also be due to CA as well as an artifact of the HDR process.
g'Day.
Last edited:
Sure. Are there any topics that I should concentrate on?
If the fringe is not a consequence of the HDR process (and you do not know whether it is or not since you didn't see it), then how could it be eliminated by changing the HDR setting?
Which is why I said, "Without seeing the original captures and the actual scene, I have no idea whether these are false color from aliasing or an artifact from something else, or maybe the light really was that way." I only pointed out the fringing as an possible example of what you might expect of false color due to aliasing, occurring in a reasonably likely place.
Last edited:
The didn't seem to see the moire in the globe shot either...
Mark Buckley
Leading Member
agreed lots of instances of Moire on that test shot
Moire on the globe on the D7100 shot
Moire on the coin (above Micky Mouse) on the D7100 shot
either Moire or higher resolved detail - on the car advert - think it is moire though - on the D7100 shot
Moire on the globe on the D7100 shot
Moire on the coin (above Micky Mouse) on the D7100 shot
either Moire or higher resolved detail - on the car advert - think it is moire though - on the D7100 shot
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
As an owner of a Kodak 14n , 3 sigmas and a nex 3, I'm in no doubt that the absence of a proper Olpf AA filter leads to false detail.
The subject matter is a significant factor. Subjects such as architecture provoke it badly in my experience but it all depends on how sharp the image is, the subject distance and angle so not easy to test reliably.
The 14n has so many artefacts almost all images are negatively afflicted, the nex doesn't really seem to produce much colour moire but it really suffers from the jaggies. I've found it quite impossible to photograph winter foliage with that camera as it turns it into a mess. The sigmas with the stacked foveon sensor never produce colour moire but do make horrible jaggies and false luminance patterns on occasion.
As alwaysindividual shooting styles and tolerance for artefactsvary and lots of people like the edge enhancement.
I would attach some examples but for some reason the iPad can't seem to click the button for picking gallery images...
EDIT: OK, on a real computer now.
count the number of vertical spokes when moving right to left. The sensor is making it up as you move left...
where deid these diagonal hatch patterns come from on the track. they are supposed to be smooth rails...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: David Millier
The subject matter is a significant factor. Subjects such as architecture provoke it badly in my experience but it all depends on how sharp the image is, the subject distance and angle so not easy to test reliably.
The 14n has so many artefacts almost all images are negatively afflicted, the nex doesn't really seem to produce much colour moire but it really suffers from the jaggies. I've found it quite impossible to photograph winter foliage with that camera as it turns it into a mess. The sigmas with the stacked foveon sensor never produce colour moire but do make horrible jaggies and false luminance patterns on occasion.
As alwaysindividual shooting styles and tolerance for artefactsvary and lots of people like the edge enhancement.
I would attach some examples but for some reason the iPad can't seem to click the button for picking gallery images...
EDIT: OK, on a real computer now.
count the number of vertical spokes when moving right to left. The sensor is making it up as you move left...
where deid these diagonal hatch patterns come from on the track. they are supposed to be smooth rails...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: David Millier
Attachments
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum