Reading mode: Light Dark

Does anyone care about moire?

Go to last post
S

sigala1

Senior Member
Messages
3,911
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,321






Camera makers finally got the message. They always got dinged for having a resolution-destroying optical-low-pass filter, but no reviews ever say anything bad about moire. So Nikon finally decided to give the reviewers what they really want, although if you look at most new cameras, the OLPF is very weak and most current DSLRs make moire on this coin. The E-M5 hardly has any moire, so I included that as a comparison.



I personally would prefer slightly less resolution and no moire.
 

Attachments

  • 2507614.jpg
    2507614.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 0
24000 pixels out of 24,000,000. Is it really worth blurring the rest of the picture?



https://flic.kr/p/e9DJHL



103kb
103kb


5 seconds with the LR4 moire brush.
 
sigala1 said:
sigala1 wrote:

I personally would prefer slightly less resolution and no moire.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's like CA, even if it can be fixed in photoshop, it shouldn't be there to start with. It's just one more step that you have to look for this defect and fix required for each image..
 
just buy a Dslr with a optical-low-pass filter then, you don't have to buy the D7100.

it normal every day use you're not going to see any moire
just having less resolution wont mean no moire or we wouldn't have most cameras with a optical-low-pass filter now would we
 
Fear of moire may be contagious, but I might point out that I have never seen moire or touched the moire brush in about ten thousand shots with the D800e, nor do I know anyone who has. The D7100 should be similar. It's your funeral if you want to throw away the extra resolution, color and contrast simply because you might possibly have to brush for thirty seconds.

If there are closely spaced vertical slats,you might want to keep an eye out for it:

https://flic.kr/p/dGU2op

but for the most part it will not even be worth fixing:
 
JimPearce said:
JimPearce wrote:

:)
Click to expand...
Why, though? It's pretty bad too: link.

It's actually even slightly worse than D7100 in some other areas of the test scene, look left of those colored cotton balls (or whatever they are!) or at that red net (?), left of the card. There's no substitute for more megapixels. It would have been even better if it had AA filter, but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
sigala1 said:
sigala1 wrote:
The E-M5 hardly has any moire, so I included that as a comparison.
Click to expand...
E-M5 also shows aliasing in the test scene.
sigala1 said:
I personally would prefer slightly less resolution and no moire.
Click to expand...
Wrong answer.

The correct answer is: more resolution and no aliasing artifacts. How do you get that, the best of both worlds? More megapixels + AA filter.
 
Last edited:
as someone considering a D7100 (although more like D7000 or D5200) - how much of an issue is Moire in Videos ? or when the camera outputs from the sensor to lowly 1080p - does it become a non-issue ?

just thinking that Moire is not too difficult to remove on still images- but I guess harder to remove in video ?
 
It seems a perfectly reasonable development to remove the AA filter in the pursuance of technical excellence, regardless of what the press have to say (most journos are blind anyway). Moire is kicking around in quite a few cameras, yet no one is making a fuss about that. The irony is that when the moire pitches up on an AA filtered camera that is supposed to remove the moire, its almost noticed, and yet when we have a camera the isn't supposed to remove the moire by way of AA filter, because it isn't fitted, it gets loads of attention.

All of the following have moire in the same part of the picture, some better, some worse. Most with AA filter.

D4, D600, D800, D800e, D3200, D5100, D5200, D7000,

Canon EOS 5D MkII, (bloody awful), Canon EOS 5D MkIII (same), Canon EOS 6D,

The best camera is the Pentax 645D (as a reasonably priced expensive camera), but I'm guessing that is not what folk are looking for, but it is a clear demonstration how good MF is.

Moire is a fact of life, and its going to be around for a while longer. But, there is a button for it.
 
Mark Buckley said:
Mark Buckley wrote:

as someone considering a D7100 (although more like D7000 or D5200) - how much of an issue is Moire in Videos ? or when the camera outputs from the sensor to lowly 1080p - does it become a non-issue ?

just thinking that Moire is not too difficult to remove on still images- but I guess harder to remove in video ?
Click to expand...
Here is a review
moire is discussed at 10:00 into the vid. It's none event.
 
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

24000 pixels out of 24,000,000. Is it really worth blurring the rest of the picture?
Click to expand...
Exactly - remind me again what % of pics would this affect? Personally I don't take pics of fabric for a living.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
sigala1 wrote:

I personally would prefer slightly less resolution and no moire.
Click to expand...
No thanks, I'll take resolution and detail - deal with moire in the handful of images it may impact.
 
Last edited:
Reilly Diefenbach said:
Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Fear of moire may be contagious, but I might point out that I have never seen moire or touched the moire brush in about ten thousand shots with the D800e, nor do I know anyone who has....

If there are closely spaced vertical slats,you might want to keep an eye out for it:

https://flic.kr/p/dGU2op

but for the most part it will not even be worth fixing:
Click to expand...
Is the pink/green striping on the panels of the taller rectangular building on the horizon a moire effect?
 
Last edited:
Which would be more noticeable on an 8x10 or 24x36 print, the moire or the increase in resolution? I doubt many could see either without deeply searching for it from a few inches away.
 
coudet said:
coudet wrote:
coudet said:
sigala1 wrote:
I personally would prefer slightly less resolution and no moire.
Click to expand...
Wrong answer.

The correct answer is: more resolution and no aliasing artifacts. How do you get that, the best of both worlds? More megapixels + AA filter.
Click to expand...
I think sigala1 had it right. It's less resolution from the same spatial sampling rate, or else a higher sampling rate (more megapixels) for a given resolution, to avoid aliasing.
 
Nexu1 said:
Nexu1 wrote:

Which would be more noticeable on an 8x10 or 24x36 print, the moire or the increase in resolution? I doubt many could see either without deeply searching for it from a few inches away.
Click to expand...
The moire patterns like the one seen on the coin do NOT go away when you downsize the photo. But the loss of resolution from a strong OLPF filter becomes invisible when you do that.
 
I think there's a rather weird disconnect.


When Nikon first introduced 24 MP APS-C cameras, everyone said, "oh my god, that's TOO MUCH resolution, no one needs that much resolution or can do anything with it."


But when Nikon removes the OLPF so that the 24 MP sensor can have even more resolution, everyone praises this as the smart thing to do.


I don't get it. Is 24 MP too much resolution, or not enough resolution?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top