It is an OOC JPEG, see the EXIF. Sharpness =3, typical for Canon.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
CANON EOS 5DS R Low-pass filter effect cancellation
- Thread starter Peter Togel
- Start date
Jeff Fenske
Leading Member
- Messages
- 951
- Reaction score
- 223
Speaking of 'cancellation,' I just now cancelled my 5Ds R order, to get the 5Ds instead.
Thanks, everyone!
Jeff
Thanks, everyone!
Jeff
bobn2
Forum Pro
Defence not needed. I'm not nearly clever enough to have discovered it. Clever enough to understand it, though.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Possibly only three, if two of them overlap, which is the most probable situation, I think. Middle one will be a stop brighter than the other two.
I find the samples posted by Horshack very informative because they show that the higher "crispness" of the D810 image (compared to the D800) does not translate into any additional real detail recorded. I couldn't find any text that can be read from the D810 but not from the D800.
In most photos from natural scenes the real detail is unknown to the viewer and many apparently like the increased crispness without the AA filter even though there is false detail/color and aliasing.
Last edited:
I bought a Nikon D800 and lots of Nikon lenses three years ago but kept all my Canon equipment in case I want to switch back. I'm extremely happy with the Nikon but one reason why I might be tempted back to Canon could be the availability of cameras with a proper AA filter. How strange that the Nikon "market" (including very good and knowledgeable photographers) so completely embraced the crunchy AA-less look.
Edit: I have seen posts from bird photographers who claim that they never ever saw moire from their D800E in thousands of photos. But when I look at one of their recently posted photos the feathers are full of false color and aliasing (=moire).
Last edited:
There can be moire (but unlikely color moire) from feathers interfering with each other. See this image as an example.
http://wallpaperscraft.com/download/feathers_black_background_blue_29931/1920x1200
Make sure to view the full size. The moire you see at smaller sizes is likely aliasing from the resizing operation.
http://wallpaperscraft.com/download/feathers_black_background_blue_29931/1920x1200
Make sure to view the full size. The moire you see at smaller sizes is likely aliasing from the resizing operation.
That image appears to have both moire from interference with the camera sensor (colored moire) and moire from feathers interfering with each other.
--
Victor Engel
bobn2
Forum Pro
I'm trying very hard to convince myself that I don't have an aliasing problem with the D810.
clager
Leading Member
Probably a wise move! since you still have 50MP. Technology have gone forward for sure but I have seen cams, even MF cams in the past without this filter and if unlucky it picks up moire, artifacts, etc.
Jeff Fenske
Leading Member
- Messages
- 951
- Reaction score
- 223
The "unrealistic 'crunchy' appearance" theory presented in this thread is compelling and appreciated, and may be widely known as absolute fact over time.
The two clinchers for me:
(1) The 5Ds R is compromised from birth. Canon decided to use the inferior method of keeping the unused AA filter in the light path, degrading the resolution and dimming light entering the camera. Nikon discarded this method with the D810.
I like the idea of light being able to freely flow into the camera without interference. Putting things in the way that don't do anything is nuts for a high end camera! But it was pointed out that Canon probably didn't know during development that Nikon was going to come out with the freedom edition, AAless D810. But maybe the jaggies and moiré isn't worth the less interfered light transmission, anyway.
There is a strong likelihood that Canon will release a completely AAless 5Ds version in the future, similar to the Nikon D810, unless AAless gets discredited as being undesirable in the meantime.
(2) And DPR was able to duplicate a D800e shot by adding sharpening to the D800 AA filtered version in the green fence photo here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/27
The buildings photo didn't do as well with sharpening (or oversharpening), but still…. DPR basically proves there is little 'sharpness' advantage through AA cancelation.
(3) A third, less important point for me is the peace of mind from not having to worry about seeing moiré and artifacts once I get home and look at the images more closely on the monitor.
I've read a lot of threads on this subject, including elsewhere, but this discussion was my eureka moment where the 5Ds R no longer makes practical sense to me.
clager
Leading Member
Oh I understand you completely! and the worry thing is very much justified indeed. I just hate being out on commissioned work with new cameras and I don't want to spend hours on end in PS trying to fix artifacts etc.
Let me tell you on one of my HD4 MF cameras, one has this filter, custom made actually, the other was lacking it, removed and sure as hell I encountered trouble. As long as shooting in the studio it was brilliant but the minute I took it outside, it was a gamble.
Now I am not saying Canon hasn't got it right? might be very wrong here but No, I simplu don't want to worry and thats a big part, especially not shooting for clients.
You may not, however I certainly do - its zilch!
You assume too much, incorrectly as it turns out.
As has been pointed out on this forum before, as it happens by others who know me in real life, I do actually design cameras for a living - that includes design for production. You, apparently, do not.
Sure they are not in the production volumes of Canon models, but tens of thousands have been produced.
The only reason that was spelled out specifically is because you appear to have needed it, subtle being beyond you.
It is the entire filter "stack" which is placed in front of the sensor package. The window of the sensor, which includes the other LPF, is part of the sensor package. Since that is precisely what we have been discussing (which elements are in the stack and which are part of the sensor package) I had assumed that you would have worked that out for yourself, especially since one axis of the AA was missing from the stack. I clearly over-estimated your abilities, not for the first time.
"Surprised"? Only a couple of posts earlier you were claiming to know about these things!
But the difference in the two options we have been discussing is less than a quarter of that.
Playing with you, perhaps. Some of us differentiate marketing throw-away lines from engineering fact.
--
Its RKM
Last edited:
Yes, of course. ;-)
Ummm. I thought the IR cut/UV block filer was actually between the two AA filters. So it's in front of one and behind the other. I suspect this is done mainly so it can serve a dual purpose, the other purpose being to be a 1/4 wave filter, turning the light into non polarized light so the second AA filter works.
If so, then the difference between the regular AA version and the canceled version has to account for the change in optical activity - the canceled version should not be optically active. The regular one has to be.
If so, then the difference between the regular AA version and the canceled version has to account for the change in optical activity - the canceled version should not be optically active. The regular one has to be.
No, the IR filter is a separate element from the quarter wave plate, the former is marked "3" in the image I linked to, the latter marked "4". There is also a hot mirror surface (1) on the front side of the birefringent element (2).
bobn2
Forum Pro
There's two bits of IR filtration. At the front of the stack is a 'hot mirror' a dichroic or interference filter that reflects back IR but passes visible. There is another IR cut filter in between the two half AA filters, which may be another reason for doing it this way, it might be (speculating here) quite hard to duplicate the colour response accurately if the sensor stacks are radically different - that is the Lithium Niobate crystal will have a particular passband, and if one model had something other than Lithium Niobate, it would end up with a different colour response. Not a problem in itself, but when you're selling two versions of the same camera, they'll be expected to perform the same.
As for the 1/4 wave filter, that's needed in both versions, as you say its purpose is to change the linearly polarised light from the first part of the AA filter to circularly polarised light, so the second half of the filter will work. That second half needs to work in both cases. In the filtered camera is spreads in an orthogonal (90 degrees) direction to the front half, in the unfiltered camera it spreads in the complementary direction (180 degrees) to reverse the spread of the first half.
--
Bob
'Technology' is a name that we have for stuff that doesn't work yet.
Douglas Adams.
Last edited:
bobn2
Forum Pro
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum