Reading mode: Light Dark

False Detail vs Real detail. MPs and AA filters and crispy lines

Go to last post
rovingtim said:
rovingtim said:
GB has been talking about a pentax 36mp that can do the shift... may be something to awe at :)
Click to expand...
I am thinking (fingers crossed) that Oly might lead the pack here because they have so much experience in sensor shift.
Click to expand...
Not a matter of experience with sensor shift -- the sensor shifts or it doesn't. It's a matter of the sensor readout time, the number of exposures taken, and the way in which the exposures are merged/stitched.

The Pentax method is inferior in that it takes four exposures rather than eight, and is superior for the same reason. However, Pentax has a larger sensor with more pixels, and if they implement this on their FF DSLR, then it will be on a larger sensor with more pixels still, so I'm thinking Pentax will pull out ahead overall. Ideally, the user would specify the aperture and minimum exposure time, and the camera would then decide the number of exposures it could get, rather than a fixed number of exposures.

One thing is for certain, however -- this feature will only work on systems with sensor-shift tech.
 
Great Bustard said:
rovingtim said:
Great Bustard said:
GB has been talking about a pentax 36mp that can do the shift... may be something to awe at :)
Click to expand...
I am thinking (fingers crossed) that Oly might lead the pack here because they have so much experience in sensor shift.
Click to expand...
Not a matter of experience with sensor shift -- the sensor shifts or it doesn't. It's a matter of the sensor readout time, the number of exposures taken, and the way in which the exposures are merged/stitched.

The Pentax method is inferior in that it takes four exposures rather than eight, and is superior for the same reason. However, Pentax has a larger sensor with more pixels, and if they implement this on their FF DSLR, then it will be on a larger sensor with more pixels still, so I'm thinking Pentax will pull out ahead overall. Ideally, the user would specify the aperture and minimum exposure time, and the camera would then decide the number of exposures it could get, rather than a fixed number of exposures.

One thing is for certain, however -- this feature will only work on systems with sensor-shift tech.
Click to expand...
I know read-out is a bottleneck, but I also hypothesise that the reason Pentax only uses four is that their shift isn't quite as accurate. Half a pixel shift is quite an engineering feat.
 
bobn2 said:
Funny how all the 'no AA' fans have suddenly swapped sides, isn't it?
Click to expand...
It was predictable, the same way as a Sony quality sensor suddenly made the old 12 mp seem not so good. Previously, the old 10 and 12 mp sensor were totally competitive with everything around them ...
 
rovingtim said:
Great Bustard said:
rovingtim said:
rovingtim said:
GB has been talking about a pentax 36mp that can do the shift... may be something to awe at :)
Click to expand...
I am thinking (fingers crossed) that Oly might lead the pack here because they have so much experience in sensor shift.
Click to expand...
Not a matter of experience with sensor shift -- the sensor shifts or it doesn't. It's a matter of the sensor readout time, the number of exposures taken, and the way in which the exposures are merged/stitched.

The Pentax method is inferior in that it takes four exposures rather than eight, and is superior for the same reason. However, Pentax has a larger sensor with more pixels, and if they implement this on their FF DSLR, then it will be on a larger sensor with more pixels still, so I'm thinking Pentax will pull out ahead overall. Ideally, the user would specify the aperture and minimum exposure time, and the camera would then decide the number of exposures it could get, rather than a fixed number of exposures.

One thing is for certain, however -- this feature will only work on systems with sensor-shift tech.
Click to expand...
I know read-out is a bottleneck, but I also hypothesise that the reason Pentax only uses four is that their shift isn't quite as accurate. Half a pixel shift is quite an engineering feat.
Click to expand...
'Tis possible. However, I'm thinking that they felt the lower overall exposure time was more important than the greater number of exposures. For example, is 1/200 ISO 400 better than 1/400 ISO 800? Depends on the scene, I should think. Pentax may have decided that the overall balance favored the latter over the former, although, as I said, best to let the photographer choose the aperture and exposure time and the camera fits in as many as it can in that time interval.
 
rovingtim said:
..
Foveon's don't have as much detail as the owners like to think. I've played Foveon and D800 files side by side and the D800 has much more detail.
Click to expand...
Then how do you explain this?



This is from Ming's DP3M review, in case you wonder.

This is from Ming's DP3M review, in case you wonder.

rovingtim said:
Also, if you whack up the clarity sliders, the D800 ends up looking much like the Foveon only with more detail.
Click to expand...
Not true again. They are very different files, the more you "whack" them, the more different they will look.
rovingtim said:
The Foveon has artifacts
Click to expand...
Almost none, as I can tell. The only artifacts you will see, and this is quite excessive in fact, is when you shoot into the strong or direct light. Foveon colors just won't hold it.

Here is an example, D800 will come out flawless for this frame,



original.jpg


rovingtim said:
... no AA you see ... it just isn't prone to moire artifacts.
Click to expand...
That's what they say.


--
- sergey
 
Great Bustard said:
rovingtim said:
Great Bustard said:
rovingtim said:
Great Bustard said:
GB has been talking about a pentax 36mp that can do the shift... may be something to awe at :)
Click to expand...
I am thinking (fingers crossed) that Oly might lead the pack here because they have so much experience in sensor shift.
Click to expand...
Not a matter of experience with sensor shift -- the sensor shifts or it doesn't. It's a matter of the sensor readout time, the number of exposures taken, and the way in which the exposures are merged/stitched.

The Pentax method is inferior in that it takes four exposures rather than eight, and is superior for the same reason. However, Pentax has a larger sensor with more pixels, and if they implement this on their FF DSLR, then it will be on a larger sensor with more pixels still, so I'm thinking Pentax will pull out ahead overall. Ideally, the user would specify the aperture and minimum exposure time, and the camera would then decide the number of exposures it could get, rather than a fixed number of exposures.

One thing is for certain, however -- this feature will only work on systems with sensor-shift tech.
Click to expand...
I know read-out is a bottleneck, but I also hypothesise that the reason Pentax only uses four is that their shift isn't quite as accurate. Half a pixel shift is quite an engineering feat.
Click to expand...
'Tis possible. However, I'm thinking that they felt the lower overall exposure time was more important than the greater number of exposures. For example, is 1/200 ISO 400 better than 1/400 ISO 800? Depends on the scene, I should think. Pentax may have decided that the overall balance favored the latter over the former, although, as I said, best to let the photographer choose the aperture and exposure time and the camera fits in as many as it can in that time interval.
Click to expand...
One possible advantage of multiple exposures is noise control.

In fact, (let me do the calculations) doesn't 8 exposures collect twice as much light as 4 exposures (at the same shutter speed) all other things being equal?
 
rovingtim said:
Great Bustard said:
rovingtim said:
Great Bustard said:
rovingtim said:
rovingtim said:
GB has been talking about a pentax 36mp that can do the shift... may be something to awe at :)
Click to expand...
I am thinking (fingers crossed) that Oly might lead the pack here because they have so much experience in sensor shift.
Click to expand...
Not a matter of experience with sensor shift -- the sensor shifts or it doesn't. It's a matter of the sensor readout time, the number of exposures taken, and the way in which the exposures are merged/stitched.

The Pentax method is inferior in that it takes four exposures rather than eight, and is superior for the same reason. However, Pentax has a larger sensor with more pixels, and if they implement this on their FF DSLR, then it will be on a larger sensor with more pixels still, so I'm thinking Pentax will pull out ahead overall. Ideally, the user would specify the aperture and minimum exposure time, and the camera would then decide the number of exposures it could get, rather than a fixed number of exposures.

One thing is for certain, however -- this feature will only work on systems with sensor-shift tech.
Click to expand...
I know read-out is a bottleneck, but I also hypothesise that the reason Pentax only uses four is that their shift isn't quite as accurate. Half a pixel shift is quite an engineering feat.
Click to expand...
'Tis possible. However, I'm thinking that they felt the lower overall exposure time was more important than the greater number of exposures. For example, is 1/200 ISO 400 better than 1/400 ISO 800? Depends on the scene, I should think. Pentax may have decided that the overall balance favored the latter over the former, although, as I said, best to let the photographer choose the aperture and exposure time and the camera fits in as many as it can in that time interval.
Click to expand...
One possible advantage of multiple exposures is noise control.
Click to expand...
Not "possible", but actual.
rovingtim said:
In fact, (let me do the calculations) doesn't 8 exposures collect twice as much light as 4 exposures (at the same shutter speed) all other things being equal?
Click to expand...
Indeed it does. That means that the EM5II collects the same amount of light with 8 exposures as the K3II does with 4, so as far as noise goes, it's a wash in this case.
 
Sergey_Green said:
Then how do you explain this?
Click to expand...
You like Foveon, that's how.
Sergey_Green said:
This is from Ming's DP3M review, in case you wonder.

This is from Ming's DP3M review, in case you wonder.
Sergey_Green said:
Also, if you whack up the clarity sliders, the D800 ends up looking much like the Foveon only with more detail.
Click to expand...
Not true again. They are very different files, the more you "whack" them, the more different they will look.
Click to expand...
How do you know? Were you looking over my shoulder when I did this? I sent the results to a Foveon shooter and he agreed he could barely tell the difference when I downressed the D800 shot to the same size as the Foveon shot.
Sergey_Green said:
Sergey_Green said:
The Foveon has artifacts
Click to expand...
Almost none, as I can tell. The only artifacts you will see, and this is quite excessive in fact, is when you shoot into the strong or direct light. Foveon colors just won't hold it.

Here is an example, D800 will come out flawless for this frame,
Click to expand...
Why, do you have a properly filtered sensor to compare it to? If not, it's hard to see the artifacts. For example, who knew the D800 was turning a wine bottle in a test shot a different colour until it sat side by side with an EM5 II shot?

My point isn't there are artifacts everywhere in every shot on non-AA cameras. My point is the artifacts appear frequently and once you see them, they ruin the shot.

But I have also noticed that the aficionados of non-AA cameras fervently practice the art of not seeing artifacts.
Sergey_Green said:
original.jpg

Sergey_Green said:
... no AA you see ... it just isn't prone to moire artifacts.
Click to expand...
That's what they say.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Foveon is not prone to moire artifacts, though I don't understand why this needs to be repeated.
 
Look at the straight converging line tests around the centre. When you see the lines switch from dark to light, that is where the true resolution ended, at that point, the detail is false. Also, notice when moire destroys the lines altogether.
 
rovingtim said:
Sergey_Green said:
Then how do you explain this?
Click to expand...
You like Foveon, that's how.
rovingtim said:
This is from Ming's DP3M review, in case you wonder.

This is from Ming's DP3M review, in case you wonder.
rovingtim said:
Also, if you whack up the clarity sliders, the D800 ends up looking much like the Foveon only with more detail.
Click to expand...
Not true again. They are very different files, the more you "whack" them, the more different they will look.
Click to expand...
How do you know? Were you looking over my shoulder when I did this? I sent the results to a Foveon shooter and he agreed he could barely tell the difference when I downressed the D800 shot to the same size as the Foveon shot.
rovingtim said:
rovingtim said:
The Foveon has artifacts
Click to expand...
Almost none, as I can tell. The only artifacts you will see, and this is quite excessive in fact, is when you shoot into the strong or direct light. Foveon colors just won't hold it.

Here is an example, D800 will come out flawless for this frame,
Click to expand...
Why, do you have a properly filtered sensor to compare it to? If not, it's hard to see the artifacts. For example, who knew the D800 was turning a wine bottle in a test shot a different colour until it sat side by side with an EM5 II shot?

My point isn't there are artifacts everywhere in every shot on non-AA cameras. My point is the artifacts appear frequently and once you see them, they ruin the shot.

But I have also noticed that the aficionados of non-AA cameras fervently practice the art of not seeing artifacts.
rovingtim said:
original.jpg

rovingtim said:
... no AA you see ... it just isn't prone to moire artifacts.
Click to expand...
That's what they say.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Foveon is not prone to moire artifacts, though I don't understand why this needs to be repeated.
Click to expand...
I know which one I'd rather be lugging around.
 
Last edited:
Sergey_Green said:
Great Bustard said:
Sergey_Green said:
Great Bustard said:
Sergey_Green said:
..
Click to expand...
Not taking one side or another in this, but the lens certainly plays a role.
Click to expand...
Which one, Zeiss or Sigma?
Click to expand...
The 14-42 on the mFT camera.
Click to expand...
I was responding to how D800 has much more detail than Foveon. The mFT just happened to be in the same frame.
Click to expand...
Ah -- my bad! Yes, for that crop, Foveon compared well to the D800 with regards to resolution.
 
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