Sergey_Green
Veteran Member
Which one would that be, and why?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
False Detail vs Real detail. MPs and AA filters and crispy lines
- Thread starter alatchin
- Start date
rovingtim
Veteran Member
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
For most photos that most people take and in the way most people display their photos, the difference in IQ between a cell phone and FF will have zero effect in terms of the "success" of the photo.
rovingtim
Veteran Member
Last edited:
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
The differences in detail are still the same, and, to my eyes, not all that different. However, the D800 rendering, both before and after, is more pleasing to my eyes, and not by a little. That said, if both files were optimally processed, I think they'd be more than "close enough".
rovingtim
Veteran Member
Hmmm. I see quite a bit more detail in the D800 shot. That said, the Foveon is far closer than, say, the m4/3rds camera.The differences in detail are still the same, and, to my eyes, not all that different. However, the D800 rendering, both before and after, is more pleasing to my eyes, and not by a little. That said, if both files were optimally processed, I think they'd be more than "close enough".
On the other hand, Foveon tends to make the gaps and in the brick unrealistically big (for example) which is a type of alias artifact ... though it could be Sigma processing. It does this to roof tiles and pretty much any straight line that is near the edge of resolution.
Looks like detail to those not really looking.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Here's the way I like to think about it. Let's say there were a sign on the wall with writing on it. If that writing were just as the limits of my ability to be able to read it, then I think I would be able to read it on the Foveon and D800 crops. If not, then if the text were a wee bit larger on the one I couldn't read, then I would be able to read it. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.Hmmm. I see quite a bit more detail in the D800 shot. That said, the Foveon is far closer than, say, the m4/3rds camera.The differences in detail are still the same, and, to my eyes, not all that different. However, the D800 rendering, both before and after, is more pleasing to my eyes, and not by a little. That said, if both files were optimally processed, I think they'd be more than "close enough".
On the other hand, Foveon tends to make the gaps and in the brick unrealistically big (for example) which is a type of alias artifact ... though it could be Sigma processing. It does this to roof tiles and pretty much any straight line that is near the edge of resolution.
Looks like detail to those not really looking.
Sergey_Green
Veteran Member
That just does not look right to me at all. But fine, if this is how you see it. The D800 (as you show it) just does not have that cool transparency in detail Foveon is known for. As I said, it is just not the same.
I will come up with crops to show later, if this thread does not max out by then. D800 is more dr (it's clear), it makes files that are easily controllable, with Sigma you either get it right or you don't. But as far as detail goes, Merrills are not that far away in comparison, and in most scenarios they produce very pleasing, crispy, and detailed results.
--
- sergey
Last edited:
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
In my opinion, the EM5II photos are both the better photos. However, in the bottom frame, they are very close. In the top frame, the obvious color moire is a huge distraction for the D810 photo. However, I have to wonder if that could not be handled better with another RAW converter and that they would look significantly closer.Lets try this again... Which one has more detail. The left image or the right?
D810 UPSAMPLED to the 63 MP ORF file.
Or how about this one:
Of course Sergey, I dont expect a straight answer out of a person such as yourself... I feel you may be allergic to it. But you hove no problems with Moire or Aliasing.
To be clear in the left image above the EM5 mark 2 absolutely trumps the artifact riddled D810 file... I mean destroys it... I mean it makes it look like a horrible mess. Or do you disagree? Do you feel the D810 file is a clean as a whistle, showing nothing but accurate colour splotches in a black and white print?
rovingtim
Veteran Member
Why do the bricks in the Foveon shot look so much fatter than the shots in the D800 image? Also, what is that purple stuff on the Foveon curtains?
rovingtim
Veteran Member
You have both cameras don't you? I'd be pleased to see equivalent shots of a detailed something from both. Post and I'd be pleased to discuss.
Sergey_Green
Veteran Member
Hardly. Also, do not forget you are looking at D800E with absolutely the best lens on it. Your statement that D800 images will have so much more detail in them is just not true.
Why do the bricks in the Foveon shot look so much fatter than the shots in the D800 image?
They lack red, it is very distinctive Merrill look.
--
- sergey
Sergey_Green
Veteran Member
I downloaded them from elsewhere, some like sample RAW files, those should be enough. But why not, might try out images on the same scene just as well.
rovingtim
Veteran Member
Hardly. Also, do not forget you are looking at D800E with absolutely the best lens on it. Your statement that D800 images will have so much more detail in them is just not true.
Why do the bricks in the Foveon shot look so much fatter than the shots in the D800 image?
They lack red, it is very distinctive Merrill look.
The D800 gives similar results because that is the camera with which I first compared the Merrill. However, we really should stop posting in this thread as this is hugely off topic.
Give me a nudge if you decide to post a side by side comparison at full res and we can have a chat.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Bricks look the same to me, just greater contrast in the shadows between bricks in the Foveon photo. As for the curtains, the color in the Foveon photo looks off all the way around, but, yes, the Nikon photo is better in that regard.
Why do the bricks in the Foveon shot look so much fatter than the shots in the D800 image? Also, what is that purple stuff on the Foveon curtains?
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
The problem with a less aggressive demosaic algorithm is that it will tend to reduce detail (real and false) and increase blur at the same time it tends to reduces artifacts. The trade-off is illustrated by looking at the raw and jpeg versions of the D810 studio shot. There are confounding processing differences, of course, but nonetheless such a comparison is a convenient way to get a sense of the trade-off inherent in a more aggressive demosaicing algorithm (ACR's) vs. a less aggressive one (Nikon's).
Raw version on left. JPEG version on right.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Absolutely spot-on. The point is, if you don't want the whole resolution, then why not have the less aggressive demosaicking and avoid at least some of the more objectionable artefacts (you'll never get rid of them all, which is why no-AA-filter is such a bad idea.The problem with a less aggressive demosaic algorithm is that it will tend to reduce detail (real and false) and increase blur at the same time it tends to reduces artifacts. The trade-off is illustrated by looking at the raw and jpeg versions of the D810 studio shot. There are confounding processing differences, of course, but nonetheless such a comparison is a convenient way to get a sense of the trade-off inherent in a more aggressive demosaicing algorithm (ACR's) vs. a less aggressive one (Nikon's).
Raw version on left. JPEG version on right.
--
Bob
Eating people is wrong.
Michael Flanders.
Last edited:
True. The bottom shot is very similar, but there are still plenty of clues the mark 2 is describing a fraction more detail.
i asked the designers at work their thoughts and it was 50 50. It seems camera companies understand the risks of artifacts are with the trade off for pixel level detail. However I know which one I prefer I am just astonished at how few people notice.
just interesting.
i asked the designers at work their thoughts and it was 50 50. It seems camera companies understand the risks of artifacts are with the trade off for pixel level detail. However I know which one I prefer I am just astonished at how few people notice.
just interesting.
I still keep one of those 12mp sensors around and was tempted to keep and e3 ( however it has too many focus issues). Rather like film they all have their own qualities especially with regards to subtle colour differences. I do wonder if the push for higher ISO and pixel detail is doing something to colour, Kirk tuck sometimes waxes lyrical about older cameras, and the e1 has remained a favorite for many.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum