December 18, 2014, 12:26:24 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lee Jay

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89
1
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: Today at 09:57:05 AM »
Thank you very much for the links (especially the first two).

I have found the following interesting link:

http://www.canonwatch.com/eos-5d-mark-iii-hacked-anti-aliasing-filter-removed-more-sharpness/

Wow - what a horrid test.  They lighting is entirely different between the two shots.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: Today at 09:56:20 AM »
A question: Is it possible that the loss of sharpness by AA filter to be counteracted by the use of slightly increased sharpening? If that is so we can have the best of 2 worlds. Unless some very fine detail is lost completely at capture time...

You need a different type of sharpening to compensate for the roll off of the AA filter prior to the Nyquist limit.  But, yes, very little is actually lost that can't be recovered.  On the other hand, the aliasing from the lack of an AA filter cannot be removed in post processing.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: Today at 08:26:20 AM »
Some one earlier wrote:
No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices).  Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.
[/quote]

Do you use cameras with and without the AA filters?  I shoot the D800, 5DIII, D800E, D810 and the D7100.  In ALL cases, for my most detailed landscape work at low ISO, the cameras without the AA filter produce superior IQ Images to ones that have the AA filter and I have the large prints (3 feet by 2 feet average size) to prove it.
[/quote]

I've seen tons of shots from AA-less cameras from owners who were showing them to me to prove their superior IQ.  The shots are always crunchy and covered top to bottom with artifacts.  Some people just don't see those artifacts while to others they are obvious and nasty.  Generally the first group is obsessed with sharpness.

I'm very sensitive to that crunchy artifact filled look, and absolute sharpness means very little to me.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 08:05:04 PM »
Enlighten us!  I'm always willing to learn something new, as long as it isn't arguing over word meanings.

His calculations assume there's no AA filter, no Bayer mask, and that the pixels are all infinitely small.  His limit calculator assumes (I think) MTF50 is a reasonable cutoff.  Most people would choose MTF9 or smaller.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 07:09:11 PM »
When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Good read, thank you Mt. Spokane.  That's a level of nerdy I can cope with.

That site also has a nice intro to ND Grads section that I've used. 

- A

Just to warn you, some of the information on that page is misleading and/or wrong.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 05:58:54 PM »
the AA filter is pretty much obsolet unless you shoot fashion (lots of fine fabrics).

An f/2.8 lens is capable of proving diffraction-limited images to Bayer pixels that are less than 1 micron across.  The actual math works out that a diffraction-limited f/2.8 lens doesn't need an AA filter when your full-frame sensor is 1.5 gigapixels.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 04:16:03 PM »
In practical terms the a7r wipes the floor with any Canon sensor on the market today. This is from resolution and perceived point of view.

Well, it has more pixels so, duh?

Quote
My point was that if the a7R looks as good as it does next to my 6D resolution and sharpness-wise then it gets my money. I don't give a S___ about Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem lol.

You should - it's the basis of the entire digital world.

Quote
Both the d810 and A7r and now the d750 have the AA blur removed, look clearer and sharper without moiree. That's where my money will go, Canon failing to match that benchmark.

And they're filled with jaggies, false detail, and false resolution.

A 50MP with an AA filter will wipe the floor with a 36MP with no AA filter, and that's the right way to do it - more pixels with proper sampling rather than fewer pixels with lousy sampling.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 03:53:46 PM »
50 Mp FF without AA, nice. But what about Glass? Will the current Lenses deliver enough Resolution for such a Sensor?

I don't know, do any lenses work on the 70D or 7D2?  They have the same pixel density.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 03:21:04 PM »
When does diffraction kick in on a 50mp 35mm sensor?! How would this be good for landscapes or studio shots where you stop down? Wouldn't scaling up a lower mp shot probably look the same?

Diffraction is always present.  So I don't know what "kicks in" means.

These would be about 4 micron pixels.  Here's a chart for how diffraction affects MTF.



I meant "kick-in" like when does diffraction softening become so much that we hit the point of diminishing returns? There has to be a point where just cramming more pixels on a sensor is not going to help right?

Yes.  That point, for the original 7D, is at about f/18-f/20.  In other words, if you are shooting at f/18 to f/20, the 7D's sensor is extracting all the detail available and smaller pixels would do nothing.

I'm ignoring "diminishing returns" because the returns are diminishing all the way up (see the chart - it's a curve).  So, you can draw any point you want to and call it "the point of diminishing returns".

10
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 03:17:19 PM »
There are many articles about the AA filter out there, so it's use is no mystery.  It is there to reduce moire, but it's drawbacks are less detail, sharpness and lower resolution.  That is why the newer high MP cameras have no filter.  Put the AA filter back on, and you lose the advantages of the higher MP count.  Pretty simple really.

Yeah...that's pretty much all BS.  There's just a hint of truth in there, barely.

An quality AA filter, with modern processing, reduces resolving power by just under 10%.  However, removing the AA filter pollutes the entire spectrum with false information from beyond the spacial resolution of the sampled system.

So, which do you want?  Do you want slightly lower resolution (10% is basically undetectable by eye) or a total inability to trust any of the image information you do get?

Most of the supposed increased detail from a camera that lacks an AA filter is just false detail being mistaken as actual detail by the viewer.

Ask yourself this question.  If an AA filter did nothing but decrease image quality, why would camera makes put it into a camera thereby costing themselves money and buying nothing but lower image quality rankings?

The answer is simple - they don't.  An expensive camera like the 7DII (which has the same size pixels as a hypothetical 50MP full-frame camera) has an AA filter because it is necessary to get the best possible image quality.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:36:12 PM »
No AA filter, dual, identical card slots please, and if it's aimed at the studio, articulating touch screen as well.

No AA filter = no sale.

Just curious how polarizing the AA filter is for the various camps.  I really don't understand it as a feature / value proposition.

AA filter = a positive for folks shooting video, right?  Something to do with moire?

No-AA filter = a positive for detail / sharpness / resolution junkies, right?  Landscapers and... macro folks, perhaps?

(The above is my terrible understanding of this presented as a skeleton for more knowledgable folks to beat up / rearrange for my betterment).

- A

No AA filter = not positive for anything but the company making the camera (AA filters are very expensive optical devices).  Removing it does not help image quality, and it does hurt image quality of still images.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:34:36 PM »
No AA filter, dual, identical card slots please, and if it's aimed at the studio, articulating touch screen as well.

No AA filter = no sale.

Just curious how polarizing the AA filter is for the various camps.  I really don't understand it as a feature / value proposition.

AA filter = a positive for folks shooting video, right?  Something to do with moire?

No-AA filter = a positive for detail / sharpness / resolution junkies, right?  Landscapers and... macro folks, perhaps?

(The above is my terrible understanding of this presented as a skeleton for more knowledgable folks to beat up / rearrange for my betterment).

- A


High MP have less moiree issues as there's less interpolation which causes it.

You don't know what you're talking about.  Interpolation has nothing to do with it.

Read up:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

Pay special attention to the terms "bandlimited" and "perfect reconstruction" and ask yourself how that can be achieved.

No AA filter = false detail, artifacts and other nasties.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:53:59 PM »
Well for me... I have an SL1 on my belt, a 7D2 for sports/wildlife/BIF and a 5D3 for landscapes/portraits/low light and everything else.... not clear to me why I would buy a 50MP camera (just landscapes???)

Some of my buddies that shoot the Nikon have complained about their 36MP camera in that their Computer bogs down with so much info (think Raw file size) ... almost all have had to then go out and buy bigger/faster computers for PP and storage!  Something else to consider! :P

Everyone said that would happen when the D800 was announced and sure enough, it happened.  But people used it and said "this is worth getting a faster computer and a bigger hard drive."  Nikon of course now has the FrankeNikon 24 MP D750 which is being viewed as a pretty well put together FF rig without the burden of the huge files.  As inventory and obsolescence-insane having many non-gripped FF bodies is, it lets Nikon scratch some different userbases itches really hard -- one high resolution monster, one higher burst with a tilty/flippy screen, one more vanilla for cost, perhaps a nearly-dedicated video rig like the a7S someday, etc.

But back to your point -- I think if the sensor is worth it (interpret that as you will), people will cope and get the hardware they need to manage it.  I imagine this same discussion happened when Canon offered 21.1 MP bodies years ago, right?

- A
I agree....

Spending $3000 to $4000 on a camera and not spending $200 on a hard drive seems like an unlikely pairing....

I agree - in my case, I keep four copies, two on laptop drives (on laptops) and two on external drives (one on-site, one off-site).  So, 2TB of storage would cost me about $500, and 50MP raw files would burn that every 20,000 shots or so (so, about a year for me).

14
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 01:20:55 PM »
No AA filter, dual, identical card slots please, and if it's aimed at the studio, articulating touch screen as well.

No AA filter = no sale.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:15:31 PM »
Still there is no definite proof for Canon using new fab process for APS-C/FF. And using new process will (probably) make 46Mpix FF sensor even more expensive…

There is some evidence that something has changed.  The sensor in the 7DII has about 10% higher QE and about an order of magnitude lower dark current than any previous Canon sensor.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89