October 23, 2014, 04:12:43 AM

Author Topic: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800  (Read 8702 times)

3kramd5

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 449
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2014, 04:12:36 PM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related webseite and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Care to take a gander at the sub forum you're in?
5D3, 5D2, 40D; Various lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2014, 04:12:36 PM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3089
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2014, 05:36:02 PM »
...
Of course, their formula for the score is secret.  They might give 25 points if the letter N or Z is in the name, for all we know.
 
There is one advantage to this, they avoid people discovering errors in their scoring methods by keeping it a secret.

And they make it harder for competition ... as yet I haven't seen anyone else come up with a better method to "score" lenses.

Quote

It is not surprising that the same camera without AA filter has more resolution, it also has more moiré, which can make a image very sharp and totally unusable.  How many points for sharp moiré??  This is a huge issue for wedding photography where pin stripe suites and lace are prevalent.  It totally ruins images.  The same issue for fashion photography, fines stripes or lace, etc  ruin the image.  While its a fine camera, it is also pretty limited for money making usage.
 
I'm wondering about the new rumored version.  Is Nikon thinking they can repeal Nyquist, or do they count on DXO to tell everyone how sharp it is and give it a high score, but real world usage is limited.

Nikon has supposedly developed or is developing better algorithms to mitigate moire. Given that it occurs due to physical properties of light and materials, there should be a method through which it can be predicted and thus countered.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3089
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2014, 05:38:01 PM »
That is laughable for several obvious reasons, first, they are saying the Ziess lens is perfect and causes zero resolution loss, that is impossible, it is either breaking the laws of physics, or their measurements are suspect yet again. And, just read any Nikon forum where people own both, and there are a surprising amount, they will tell you that is simply not true, yes the E does resolve slightly more, but 30% more, no.
unhindered by a normal AA filter, tell us why the camera cannot resolve a line-pair per line-pair of pixels using a lens that can resolve at even finer levels.

From what I've seen with people and their cameras, MegaPixels area little like horse power in their cars....at some point every one says..."I think that's quite enough". For some, that's around 100 bhp....for other's that's around 400 bhp (me a Jag XKR), others aren't happy until they have a Veyron or a LaFerrari. Everyone has compromises, desires and needs which vary from each other.

and people will go to great lengths to justify why their car and its engine is great for them, even if someone else's is better, until such time as they get that new car with the better engine and then the old one was always something that they knew they needed to upgrade, etc.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4468
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2014, 07:04:29 PM »
...
Of course, their formula for the score is secret.  They might give 25 points if the letter N or Z is in the name, for all we know.
 
There is one advantage to this, they avoid people discovering errors in their scoring methods by keeping it a secret.

And they make it harder for competition ... as yet I haven't seen anyone else come up with a better method to "score" lenses.

That would be because scoring lenses, sensors, or any other aspect of a camera is a ridiculous idea that completely decimates the consumers ability to make an EDUCATED choice about their camera purchasing decisions. Scoring hides all the details, and in the process throws away a lot of relevant information that is CRITICAL to making those decisions. DXO's lens scores are only valid within the context of DXO...they have no meaning in any other context, and are therefor valueless in a store when your holding two actual lenses in your hands. DXO's lens scores are obviously biased, as they "score" the ridiculously cheap low end 50mm f/1.4 higher than the ludicrously expensive ultra high end 600mm f/4 L II. Sensor scores completely ignore the rest of the complex systems that cameras actually are, making no allowance for anything like AF functionality, metering functionality, or even the aesthetic aspects of camera construction...ergonomics and menu systems.

No one has tried to replicate what DXO does...because what DXO does is inane.

Quote

It is not surprising that the same camera without AA filter has more resolution, it also has more moiré, which can make a image very sharp and totally unusable.  How many points for sharp moiré??  This is a huge issue for wedding photography where pin stripe suites and lace are prevalent.  It totally ruins images.  The same issue for fashion photography, fines stripes or lace, etc  ruin the image.  While its a fine camera, it is also pretty limited for money making usage.
 
I'm wondering about the new rumored version.  Is Nikon thinking they can repeal Nyquist, or do they count on DXO to tell everyone how sharp it is and give it a high score, but real world usage is limited.

Nikon has supposedly developed or is developing better algorithms to mitigate moire. Given that it occurs due to physical properties of light and materials, there should be a method through which it can be predicted and thus countered.

It isn't a matter of predicting it. We know exactly why it happens and how it happens. The problem isn't knowledge. The problem is that moire is an artifact that gets PERMANENTLY BAKED IN once the image is digitized. You took two patterns, interfered them, then saved the INTERFERENCE of the two...not the originals. The signal is permanently changed, and changed in a completely destructive way. The thing about deconvolution is, it's literally impossible to reconstruct the original signal, regardless of how well you know and understand the sources of convolution, due to the nature of error rate in the kinds of mathematical calculations involved in performing that deconvolution. The tiniest error perturbes the entire calculation, limiting how far you can push it, such that pushing it too far results in significantly worse artifacts than you started with.

That is why deblurring algorithms, for example, work exceptionally well at small scales. You can deblur an image a small amount, and it can look fantastic, as though you never missfocused. However try to deblur an image more than a few pixels, and the algorithm itself will start introducing horrible, destructive artifacts that look completely unnatural and entirely unacceptable for art (there may be practical applications for utilitarian purposes...say police deblurring blurry license plate photos, but the artifacts don't matter there, because the photo isn't about art, it's about information.)

There is no post-processing solution to moire. The only way to avoid it...is to avoid it up front.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3089
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2014, 07:38:40 PM »
That would be because scoring lenses, sensors, or any other aspect of a camera is a ridiculous idea that completely decimates the consumers ability to make an EDUCATED choice about their camera purchasing decisions. Scoring hides all the details, and in the process throws away a lot of relevant information that is CRITICAL to making those decisions. DXO's lens scores are only valid within the context of DXO...they have no meaning in any other context, and are therefor valueless in a store when your holding two actual lenses in your hands. DXO's lens scores are obviously biased, as they "score" the ridiculously cheap low end 50mm f/1.4 higher than the ludicrously expensive ultra high end 600mm f/4 L II. Sensor scores completely ignore the rest of the complex systems that cameras actually are, making no allowance for anything like AF functionality, metering functionality, or even the aesthetic aspects of camera construction...ergonomics and menu systems.

No one has tried to replicate what DXO does...because what DXO does is inane.

Strange that I don't see any significant criticism anywhere except forums dominated by Canon owners. If DxO was so irrelevant then the disdain would be more widespread.

Quote
It isn't a matter of predicting it. We know exactly why it happens and how it happens.

Obviously not everyone shares the same defeatist attitude as you do and that they've put R&D efforts into understanding and combating it.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14723
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2014, 08:34:11 PM »
Strange that I don't see any significant criticism anywhere except forums dominated by Canon owners. If DxO was so irrelevant then the disdain would be more widespread.

So DxOMark's own comments sections are dominated by Canon owners?  Photo.net?  DPR?  Or maybe you just don't read much...


Obviously not everyone shares the same defeatist attitude as you do and that they've put R&D efforts into understanding and combating it.

Lots of R&D effort (and money) went into cold fusion.  That didn't work, either.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4468
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2014, 08:53:43 PM »
That would be because scoring lenses, sensors, or any other aspect of a camera is a ridiculous idea that completely decimates the consumers ability to make an EDUCATED choice about their camera purchasing decisions. Scoring hides all the details, and in the process throws away a lot of relevant information that is CRITICAL to making those decisions. DXO's lens scores are only valid within the context of DXO...they have no meaning in any other context, and are therefor valueless in a store when your holding two actual lenses in your hands. DXO's lens scores are obviously biased, as they "score" the ridiculously cheap low end 50mm f/1.4 higher than the ludicrously expensive ultra high end 600mm f/4 L II. Sensor scores completely ignore the rest of the complex systems that cameras actually are, making no allowance for anything like AF functionality, metering functionality, or even the aesthetic aspects of camera construction...ergonomics and menu systems.

No one has tried to replicate what DXO does...because what DXO does is inane.

Strange that I don't see any significant criticism anywhere except forums dominated by Canon owners. If DxO was so irrelevant then the disdain would be more widespread.

Oh, it's not just here. It's rather mild here...you should see the stuff people say about DXO over on DPR Forums! :D Them ppls is crazy!

Quote
It isn't a matter of predicting it. We know exactly why it happens and how it happens.

Obviously not everyone shares the same defeatist attitude as you do and that they've put R&D efforts into understanding and combating it.

These concepts are very well understood. Deconvolution, waveform interference, aliasing and moire, etc. have all been researched heavily for decades. Most of the reason we haven't seen software tools for certain things is that we haven't had the computing power in the past. Deconvolution algorithms are complex, some highly complex. Specialized software in the past used to be the only way to get advanced tools like this, and they were usually very targeted (i.e. ONLY performing one or two types of denoising or deconvolution), and were usually so slow that the algorithms could take minutes or even much longer to complete.

Today we have significantly more computing power, such that it takes seconds or less to apply these complex algorithms to increasingly large images. A lot of that is also due to optimizations made to the algorithms, gaining speed, often at the cost of precision (most photographers don't need scientific accuracy.) So, things like moire removal are now showing up. It isn't because we suddenly learned something about moire. No...we already knew all about it. We've known about interference patterns for hundreds of years. We just have more computing power now. It's easier to make tools that address, or try to address, some of these kinds of problems now, because compute cycles in the billions per second exist on people's desktops as a matter of course these days.

There isn't a lot left to discover here. Not with bodies of research spanning decades. I guarantee you, Nikon won't be producing any miracle-working demoire algorithms any time soon. They may be able to get slightly better results with color moire removal (which, BTW, is currently what all moire algorithms are...they only remove the color aspect of the patterns, they don't actually remove the interference patterns.) They may be able to better identify which pixels and colors are primarily aliased, and only affect them, rather than desaturating and blurring pixels that aren't primarily aliased. That would certainly be an improvement, but it doesn't really change much in terms of how much of the moire pattern itself is removed.



The big question is...when there is already a highly effective means of preventing moire, and a means that introduces a PREDICABLE and DECONVOLVABLE pattern of blurring that can EASILY be reduced in post with a basic sharpening algorithm...why spend so much time, effort, and money removing AA filters, and even more trying to solve the problems moire creates in post?

It's a total, utter waste. Moire is a destructive, unpredictable form of image artifact that is unevenly distributed throughout your image. Those kinds of artifacts are the worst to deal with. They are the most complex, and the ones you really want to PREVENT, not REACT to. It's identification and effective removal is highly difficult in post. This is in contrast to simple high frequency blurring, which is highly predictable, evenly distributed, and extremely easy to counteract in post with either basic sharpening (effective, but not ideal) or more advanced deconvolution (wavelet deconv. or something similar, far more effective).

People are too concerned with sharpness, especially OOC sharpness. Sharpness is something we understand exceptionally well, and something for which we have some truly exceptionally powerful tools to enhance (just check out PixInsight...some of the tools in there are simply mindblowingly good.) Why obsesse over OOC sharpness, then have to DEAL with moire and other aliasing in post and WAIT for new and more advanced, power hungry algorithms to come out that...don't really solve the problem (not without being similarly destructive in other ways...such as blurring detail or by introducing OTHER kinds of artifacts)?

Optical low pass filters eliminate moire, stop it before it occurs, and your images can be sharpened in post to be just as good as a camera without a filter. Again...inanity. It's totally inane to obsess over OOC sharpness and removal of AA filters when the problem was already solved!!  ::)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2014, 08:53:43 PM »

ishdakuteb

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2014, 11:37:09 PM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related website and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Spread useful information and experience about Canon gear. But don't bother us with Nikon.

1. Just ignore it though... That is their jobs LOL
2. They both cannot deliver a sharp image, which includes quality and content, regardless what brand (For example:  Dustin Abbott, among other CR members, can deliver sharp images in both quality and content, in my opinion).  If they do, I would guess they have shown number of their images in the past two years (about the time that i picked up my first Canon DSLR and join this forum).

However, if there was a day that Canon stopped selling cameras, I would then buy Fuji or Nikon... Sony is out of my list.  But sorry, Canon's heart is still beating strong, adding up mirrorless is not my first choice since OVF is still out there.  Why?  It is simply because I do not like EVF.  Even my daughter can pick that EVF type of camera and deliver an image without an error in setting exposure, regardless what mode she uses (using together with flash is another story)...  With OVF, she cannot.  That is the most fun and challenge part of using OVF.  And yes, I have played with mirrorless camera, Fuji x100s, Fuji X-Pro1, Fuji XT-1 and Sony A7 (my friends own them)

Regarding Zeiss lenses, there is no doubt about their lenses' quality, color and contrast.  But I love capturing candid images; therefore, Zeiss is currently not my choice either...

After all, digging in techniques first, both capturing and post processing, since delivered images talk.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 11:48:59 PM by ishdakuteb »

RobertG.

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2014, 06:40:42 PM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related webseite and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Care to take a gander at the sub forum you're in?

Yes, I have seen the subforum. It would be a prefect place to speak about things like Sigma lenses or Manfrotto tripods. But Nikon gear normally doesn't fit on a Canon camera. Endless discussion about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras doesn't help anyone shooting with Canon cameras and lenses.
5DII | TS-E 17 mm L | TS-E 24 mm II | EF 35mm f1.4 | TS-E 45mm | EF 50mm f1.4 |
Tamron SP 24-70 f2.8 | EF 85mm f1.8 | TS-E 90mm f2.8 | EF 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 L

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14723
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2014, 08:36:11 PM »
But Nikon gear normally doesn't fit on a Canon camera.

The Nikon hand strap fits on Canon cameras, and I hear it's ergonomically better and more comfortable than the Canon hand strap.

Just sayin'.   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Harry Muff

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2014, 11:18:04 PM »
I've always thought that images through an anti-aliasing filter react very nicely to the unsharp mask, so I don't see the fuss.
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

Harry Muff

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr:
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2014, 11:18:44 PM »
And I prefer a wrist-strap to a hand-strap...
Some cameras… With Canon written on them. Oh, and some lenses… Also with Canon written on them. Oh, and a shiny camera with Fuji written on it too...

Feel free to have a wander round my flickr

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1282
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2014, 12:52:49 AM »
That is laughable for several obvious reasons, first, they are saying the Ziess lens is perfect and causes zero resolution loss, that is impossible, it is either breaking the laws of physics, or their measurements are suspect yet again. And, just read any Nikon forum where people own both, and there are a surprising amount, they will tell you that is simply not true, yes the E does resolve slightly more, but 30% more, no.

Not exactly perfect.  just able to use the full resolution of the sensor.

If they sensor was 8 MP and a lens resolved 8, would you call that perfect?  Just pushes the limit of the sensor.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2014, 12:52:49 AM »

3kramd5

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 449
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2014, 09:35:07 AM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related webseite and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Care to take a gander at the sub forum you're in?

Yes, I have seen the subforum. It would be a prefect place to speak about things like Sigma lenses or Manfrotto tripods. But Nikon gear normally doesn't fit on a Canon camera. Endless discussion about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras doesn't help anyone shooting with Canon cameras and lenses.

It's the perfect place to discuss anything other than Canon.
Here's the description of the forum: "Nikon, Leica, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest go here." While endless discussions about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras may not *help* canon users, it's certainly interesting, and having the forum keeps users posting here rather than spreading out to a nikon site for nikon and a leica site for leica and a sigma site for sigma, etc. It's a canon-centric website, but that isn't to the exclusion of non-canon stuff.
5D3, 5D2, 40D; Various lenses

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3355
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2014, 09:48:01 AM »
Just because someone claims something does not mean it is true.

Take a look at the reports coming out of the "ponds institute" and the claims with beauty products..... "30 percent brighter", "reduces the look of winkles 70 percent" etc etc etc.... I put the DXO claims in the same category.... and don't call me a Canon Fanboy because of that... All their claims are tainted and it does not matter who made the gear.

As had been said before, any attempt to reduce a complex system used for diverse goals to a single rating number is doomed to failure.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2014, 09:48:01 AM »