Canon's Rumored 75mp Camera To Have a Non Bayer Multilevel Sensor?

[jrista]

Well, I think your last comparison there is a bit unrealistic. You are comparing something on the order of 100x100 pixels to a photo with millions of pixels. I don't see the same thing (that rogue aliasing) in the original photo...its crisp and sharp, but not hideously aliased like your mock example. I've seen far worse examples of real-world aliasing and moire.

Actually, the Sigma photo is not less aliased, both compared at 100%. Think of this example as a crop of a wide angle shot with a lot of people there. Also, the Sigma photo looks unnatural even downsized a lot. Anyway, which image do you prefer?

I'll see if I can find some examples of the D800 portraits I saw last year that were EXTREMELY sharp like that...and it seemed to be exactly what the photographer wanted. Sure, maybe its "aliased", but if that aliasing falls within the threshold of the photographers tolerance, I am not sure I would call it "incorrectly sampled".

I think at this point we are just debating personal preference, not any kind of real-world IQ-debilitating issue. Differing degrees of how sharp is sharp enough.

We are talking about sampling theory. Is is a personal preference whether you like aliased images or not but sampling theory is not a preference.

Just talking sampling theory, I guess I would prefer that frequencies below/around nyquist be removed or otherwise softened (most people hate the 7Ds AA filter, but personally I find it quite ideal for bird photography, it definitely avoids a lot of nasty color moire and other artifacts that are frequently caused by the overlap of birds feathers, without severely softening the results). I don't like moire in particular. I usually don't like jagged edges either, however I think whether it is "acceptable" often depends on the actual image (I do like crisp, sharp images, and the sharper they are out of the camera the less I have to boost sharpening (and therefor halos) in post).

I don't really see any jagged edges in the original photo of the girl (however that may simply be a benefit of the Retina display...will have to check on my home computer in a little bit here to see what everyone else is seeing.)

 

[jrista]

Here is one of the D800 (non-E) images I was talking about earlier (warning, the file is HUGE, and the server is slow):

http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/i-BN6QTnD/0/O/LAN1776.jpg

Between the sharp strands of hair in this, and the sharp strands of hair in the SD1 shot, I personally don't notice any appreciable difference. I'm at home now, on my 30" CinemaDisplay...lower pixel density than the Retina, and I do notice aliasing a bit more in both photos...but I guess the extreme sharpness doesn't bother me as much as more pronounced jaggies that one might get with the D800E, or moire (color moire especially).

Here is the EXIF, just to be clear this is a D800, not a D800E, photo...so an AA filter was in place:

Orientation of image: 1
File change date and time: 2012:03:25 19:15:54
Image input equipment manufacturer: NIKON CORPORATION
Image input equipment model: NIKON D800
Software used: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Copyright holder:
Exposure time: 0.004
F number: 8
Exposure program: 1
ISO speed rating: 100
Shutter speed: 7.96578
Aperture: 6
Exposure bias: -0.333333
Maximum lens aperture: 1
Metering mode: 5
Light source: 4
Flash: 16
Lens focal length: 85
Sensing method: 2
Custom rendered: 0
Exposure mode: 1
White balance: 1
Digital zoom ratio: 1
Focal length in 35 mm film: 85
Scene capture type: 0
Gain control: 0
Contrast: 0
Saturation: 0
Sharpness: 2
Subject distance range: 0

Even despite the AA filter, I would actually call the sampling of the sharp strands of hair worse than with the SD1. Where it lays along her shoulder, and a bit along the back left side, you can see what looks like stippling. That is an artifact that is absent from the SD1 photo.

 

[Pi]

Even despite the AA filter, I would actually call the sampling of the sharp strands of hair worse than with the SD1.

I find it much better. It also looks good downsized. The Sigma photo is a disaster, IMO. The Nikon is very good, with some faults.

 

[jrista]

Even despite the AA filter, I would actually call the sampling of the sharp strands of hair worse than with the SD1.

I find it much better. It also looks good downsized. The Sigma photo is a disaster, IMO. The Nikon is very good, with some faults.

Well, like I said before. I think we are firmly within the realm of personal preference now, taking the debate out of the realm of sampling theory and into the realm of unwinnable or otherwise pointless argument!

 

[CarlTN]

I'm not seeing where the aliasing in the hair is. In the part that goes out of focus behind the focal plane? I guess there is some. It's a remarkably sharp picture, though. She should have trimmed her nose hairs...!

What you consider a remarkably sharp (hair) is a classical example of aliasing, with blown pixels, etc.

That's a tad presumptive, you don't know what I consider sharp or not. You're just seeking argument, but then, so does Jrista. You two should get forum married...

 

[Pi]

That's a tad presumptive, you don't know what I consider sharp or not.

Aliasing does not exclude sharpness, it is just not a sharp image of the original, it is something else (some call it false detail). Add noise, for example, and it will get even sharper (it will increase the high frequency component).

I never argued about what you, or somebody else, should like. I just call it what it is. Liking aliased images is perfectly legal in this country.

 

[CarlTN]

That's a tad presumptive, you don't know what I consider sharp or not.

Aliasing does not exclude sharpness, it is just not a sharp image of the original, it is something else (some call it false detail). Add noise, for example, and it will get even sharper (it will increase the high frequency component).

I never argued about what you, or somebody else, should like. I just call it what it is. Liking aliased images is perfectly legal in this country.

I didn't say I liked aliases images, I said I couldn't see aliasing in the image. Obviously to you it sticks out, to me it does not. Since you're saying the image "fails", what is it it fails at? You're saying it couldn't be printed larger than 4x6 or something? Or even postage stamp size?

On a side note, you're probably not the one to ask (since you seem to think most people other than you are complete idiots...again something you share with your counterpart)...Anyhoo...in images that don't have enough pixel resolution, but still have "detail" (as in those I've done with the Foveon Generation "1" DP2 camera I used to own)...what is the correct technique for removing the "pixel blocking" that is still apparent after I scale up the image (either in PS or Perfect Resize 7)?

You will probably say there is no way, but it seems like there ought to be.