Nikon and the Dpreview jagged edge conversions of RAW

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 13, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Check out this comparator. Put the cursor on the shield area of the
    Martini bottle. Now, compare the low ISO RAWs of the D7000, 300s and
    5000 to the Olympus E-PL2 and the Canon EOS600D. Look at the edges of
    the figures in the crops. All the Nikon images have serrated edges.
    The other two cameras represent the edges as smooth. I wonder what is
    causing this?

    http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/page5.asp
    RichA, May 13, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Check out this comparator. Put the cursor on the shield area of the
    >Martini bottle. Now, compare the low ISO RAWs of the D7000, 300s and
    >5000 to the Olympus E-PL2 and the Canon EOS600D. Look at the edges of
    >the figures in the crops. All the Nikon images have serrated edges.
    >The other two cameras represent the edges as smooth. I wonder what is
    >causing this?
    >
    >http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/page5.asp



    It is a well known effect. It is because the Nikon DSLRs have more
    subtle (i.e.weaker) anti-aliasing filters than the other brands. The
    result is - hey presto! - they can record more detail, in this case
    the knurling around the coin.

    One of the main reasons that I like using my ancient Kodak DCS Pro 14n
    is that it has no AA filter and records *even more* detail than Nikon
    DSLRs. The other reason is its outstanding colour rendition. But
    when it comes to sharpness and detail, the Kodak from 2004 *excels*.
    Bruce, May 13, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    SumWan Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Check out this comparator. Put the cursor on the shield area of the
    > Martini bottle. Now, compare the low ISO RAWs of the D7000, 300s and
    > 5000 to the Olympus E-PL2 and the Canon EOS600D. Look at the edges of
    > the figures in the crops. All the Nikon images have serrated edges.
    > The other two cameras represent the edges as smooth. I wonder what is
    > causing this?
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/page5.asp
    >
    >

    Also, what's going on with the watchface hour markers? some have slits while
    others are solid!
    SumWan, May 13, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 13, 11:02 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Check out this comparator.  Put the cursor on the shield area of the
    > >Martini bottle.  Now, compare the low ISO RAWs of the D7000, 300s and
    > >5000 to the Olympus E-PL2 and the Canon EOS600D.  Look at the edges of
    > >the figures in the crops.  All the Nikon images have serrated edges.
    > >The other two cameras represent the edges as smooth.  I wonder what is
    > >causing this?

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/page5.asp

    >
    > It is a well known effect.  It is because the Nikon DSLRs have more
    > subtle (i.e.weaker) anti-aliasing filters than the other brands.  The
    > result is - hey presto! - they can record more detail, in this case
    > the knurling around the coin.


    But, the current Olympus E-5 either has no AA filter, or a very mild
    one and yet I don't see the effect with it to the extent I do with the
    Nikons.
    RichA, May 13, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > One of the main reasons that I like using my ancient Kodak DCS Pro 14n
    > is that it has no AA filter and records *even more* detail than Nikon
    > DSLRs.


    it records *false* detail (alias artifacts), not real detail that was
    in the original subject. the 14n does not record more detail than a 24
    megapixel nikon d3x.
    nospam, May 13, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 14/05/2011 3:10 a.m., SumWan wrote:
    > "RichA"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Check out this comparator. Put the cursor on the shield area of the
    >> Martini bottle. Now, compare the low ISO RAWs of the D7000, 300s and
    >> 5000 to the Olympus E-PL2 and the Canon EOS600D. Look at the edges of
    >> the figures in the crops. All the Nikon images have serrated edges.
    >> The other two cameras represent the edges as smooth. I wonder what is
    >> causing this?
    >>
    >> http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/page5.asp
    >>
    >>

    > Also, what's going on with the watchface hour markers? some have slits while
    > others are solid!
    >
    >

    Yeah - They claim that these shots are taken from exactly the same
    tripod position with fixed studio lighting - which can't be 100% true -
    as they're going to have to adjust tripod position to allow for
    variations in actual focal length and crop factor if they're using fixed
    focal length lenses. It looks like the lighting position changes
    between tests as well.
    Me, May 13, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On May 13, 11:02 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Check out this comparator.  Put the cursor on the shield area of the
    >> >Martini bottle.  Now, compare the low ISO RAWs of the D7000, 300s and
    >> >5000 to the Olympus E-PL2 and the Canon EOS600D.  Look at the edges of
    >> >the figures in the crops.  All the Nikon images have serrated edges.
    >> >The other two cameras represent the edges as smooth.  I wonder what is
    >> >causing this?

    >>
    >> >http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/page5.asp

    >>
    >> It is a well known effect.  It is because the Nikon DSLRs have more
    >> subtle (i.e.weaker) anti-aliasing filters than the other brands.  The
    >> result is - hey presto! - they can record more detail, in this case
    >> the knurling around the coin.

    >
    >But, the current Olympus E-5 either has no AA filter, or a very mild
    >one and yet I don't see the effect with it to the extent I do with the
    >Nikons.



    That's because E-5 has a sensor with a much higher pixel density.
    While the Olympus Zuiko Digital pro-grade lenses are extremely good,
    they aren't capable of resolving the same level of detail on a Four
    Thirds sensor that Nikkors can on APS-C or full frame.

    These Zuiko Digital lenses gave excellent results on the E-1. At that
    time, Four Thirds could compete on level terms with Nikon's 2.7 and
    5.4 MP versions of the D1 and Canon's EOS 1D. But the next generation
    of sensors from Nikon and Canon blew away Four Thirds, and that system
    has never recovered the lost ground.
    Bruce, May 14, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 13, 7:07 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On May 13, 11:02 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >Check out this comparator.  Put the cursor on the shield area of the
    > >> >Martini bottle.  Now, compare the low ISO RAWs of the D7000, 300s and
    > >> >5000 to the Olympus E-PL2 and the Canon EOS600D.  Look at the edgesof
    > >> >the figures in the crops.  All the Nikon images have serrated edges..
    > >> >The other two cameras represent the edges as smooth.  I wonder whatis
    > >> >causing this?

    >
    > >> >http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/page5.asp

    >
    > >> It is a well known effect.  It is because the Nikon DSLRs have more
    > >> subtle (i.e.weaker) anti-aliasing filters than the other brands.  The
    > >> result is - hey presto! - they can record more detail, in this case
    > >> the knurling around the coin.

    >
    > >But, the current Olympus E-5 either has no AA filter, or a very mild
    > >one and yet I don't see the effect with it to the extent I do with the
    > >Nikons.

    >
    > That's because E-5 has a sensor with a much higher pixel density.
    > While the Olympus Zuiko Digital pro-grade lenses are extremely good,
    > they aren't capable of resolving the same level of detail on a Four
    > Thirds sensor that Nikkors can on APS-C or full frame.
    >
    > These Zuiko Digital lenses gave excellent results on the E-1.  At that
    > time, Four Thirds could compete on level terms with Nikon's 2.7 and
    > 5.4 MP versions of the D1 and Canon's EOS 1D.  But the next generation
    > of sensors from Nikon and Canon blew away Four Thirds, and that system
    > has never recovered the lost ground.


    Isn't the 12 megapixel E-5's pixel density the same as an APS with 18
    megapixels?
    RichA, May 14, 2011
    #8
  9. Bruce <> wrote:

    > One of the main reasons that I like using my ancient Kodak DCS Pro 14n
    > is that it has no AA filter and records *even more* detail than Nikon
    > DSLRs.


    Including moire. False detail. Which you cannot compute away.
    If that's what you want, feel free.

    I prefer being reasonably sure that what I photograph was
    really there.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >On Monday, May 16, 2011 6:56:00 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Bruce <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > One of the main reasons that I like using my ancient Kodak DCS Pro 14n
    >> > is that it has no AA filter and records *even more* detail than Nikon
    >> > DSLRs.

    >>
    >> Including moire. False detail. Which you cannot compute away.
    >> If that's what you want, feel free.
    >>
    >> I prefer being reasonably sure that what I photograph was
    >> really there.

    >
    >You're welcome to whatever personal philosophy of photography you want;
    >the only thing that's really widely agreed, though, is that what
    >matters in the end is what the pictures look like.
    >
    >Quite a number of people who have used no-AA systems (especially
    >medium format) say that they don't have problems with significant
    >visual artifacts, and have been able to "fix" the problems they have
    >had easily (yes, you can't magically apply a computation to just
    >remove the alias detail; but, people say, in practice they can
    >fairly easily apply editing tools to remove the appearance of
    >unnaturalness, which is what they actually care about in the very rare
    >cases when there is any visible issue).



    The real world experience of working photographers using DSLRs without
    AA filters is of no interest to Wolfgang Weisselberg, who prefers to
    believe his own hype. Unfortunately, online forums are full of people
    like him - people with no useful knowledge or experience but who
    loudly proclaim their ignorance as though it had any basis in fact.

    Then there are plenty of gullible people who are willing to believe
    those who shout long and hard enough, hence the fallacious "wisdom"
    that says you must have a strong AA filter or your shots will be
    completely ruined by aliasing, moire and worse.

    Meanwhile, literally thousands of working photographers are extremely
    happy with the results they get from their DSLRs without any AA
    filters. Nikon buyers, both professional and amateur, also seem very
    happy with the excellent results from their DSLRs whose sensors are
    fitted with much more subtle AA filters than other brands.

    But there is a bonus; I find it *absolutely hilarious* when Wolfgang,
    from his position of complete ignorance, tells me all about the
    problems that I haven't ever had! :)
    Bruce, May 16, 2011
    #10
  11. Bruce <> wrote:

    > But there is a bonus; I find it *absolutely hilarious* when Wolfgang,
    > from his position of complete ignorance, tells me all about the
    > problems that I haven't ever had! :)


    Sure: no pictures, no moire in pictures. The "Bruce" solution. :)
    Or: large Airy disk[1], no moire. The "P&S" solution.

    I often enough see moire. Not only in images, but also in
    television and with my eye. The latter just needs e.g. two fences
    at a slight angle.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] alternatively, just produce a soft image (misfocus, bad
    lens, ...). The "cheap" solution.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 17, 2011
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Trevor Davies

    Jagged lines on F610 pics

    Trevor Davies, Dec 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    401
  2. Bill Hilton

    Canon 400d RAW conversions

    Bill Hilton, Nov 5, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    571
  3. m II

    Linux and RAW file format conversions

    m II, Feb 3, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    639
    Alfred Molon
    Feb 10, 2007
  4. mac

    jagged font lines and Windows XP

    mac, Nov 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    528
  5. Ian

    Lenovo ThinkPad EDGE 13: Bleeding Edge

    Ian, Feb 28, 2011, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,161
Loading...

Share This Page