Nikon new release D7100

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> > But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with
    > >> >> > regular patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
    > >> >> > http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Absolutely correct.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
    > >> >> > aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
    > >> >> > would be quite pissed of.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
    > >> >> problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was
    > >> >> doing.
    > >> >
    > >> >which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.
    > >>
    > >> No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
    > >> results. The don't really have to know how or why.

    > >
    > >which means knowing that fine detail can cause artifacts, just as i
    > >said originally.

    >
    > But that's not the same as knowing about technicalities such as Airey
    > discs and circles etc or oversampling, or the effect of having an
    > anti-alias filter etc.


    the point is you have to know about aliasing artifacts even if you
    don't know the technical name for it, just as you have to know about
    aperture and depth of field even if you don't understand optics.
     
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 3/03/2013 7:51 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > says...
    >> No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
    >> results. The don't really have to know how or why.

    >
    > Photographers need to know that cameras without AA filters can cause
    > aliasing, i.e. they shouldn't be using a camera without an AA filter on
    > a fashion shoot.
    >


    In practical terms have you used a camera without the AA filter on a
    fashion shoot?

    If not how can you give this advice?
     
    Rob, Mar 3, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 10:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:29:56 +0100, Alfred Molon
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <51323675$0$10783$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >> says...
    >>> He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
    >>> acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
    >>> technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
    >>> least the successful ones have that standard.)

    >>
    >> But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
    >> patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
    >> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
    >>
    >> Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
    >> aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
    >> would be quite pissed of.

    >
    > I would expect them to be at the sight of a photographer fronting up
    > with a Samsung GT I9100 cellphone for the shoot.
    >


    Actually the presence of a creative director during a fashion shoot
    would be unusual.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #43
  4. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
    >> addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
    >> creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
    >> themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
    >> time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

    >
    > wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.
    >
    > you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
    >


    I can think of no other way to say this:
    you are either full of shit, or the creative directors you cliame to
    have worked with were not very successful..

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #44
  5. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/3/2013 3:51 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > says...
    >> No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
    >> results. The don't really have to know how or why.

    >
    > Photographers need to know that cameras without AA filters can cause
    > aliasing, i.e. they shouldn't be using a camera without an AA filter on
    > a fashion shoot.
    >


    True. But we were talking about creative directors, not the
    photographer. nospam appears to have no clue.

    Here is a typical job description: The ones I know earn considerable
    more than stated in the article.
    <http://advertising.about.com/od/profiles/p/creativedirect.htm>

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #45
  6. Rob

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:13:32 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
    >>> addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
    >>> creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
    >>> themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
    >>> time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

    >>
    >> wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.
    >>
    >> you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
    >>

    >
    >I can think of no other way to say this:
    >you are either full of shit, or the creative directors you cliame to
    >have worked with were not very successful..


    You seem to forget that nospam knows everything about everything.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 3, 2013
    #46
  7. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 03/03/2013 18:40, Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    > Have you seen the image of the jacket with all that aliasing? And you
    > still have doubts that aliasing can happen with clothes?


    I hope that no-one has doubts that aliasing /can/ and /does/ exist.

    However, there is the question whether give (a) a sufficiently high
    number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane), (b) a lens with
    either a very shallow depth of field or being slightly out of focus, (c)
    a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial frequency,
    whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently great an
    amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.

    There is a substantial difference between a low-cost 'phone camera (and
    an inherently great depth of field) and a high-pixel-density full-frame
    sensor used with a wide-aperture lens.

    You may /both/ be right!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 3, 2013
    #47
  8. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <kh06d1$c40$>, David Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > > Have you seen the image of the jacket with all that aliasing? And you
    > > still have doubts that aliasing can happen with clothes?

    >
    > I hope that no-one has doubts that aliasing /can/ and /does/ exist.


    the sigma fanbois don't think it exists.

    in fact, they insist it does not exist and that foveon cameras can
    capture detail beyond nyquist.

    they even claim they see the same moire patterns with their eyes and
    the cameras are accurately capturing those patterns, whereas other
    cameras blur it all to mush.
     
    nospam, Mar 3, 2013
    #48
  9. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/3/2013 1:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:13:32 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
    >>>> addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
    >>>> creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
    >>>> themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
    >>>> time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.
    >>>
    >>> wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.
    >>>
    >>> you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I can think of no other way to say this:
    >> you are either full of shit, or the creative directors you cliame to
    >> have worked with were not very successful..

    >
    > You seem to forget that nospam knows everything about everything.
    >


    Sorry, I lost my head.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 3, 2013
    #49
  10. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 4/03/2013 11:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:49:46 +0100, Alfred Molon
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >> says...
    >>> I would expect them to be at the sight of a photographer fronting up
    >>> with a Samsung GT I9100 cellphone for the shoot.

    >>
    >> It was a Samsung S2, but any camera without an AA filter can produce
    >> such results. Also Nikon DSLRs.

    >
    > I pulled the camera ID from the EXIF data.
    >
    > I understand that those photographers using Nikon 800e cameras report
    > almost no problems with aliasing, even on fashion work.
    >
    > Note, I didn't say 'no problems'.
    >



    Its only the people who haven't got one who find fault and complain :)
     
    Rob, Mar 4, 2013
    #50
  11. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 4/03/2013 3:13 AM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
    >>> addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
    >>> creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
    >>> themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
    >>> time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

    >>
    >> wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.
    >>
    >> you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
    >>

    >
    > I can think of no other way to say this:
    > you are either full of shit, or the creative directors you cliame to
    > have worked with were not very successful..
    >



    Creative directors on a shoot are a pain in the bum.
     
    Rob, Mar 5, 2013
    #51
  12. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/4/2013 11:03 PM, Rob wrote:
    > On 4/03/2013 3:13 AM, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <5132ad7f$0$10756$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
    >>>> addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
    >>>> creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
    >>>> themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
    >>>> time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.
    >>>
    >>> wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.
    >>>
    >>> you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I can think of no other way to say this:
    >> you are either full of shit, or the creative directors you cliame to
    >> have worked with were not very successful..
    >>

    >
    >
    > Creative directors on a shoot are a pain in the bum.
    >

    they don't have the time. And yes, they can be. The only time one should
    be on a shoot, is a location shoot on a cruise ship.



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Mar 6, 2013
    #52
  13. David Taylor <> wrote:

    > However, there is the question whether give (a) a sufficiently high
    > number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane),


    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/13
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/13

    24 MPix APS-C (equivalent to 54 or more MPix FF) and you
    *still* get moire.

    > (b) a lens with
    > either a very shallow depth of field or being slightly out of focus,


    And *hope* the critical parts are OOF? Fun. Not.

    > (c)
    > a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial frequency,
    > whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently great an
    > amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.


    And use a ... weak ... lens? Yep, that's why people buy an
    expensive high resolution DSLR.

    > There is a substantial difference between a low-cost 'phone camera (and
    > an inherently great depth of field) and a high-pixel-density full-frame
    > sensor used with a wide-aperture lens.


    Yep: the phone camera has an insane pixel density, the FF DSLR does not.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 6, 2013
    #53
  14. Rob <> wrote:
    > On 4/03/2013 11:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:


    >> I understand that those photographers using Nikon 800e cameras report
    >> almost no problems with aliasing, even on fashion work.


    >> Note, I didn't say 'no problems'.


    > Its only the people who haven't got one who find fault and complain :)


    Sure, the same way that "There are no significant bugs in our
    released software that any significant number of users want
    fixed" (Microsoft).

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 6, 2013
    #54
  15. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/03/2013 12:10, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > David Taylor <> wrote:
    >
    >> However, there is the question whether give (a) a sufficiently high
    >> number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane),

    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/13
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/13
    >
    > 24 MPix APS-C (equivalent to 54 or more MPix FF) and you
    > *still* get moire.


    On test patterns.

    >> (b) a lens with
    >> either a very shallow depth of field or being slightly out of focus,

    >
    > And *hope* the critical parts are OOF? Fun. Not.


    Agreed - I didn't answer my question, merely posed it!

    >> (c)
    >> a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial frequency,
    >> whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently great an
    >> amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.

    >
    > And use a ... weak ... lens? Yep, that's why people buy an
    > expensive high resolution DSLR.


    Given a sufficiently high pixel density the lens MTF will be approaching
    zero. The question is when does that happen with real equipment in real
    photo-taking situations? Likely different for different folk.

    >> There is a substantial difference between a low-cost 'phone camera (and
    >> an inherently great depth of field) and a high-pixel-density full-frame
    >> sensor used with a wide-aperture lens.

    >
    > Yep: the phone camera has an insane pixel density, the FF DSLR does not.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    But not with the example of aliasing which was shown. For all we know,
    the sensor in a low-cost 'phone may not even have an AA filter.

    All I'm saying is that it's (excuse the pun) not black and white. Given
    a sufficiently high pixel density, the AA filter may not be required
    under certain circumstances, and as pixel density increases, those
    criteria are increasingly likely to be encountered.

    (Compare audio, where an increased sampling rate (density) allows a much
    less "brick-wall" filter to be used.)
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 6, 2013
    #55
  16. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 06/03/2013 18:33, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <kh7qc7$5fq$>, David Taylor says...
    >> Given a sufficiently high pixel density the lens MTF will be approaching
    >> zero. The question is when does that happen with real equipment in real
    >> photo-taking situations? Likely different for different folk.

    >
    > You have this belief that the pixel count in the D7100 is high enough,
    > which in fact is based on no hard data.
    > It's more prudent to assume that the D7100 will in certain cases suffer
    > from moiré, and therefore shouldn't be used for critical work, for
    > instance on a fashion show.


    Please don't put words into my mouth. I am asking the question, opening
    the discussion, not giving a definitive answer.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 6, 2013
    #56
  17. David Taylor <> wrote:
    > On 06/03/2013 12:10, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> David Taylor <> wrote:


    >>> However, there is the question whether give (a) a sufficiently high
    >>> number of pixels (pixel density on the focal plane),


    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65/13
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/13


    >> 24 MPix APS-C (equivalent to 54 or more MPix FF) and you
    >> *still* get moire.


    > On test patterns.


    So you say test patterns can never appear in, say, fabrics?


    >>> (c)
    >>> a lens with an MTF which is quite low at the critical spatial frequency,
    >>> whether the aliasing which may exist is of sufficiently great an
    >>> amplitude that it makes a material difference to the picture.


    >> And use a ... weak ... lens? Yep, that's why people buy an
    >> expensive high resolution DSLR.


    > Given a sufficiently high pixel density the lens MTF will be approaching
    > zero.


    54 MPix on FF is NOT enough. See above.


    > The question is when does that happen with real equipment in real
    > photo-taking situations? Likely different for different folk.


    No, the question is: do individual photographers mind having
    moire at times, or not?


    >>> There is a substantial difference between a low-cost 'phone camera (and
    >>> an inherently great depth of field) and a high-pixel-density full-frame
    >>> sensor used with a wide-aperture lens.


    >> Yep: the phone camera has an insane pixel density, the FF DSLR does not.


    > But not with the example of aliasing which was shown. For all we know,
    > the sensor in a low-cost 'phone may not even have an AA filter.


    When the airy disk is always sufficiently larger than the
    pixel size an AA filter can't improve anything any more.


    > All I'm saying is that it's (excuse the pun) not black and white. Given
    > a sufficiently high pixel density, the AA filter may not be required
    > under certain circumstances, and as pixel density increases, those
    > criteria are increasingly likely to be encountered.


    I agree. I just disagree with you that current DSLR pixel
    counts are close to a 'sufficiently high pixel density'.


    > (Compare audio, where an increased sampling rate (density) allows a much
    > less "brick-wall" filter to be used.)


    Yep, and what are the current sample rates -- 192 kHz for
    consumers? And we can hear, what, 22kHz at best --- so that's
    a 4 times overscan (above the needed 44 or 48 kHz).

    At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
    nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
    pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
    Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 9, 2013
    #57
  18. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 10/03/2013 12:37 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> At a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you'd need about 0.25
    >> nm pixel size for f/1.2; which means about 96,000 x 144,000
    >> pixels at FF, which comes to 13824 MPix (about 14 GPix).
    >> Somehow 38 MPix seems a bit low compared to that.

    >
    > In fact 150MP is getting close, and 250MP is certainly
    > enough that no anti-aliasing filter will be needed.
    > That is based on a diffusion limited lens with an f/1.2
    > aperture.
    >
    > Hence something between 175 and 200MP is a pretty fair
    > estimate for the pixel count needed to simply eliminate
    > the need for any anti-aliasing filter on a 36x24mm
    > sensor.
    >
    > Which is interesting, given that it would appear that
    > technology is just around the corner and will likely be
    > available in the next decade.
    >



    The next FF nikon looking likely to be 44Mp, now that's a worry,
    thinking storage space.
     
    Rob, Mar 10, 2013
    #58
  19. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 09/03/2013 11:03, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > David Taylor <> wrote:

    []
    >> All I'm saying is that it's (excuse the pun) not black and white. Given
    >> a sufficiently high pixel density, the AA filter may not be required
    >> under certain circumstances, and as pixel density increases, those
    >> criteria are increasingly likely to be encountered.

    >
    > I agree. I just disagree with you that current DSLR pixel
    > counts are close to a 'sufficiently high pixel density'.


    Again, you are putting words in my mouth which I didn't say.

    There is no definitive value for "sufficiently high" - it depends on the
    lens, the scene and the photographer's requirements. It appears that
    for today's combinations of those variables, with 24 MP DX cameras and
    36 MP full-frame cameras we are either approaching or have reached
    "sufficiently high" for many people for much of the time.

    Test cases, super-expensive lenses, and particular subjects excepting.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 10, 2013
    #59
  20. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/03/2013 10:49, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > Where it is that you get that idea is totally beyond my
    > comprehension!
    >
    > 36MP is not even close, unless you stop the lens down to
    > f/45 or something very small to get excessive
    > diffraction.


    Well, I was perhaps thinking more of 24 MB on DX format - as offered by
    the Nikon D7100 - which is nearer 56 MB on full-frame. If 36 MP on full
    frame were as bad as you seem to imply, wouldn't we be hearing more
    reports of how bad the D800E was, how many were returning them, and what
    a mistake it was? Perhaps "Bruce" would tell us what the return rate
    was, if he were still listening?
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Mar 10, 2013
    #60
    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. Torsten Kaiser \(TLEFilms\)
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    938
    Allan
    Jun 6, 2005
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    520
    George K
    Nov 20, 2006
  3. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    483
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,015
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2010
  5. RichA

    Would Nikon release new telescopes?

    RichA, Aug 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    493
    Martin Brown
    Aug 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page