Re: Smartphone heavy moiré

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J Taylor, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. > Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
    > http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
    >
    > Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    It will be built down to a price, Alfred, and the typical,
    photographically uneducated, customer may prefer "sharp" to "anti-alias".

    Thanks for posting, though. Proves the lens isn't too bad, I suppose!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 22, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David J Taylor

    Apteryx Guest

    On 23/10/2011 3:51 a.m., David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
    >> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
    >>
    >> Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.
    >> --
    >>
    >> Alfred Molon

    >
    > It will be built down to a price, Alfred, and the typical,
    > photographically uneducated, customer may prefer "sharp" to "anti-alias".


    Let 'em buy Leicas

    Apteryx
    Apteryx, Oct 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    Apteryx <> wrote:
    >On 23/10/2011 3:51 a.m., David J Taylor wrote:
    >>> Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
    >>> http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg
    >>>
    >>> Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> Alfred Molon

    >>
    >> It will be built down to a price, Alfred, and the typical,
    >> photographically uneducated, customer may prefer "sharp" to "anti-alias".

    >
    >Let 'em buy Leicas



    In truth, it is the typical, photographically uneducated consumer who
    prefers the mushy result of a strong anti-alias (AA) filter which is
    then artificially sharpened, allegedly to resemble the original
    unmushed image. Of course any resemblance is purely a coincidence.

    To those who are photographically educated, shooting images that are
    sharp straight out of the camera without an AA filter is a fulfilling
    experience. It is a heck of a lot more fulfilling than shooting mushy
    images that are artificially sharpened.

    That's why Hasselblad, Leica and other medium format digital cameras
    don't have AA filters, and the Leica M8 and M9 too. Ask anyone who
    actually uses these cameras about the alleged "problems" of moire and
    aliasing and they will laugh in your face.

    Moire is alleged - by those who don't know any better - to be a
    particular problem in fashion photography. But absolutely every
    fashion photographer I know who uses digital equipment uses cameras
    that don't have AA filters. Similarly, aliasing is alleged - by the
    very same people - to be a particular problem in architectural
    photography. But architectural photographers also tend to use cameras
    that don't have AA filters.

    Why throw away the ability to resolve fine detail because of two
    non-problems that exist only as a theory in the minds of the ignorant
    and uneducated? In practice, moire and aliasing are as rare as they
    are easily dealt with.
    Bruce, Oct 22, 2011
    #3
  4. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > In truth, it is the typical, photographically uneducated consumer who
    > prefers the mushy result of a strong anti-alias (AA) filter which is
    > then artificially sharpened, allegedly to resemble the original
    > unmushed image. Of course any resemblance is purely a coincidence.
    >
    > To those who are photographically educated, shooting images that are
    > sharp straight out of the camera without an AA filter is a fulfilling
    > experience. It is a heck of a lot more fulfilling than shooting mushy
    > images that are artificially sharpened.


    bullshit, and actually the opposite is correct.

    those who are educated, particularly with regards to what aliasing
    actually is know that the only way to guarantee a resemblance to the
    subject is with an anti-alias filter.

    without an anti-alias filter, you get alias artifacts, which is *false*
    detail, but some people apparently think it looks good. on occasion it
    can but there's no way to know that ahead of time. usually, aliasing
    causes ugly artifacts, particularly when it's low frequency.

    > That's why Hasselblad, Leica and other medium format digital cameras
    > don't have AA filters, and the Leica M8 and M9 too. Ask anyone who
    > actually uses these cameras about the alleged "problems" of moire and
    > aliasing and they will laugh in your face.


    no, it's because aa filters large enough for a medium format sensor are
    very expensive and the camera already has enough resolution for it to
    not matter in most cases. the lens becomes the limiting factor.

    > Moire is alleged - by those who don't know any better - to be a
    > particular problem in fashion photography. But absolutely every
    > fashion photographer I know who uses digital equipment uses cameras
    > that don't have AA filters.


    how many do you know? not a single one uses a d3x or 1ds?

    > Similarly, aliasing is alleged - by the
    > very same people - to be a particular problem in architectural
    > photography. But architectural photographers also tend to use cameras
    > that don't have AA filters.


    actually, most use cameras that do have an aa filter, regardless of
    subject. the only cameras that lack an aa filter are cameras that don't
    sell in high quantities (that should tell you something right there).

    > Why throw away the ability to resolve fine detail because of two
    > non-problems that exist only as a theory in the minds of the ignorant
    > and uneducated?


    an anti-alias filter does not throw away detail, it limits detail that
    is beyond what the sensor can resolve.

    > In practice, moire and aliasing are as rare as they
    > are easily dealt with.


    not after it's captured it isn't.
    nospam, Oct 23, 2011
    #4
  5. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <231020110223481505%>, nospam says...
    >> an anti-alias filter does not throw away detail, it limits detail that
    >> is beyond what the sensor can resolve.

    >
    > AA filters are indeed necessary to get rid of detail beyond the Nyquist
    > limit, it's just that with digital cameras there are two problems:
    >
    > 1. In a Bayer sensor the colour resolution is much lower than the
    > luminance resolution, so I'm guessing that the AA filter is dimensioned
    > to block somewhere between the colour and the luminance resolution, in
    > an effort to maximise the detail and keep aliasing not too high. This is
    > one of the reasons why Bayer sensors suck.


    Yes, it will be a compromise setting, and different cameras have different
    compromises, different between manufacturers, and different between
    different cameras in the same manufacturer's range. For most people, the
    compromises of the Bayer sensor are preferable to those of the Foveon
    sensor, otherwise far more people would buy the latter.

    If someone prefers to see the aliasing artefacts, then they can buy a
    camera with a weaker AA filter. Their choice, but the images will be less
    accurate. For advertising, perhaps image accuracy is less important! <G>

    > 2. I suspect that these AA filters are not too terribly efficient.
    > Probably a soft slope curve, rather than a rectangle response (i.e. 100%
    > until the limit, then 0).
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    Yes, IIRC it's approximately rectangular in the spatial domain, rather
    than in the spatial frequency domain. Unlike audio anti-alias filters,
    it's much more difficult to make optical anti-alias filters with a sharp
    cut-off response.

    Just as with over-sampled filters in audio making the smoother cut-off
    more acceptable, it may be that optically having a higher sensor density
    (much nearer to the lens cut-off spatial frequency) effectively
    over-sampling the image may produce better results, other things being
    equal. Of course, other things are never equal!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 23, 2011
    #5
  6. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > an anti-alias filter does not throw away detail, it limits detail that
    > > is beyond what the sensor can resolve.

    >
    > AA filters are indeed necessary to get rid of detail beyond the Nyquist
    > limit, it's just that with digital cameras there are two problems:
    >
    > 1. In a Bayer sensor the colour resolution is much lower than the
    > luminance resolution, so I'm guessing that the AA filter is dimensioned
    > to block somewhere between the colour and the luminance resolution, in
    > an effort to maximise the detail and keep aliasing not too high. This is
    > one of the reasons why Bayer sensors suck.


    bayer sensors do not suck and their colour resolution is not 'much
    lower,' it's half of luminance and substantially more than what human
    eyes can resolve. it's actually an extremely clever design.

    > 2. I suspect that these AA filters are not too terribly efficient.
    > Probably a soft slope curve, rather than a rectangle response (i.e. 100%
    > until the limit, then 0).


    it's not possible for a sharp cutoff.
    nospam, Oct 23, 2011
    #6
  7. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >For most people, the
    >compromises of the Bayer sensor are preferable to those of the Foveon
    >sensor, otherwise far more people would buy the latter.



    There are other reasons in play here. The main one being that to buy
    Foveon, you have to buy a Sigma DSLR, and that limits you to using
    Sigma lenses. Now some people won't mind that, but whether the same
    people are prepared to pay the price of a Sigma SD1 is moot.

    On the subject of AA filters, Nikon has gradually made theirs more
    subtle over the last few years. I think we may be at the point where
    the next generation of Nikon pro DSLRs may have AA filters only as an
    option. I base this on the fact that at least some of the test
    versions of the new Nikon models have no AA filter.
    Bruce, Oct 23, 2011
    #7
  8. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >>For most people, the
    >>compromises of the Bayer sensor are preferable to those of the Foveon
    >>sensor, otherwise far more people would buy the latter.

    >
    >
    > There are other reasons in play here. The main one being that to buy
    > Foveon, you have to buy a Sigma DSLR, and that limits you to using
    > Sigma lenses. Now some people won't mind that, but whether the same
    > people are prepared to pay the price of a Sigma SD1 is moot.


    To a degree, yes, but if Foveon were that good then would not the other
    camera manufacturers would have adopted it as well?

    > On the subject of AA filters, Nikon has gradually made theirs more
    > subtle over the last few years. I think we may be at the point where
    > the next generation of Nikon pro DSLRs may have AA filters only as an
    > option. I base this on the fact that at least some of the test
    > versions of the new Nikon models have no AA filter.


    If there are no components from the lens at higher than half the sampling
    frequency, then no AA filter is needed. This is oversampling in the
    optical domain just like oversampling in audio, which is widely practiced.
    Hence if the pixel count is very high, in simple terms the sensor is
    "better" than the lens (a higher resolution) and hence no AA filter is
    required (or it's less important, or it can be made weaker). This breaks
    down, though, if you then put a super-high resolution lens on such a
    system....

    When you have a relatively small number of pixels, an AA filter is
    required to prevent aliasing and the unpleasant artefact it produces.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 23, 2011
    #8
  9. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >>>For most people, the
    >>>compromises of the Bayer sensor are preferable to those of the Foveon
    >>>sensor, otherwise far more people would buy the latter.

    >>
    >>
    >> There are other reasons in play here. The main one being that to buy
    >> Foveon, you have to buy a Sigma DSLR, and that limits you to using
    >> Sigma lenses. Now some people won't mind that, but whether the same
    >> people are prepared to pay the price of a Sigma SD1 is moot.

    >
    >To a degree, yes, but if Foveon were that good then would not the other
    >camera manufacturers would have adopted it as well?



    Hasselblad went a very long way down the road with Foveon before
    finally giving up and choosing conventional CCD sensors. The
    agreement with Hasselblad was exclusive, so that prevented any other
    manufacturer using a Foveon sensor.

    By the time Hasselblad opted for Bayer-pattern CCD, the other
    manufacturers has already made their own arrangements for sensor
    supply. So Foveon struggled on alone until eventually finding a
    customer in Sigma.

    Eventually, after being Foveon's sole customer for several years,
    Sigma bought the Foveon company. I would not be surprised if camera
    manufacturers were unhappy about selling their sensors to a company
    that, as a lens manufacturer, had reverse engineered their own
    lens/camera interfaces and offered low cost lenses that undercut their
    own camera brand products. So why would they sell their sensors to
    Sigma and enable that company to offer low cost DSLRs that undercut
    their own ranges?

    So Sigma and Foveon needed each other. But if Foveon's survival now
    depends on sales of Sigma's SD1 ... ?
    Bruce, Oct 23, 2011
    #9
  10. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > On the subject of AA filters, Nikon has gradually made theirs more
    > subtle over the last few years. I think we may be at the point where
    > the next generation of Nikon pro DSLRs may have AA filters only as an
    > option. I base this on the fact that at least some of the test
    > versions of the new Nikon models have no AA filter.


    they're weaker because the sensor's resolution is higher. at some point
    the lens becomes the aa filter. further evidence that many people don't
    understand what an aa filter is actually for.
    nospam, Oct 23, 2011
    #10
  11. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <j81lbb$hmv$>, David J Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > > There are other reasons in play here. The main one being that to buy
    > > Foveon, you have to buy a Sigma DSLR, and that limits you to using
    > > Sigma lenses. Now some people won't mind that, but whether the same
    > > people are prepared to pay the price of a Sigma SD1 is moot.

    >
    > To a degree, yes, but if Foveon were that good then would not the other
    > camera manufacturers would have adopted it as well?


    right, it's not that good. if it was, other camera companies would be
    jumping at the opportunity to use it. foveon talked to a lot of
    companies way back when. nobody cared, other than sigma.

    > If there are no components from the lens at higher than half the sampling
    > frequency, then no AA filter is needed. This is oversampling in the
    > optical domain just like oversampling in audio, which is widely practiced.
    > Hence if the pixel count is very high, in simple terms the sensor is
    > "better" than the lens (a higher resolution) and hence no AA filter is
    > required (or it's less important, or it can be made weaker). This breaks
    > down, though, if you then put a super-high resolution lens on such a
    > system....
    >
    > When you have a relatively small number of pixels, an AA filter is
    > required to prevent aliasing and the unpleasant artefact it produces.


    exactly. what's funny is that some of the sigma fans say that the sd1
    doesn't have the 'foveon look' anymore. what they don't realize is that
    it has more pixels so aliasing is going to be less.
    nospam, Oct 23, 2011
    #11
  12. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > Hasselblad went a very long way down the road with Foveon before
    > finally giving up and choosing conventional CCD sensors. The
    > agreement with Hasselblad was exclusive, so that prevented any other
    > manufacturer using a Foveon sensor.
    >
    > By the time Hasselblad opted for Bayer-pattern CCD, the other
    > manufacturers has already made their own arrangements for sensor
    > supply. So Foveon struggled on alone until eventually finding a
    > customer in Sigma.


    wrong.

    foveon & hasselblad worked on the dfinity, which was a 3 ccd camera
    with beamsplitters.

    that camera had nothing to do with foveon's 3 layer sensor, which at
    the time was had not yet been announced. the multilayer sensor came a
    couple of years later with the sigma sd9.

    if foveon was actually a breakthrough, other companies would have
    jumped on it to be the first to produce something better than their
    competition. it wasn't any better than what they already had, so why
    bother.

    > Eventually, after being Foveon's sole customer for several years,
    > Sigma bought the Foveon company.


    sigma bought foveon because foveon was on the brink of bankruptcy.

    they *had* to buy foveon, otherwise they wouldn't have any sensors for
    their cameras and would have to take a huge loss. buying foveon was
    cheaper than throwing all that away.

    > I would not be surprised if camera
    > manufacturers were unhappy about selling their sensors to a company
    > that, as a lens manufacturer, had reverse engineered their own
    > lens/camera interfaces and offered low cost lenses that undercut their
    > own camera brand products. So why would they sell their sensors to
    > Sigma and enable that company to offer low cost DSLRs that undercut
    > their own ranges?


    nobody would buy a sigma camera with a standard bayer sensor. the
    cameras are horrible. the only reason to buy a sigma camera is if
    you're interested in the foveon sensor.

    the foveon fanbois repeatedly say they tolerate sigma to get foveon.
    they desperately want another company to use it, which now that sigma
    owns foveon is never going to happen (not that it would have
    otherwise).

    > So Sigma and Foveon needed each other. But if Foveon's survival now
    > depends on sales of Sigma's SD1 ... ?


    the sd1 debacle is bringing the entire product line closer to its
    demise.
    nospam, Oct 23, 2011
    #12
  13. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    nospam <> wrote:
    >In article <>, Bruce
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Hasselblad went a very long way down the road with Foveon before
    >> finally giving up and choosing conventional CCD sensors. The
    >> agreement with Hasselblad was exclusive, so that prevented any other
    >> manufacturer using a Foveon sensor.
    >>
    >> By the time Hasselblad opted for Bayer-pattern CCD, the other
    >> manufacturers has already made their own arrangements for sensor
    >> supply. So Foveon struggled on alone until eventually finding a
    >> customer in Sigma.

    >
    >wrong.
    >
    >foveon & hasselblad worked on the dfinity, which was a 3 ccd camera
    >with beamsplitters.
    >
    >that camera had nothing to do with foveon's 3 layer sensor, which at
    >the time was had not yet been announced.



    I am well aware of that. The point is that Foveon had enough
    credibility for Hasselblad to work with them for several years on an
    exclusive basis. In the end, the beam splitter was more of a research
    project than the final development of a proven technology, so
    Hasselblad went elsewhere. I believe the technology is now far from
    rare in digital movie cameras.


    >the sd1 debacle is bringing the entire product line closer to its
    >demise.



    That's emotive nonsense. Sigma is a strong company and there is more
    than enough demand for its lenses. Historians will probably judge the
    SD1 an irrelevance, but the lenses are big, big sellers that make lots
    of money for Sigma *and* its retailers. You cannot argue with a
    robust bottom line, unless you are a complete fool.
    Bruce, Oct 24, 2011
    #13
  14. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > >> Hasselblad went a very long way down the road with Foveon before
    > >> finally giving up and choosing conventional CCD sensors. The
    > >> agreement with Hasselblad was exclusive, so that prevented any other
    > >> manufacturer using a Foveon sensor.
    > >>
    > >> By the time Hasselblad opted for Bayer-pattern CCD, the other
    > >> manufacturers has already made their own arrangements for sensor
    > >> supply. So Foveon struggled on alone until eventually finding a
    > >> customer in Sigma.

    > >
    > >wrong.
    > >
    > >foveon & hasselblad worked on the dfinity, which was a 3 ccd camera
    > >with beamsplitters.
    > >
    > >that camera had nothing to do with foveon's 3 layer sensor, which at
    > >the time was had not yet been announced.

    >
    > I am well aware of that. The point is that Foveon had enough
    > credibility for Hasselblad to work with them for several years on an
    > exclusive basis.


    they did, but the point is they weren't using the 3 layer sensor. other
    camera makers used a single sensor and had no interest in a 3 ccd
    design for a variety of reasons. it was exclusive only because like
    everything foveon did, almost nobody cared.

    > In the end, the beam splitter was more of a research
    > project than the final development of a proven technology, so
    > Hasselblad went elsewhere. I believe the technology is now far from
    > rare in digital movie cameras.


    high end video cameras are moving away from 3 ccd designs, such as red.

    > >the sd1 debacle is bringing the entire product line closer to its
    > >demise.

    >
    > That's emotive nonsense. Sigma is a strong company and there is more
    > than enough demand for its lenses. Historians will probably judge the
    > SD1 an irrelevance, but the lenses are big, big sellers that make lots
    > of money for Sigma *and* its retailers. You cannot argue with a
    > robust bottom line, unless you are a complete fool.


    i never said it would be the end of sigma. the cameras lose money and
    at some point, sigma is going to have to stop throwing money out the
    window. sigma should stick to what actually makes them money, lenses.

    as for the sd1, we don't have to wait for historians. it already is
    irrelevant. even the hardcore foveon fanbois aren't interested.
    nospam, Oct 24, 2011
    #14
  15. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > I am well aware of that. The point is that Foveon had enough
    > credibility for Hasselblad to work with them for several years on an
    > exclusive basis. In the end, the beam splitter was more of a research
    > project than the final development of a proven technology, so
    > Hasselblad went elsewhere. I believe the technology is now far from
    > rare in digital movie cameras.


    Beam-splitter technology has been used in production TV cameras since the
    early 1960s, long before Foveon.

    http://www.fernsehmuseum.info/ldk3-der-prospekt.html

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2011
    #15
  16. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> I am well aware of that. The point is that Foveon had enough
    >> credibility for Hasselblad to work with them for several years on an
    >> exclusive basis. In the end, the beam splitter was more of a research
    >> project than the final development of a proven technology, so
    >> Hasselblad went elsewhere. I believe the technology is now far from
    >> rare in digital movie cameras.

    >
    >Beam-splitter technology has been used in production TV cameras since the
    >early 1960s, long before Foveon.
    > http://www.fernsehmuseum.info/ldk3-der-prospekt.html



    Thanks, David. In old-fashioned TV use we are talking about much
    lower resolutions than Foveon/Hasselblad were seeking. The latest
    digital movie cameras have much higher resolution, but I doubt whether
    even that would be enough for Hasselblad.

    My point was about Foveon's credibility. I don't think that a company
    with whom Hasselblad worked for a couple of years on a high end still
    photo application of their technology can be accused of lacking
    credibility. The only reason Hasselblad pulled out was that the
    technology was taking too long to develop.

    Likewise, the Foveon sensor in the Sigma SD1 is credible. The 15 MP
    images from the camera are rich in detail and as sharp as you will
    find. The issue is the price, which is set at such a high level that
    the camera will only sell in small numbers, which is a shame. It
    would probably be a strong seller at one third of the price, perhaps
    even half.
    Bruce, Oct 24, 2011
    #16
  17. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Thanks, David. In old-fashioned TV use we are talking about much
    > lower resolutions than Foveon/Hasselblad were seeking. The latest
    > digital movie cameras have much higher resolution, but I doubt whether
    > even that would be enough for Hasselblad.
    >
    > My point was about Foveon's credibility. I don't think that a company
    > with whom Hasselblad worked for a couple of years on a high end still
    > photo application of their technology can be accused of lacking
    > credibility. The only reason Hasselblad pulled out was that the
    > technology was taking too long to develop.
    >
    > Likewise, the Foveon sensor in the Sigma SD1 is credible. The 15 MP
    > images from the camera are rich in detail and as sharp as you will
    > find. The issue is the price, which is set at such a high level that
    > the camera will only sell in small numbers, which is a shame. It
    > would probably be a strong seller at one third of the price, perhaps
    > even half.


    Foveon's credibility (as optical engineers) may have been OK when they
    worked with Hasselblad, but I feel that it took a substantial drop with
    the multi-layer sensor and their involvement with Sigma.

    The lack of an anti-alias filter in a camera, in part, says something
    about the quality of lenses the designer is expecting will be used with
    the camera. Maybe it won't be too long before it's discounted to a more
    acceptable price.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2011
    #17
  18. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> Thanks, David. In old-fashioned TV use we are talking about much
    >> lower resolutions than Foveon/Hasselblad were seeking. The latest
    >> digital movie cameras have much higher resolution, but I doubt whether
    >> even that would be enough for Hasselblad.
    >>
    >> My point was about Foveon's credibility. I don't think that a company
    >> with whom Hasselblad worked for a couple of years on a high end still
    >> photo application of their technology can be accused of lacking
    >> credibility. The only reason Hasselblad pulled out was that the
    >> technology was taking too long to develop.
    >>
    >> Likewise, the Foveon sensor in the Sigma SD1 is credible. The 15 MP
    >> images from the camera are rich in detail and as sharp as you will
    >> find. The issue is the price, which is set at such a high level that
    >> the camera will only sell in small numbers, which is a shame. It
    >> would probably be a strong seller at one third of the price, perhaps
    >> even half.

    >
    >Foveon's credibility (as optical engineers) may have been OK when they
    >worked with Hasselblad, but I feel that it took a substantial drop with
    >the multi-layer sensor and their involvement with Sigma.



    I disagree, because the multi-layer sensor has many key advantages
    over the Bayer pattern sensor. But you are entitled to your opinion.


    >The lack of an anti-alias filter in a camera, in part, says something
    >about the quality of lenses the designer is expecting will be used with
    >the camera.



    You can theorise as much as you like about AA filters, but in
    practical use for the purposes of delivering images that sell, I'll
    take the camera with no AA filter every time. I have a modern Nikon
    D3 with 12 MP and an AA filter, and a 2004 Kodak DCS Pro 14n with 13.5
    MP and no AA filter. The difference in MP is not significant, but the
    difference in the ability to resolve detail is.

    The Kodak yields significantly more real detail with much less
    post-processing needed. Doubtless you will tell me that this is
    impossible, but those of us who use sensors without AA filters aren't
    interested in theory, only what can be achieved in reality.

    The naysayers can theorise to their heart's content, and do, but few,
    people who shoots images for a living see aliasing and moire as
    significant problems. In my experience, their incidence is rare and
    they are easy to avoid.


    >Maybe it won't be too long before it's discounted to a more
    >acceptable price.



    I hope so, but it may be too late. People have already drawn their
    conclusions on the basis that the price is a joke. Had Sigma offered
    it at a realistic price, people would have taken it more seriously.

    Based on some test shots, I think it is a camera that deserves to be
    taken a lot more seriously. But as usual, the naysayers will sit
    comfortably in front of their monitors at home and criticise something
    they have never seen or touched, let alone used, instead choosing to
    theorise from a distance.
    Bruce, Oct 24, 2011
    #18
  19. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote:

    []
    >>Foveon's credibility (as optical engineers) may have been OK when they
    >>worked with Hasselblad, but I feel that it took a substantial drop with
    >>the multi-layer sensor and their involvement with Sigma.

    >
    >
    > I disagree, because the multi-layer sensor has many key advantages
    > over the Bayer pattern sensor. But you are entitled to your opinion.


    Oh, I agree that the multi-layer sensor does have advantages, but in
    actual implementations it has so far failed to impress. My opinion is
    about Foveon/Sigma's credibility today compared with when they worked on a
    completely different system with Hasselblad, not about the multi-layer
    sensor per-se.

    > You can theorise as much as you like about AA filters, but in
    > practical use for the purposes of delivering images that sell, I'll
    > take the camera with no AA filter every time. I have a modern Nikon
    > D3 with 12 MP and an AA filter, and a 2004 Kodak DCS Pro 14n with 13.5
    > MP and no AA filter. The difference in MP is not significant, but the
    > difference in the ability to resolve detail is.
    >
    > The Kodak yields significantly more real detail with much less
    > post-processing needed. Doubtless you will tell me that this is
    > impossible, but those of us who use sensors without AA filters aren't
    > interested in theory, only what can be achieved in reality.
    >
    > The naysayers can theorise to their heart's content, and do, but few,
    > people who shoots images for a living see aliasing and moire as
    > significant problems. In my experience, their incidence is rare and
    > they are easy to avoid.


    That's fine, Bruce. If you like that style of image, you have the camera
    without the AA filter, and I'll take the one with the AA filter. At least
    we aren't competing for the same piece of kit!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2011
    #19
  20. David J Taylor

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 24, 6:53 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
    > wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > "David J Taylor" <> wrote:

    > []
    > >>Foveon's credibility (as optical engineers) may have been OK when they
    > >>worked with Hasselblad, but I feel that it took a substantial drop with
    > >>the multi-layer sensor and their involvement with Sigma.

    >
    > > I disagree, because the multi-layer sensor has many key advantages
    > > over the Bayer pattern sensor.  But you are entitled to your opinion.

    >
    > Oh, I agree that the multi-layer sensor does have advantages, but in
    > actual implementations it has so far failed to impress.  My opinion is
    > about Foveon/Sigma's credibility today compared with when they worked on a
    > completely different system with Hasselblad, not about the multi-layer
    > sensor per-se.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > You can theorise as much as you like about AA filters, but in
    > > practical use for the purposes of delivering images that sell, I'll
    > > take the camera with no AA filter every time.  I have a modern Nikon
    > > D3 with 12 MP and an AA filter, and a 2004 Kodak DCS Pro 14n with 13.5
    > > MP and no AA filter.  The difference in MP is not significant, but the
    > > difference in the ability to resolve detail is.

    >
    > > The Kodak yields significantly more real detail with much less
    > > post-processing needed.  Doubtless you will tell me that this is
    > > impossible, but those of us who use sensors without AA filters aren't
    > > interested in theory, only what can be achieved in reality.

    >
    > > The naysayers can theorise to their heart's content, and do, but few,
    > > people who shoots images for a living see aliasing and moire as
    > > significant problems.  In my experience, their incidence is rare and
    > > they are easy to avoid.

    >
    > That's fine, Bruce.  If you like that style of image, you have the camera
    > without the AA filter, and I'll take the one with the AA filter.  At least
    > we aren't competing for the same piece of kit!
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Still waiting for the tri-colour camera to materialize outside the
    high-end video realm.
    RichA, Oct 24, 2011
    #20
    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. anthonyberet

    How heavy is a litre of heavy water?

    anthonyberet, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    10,944
    tadchem
    Apr 10, 2004
  2. Juergen Marquardt

    Exilim EX-M2 and moire effects

    Juergen Marquardt, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    391
    Andrew McDonald
    Aug 28, 2003
  3. Moire in the D70S

    , Jun 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    289
  4. Terry Pinnell

    Moiré interference patterns

    Terry Pinnell, Nov 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,182
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Dec 2, 2005
  5. Terry Smith
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    2,098
    Sander Vesik
    Jun 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page