On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Matthew Hunt <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I wish he had provided raw files for the tree scene, and preferably > files from "twin" cameras (D800/D800E or K-5 II/IIs) > (I found it odd, for example, that the red and cyan patches were so > large, in terms of the number of pixels, given the non-periodic > structure of the branches.) It's worse than the cameras just not being twins: the Fuji X-E1 doesn't have a traditional Bayer filter pattern (which may be related to the large false color patches). So I agree that it could have been done better, and that the tone is a bit over the top. But I thought it was a useful piece because it makes the point that the extra detail that you get without an AA filter doesn't come for free; even if there is no visible moire there is still aliasing. I haven't seen that point made elsewhere on the photo interwebs. In this test target image, there is lots of extra "detail" inside the region of obvious color artifacts, but this detail is clearly not real. http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/tippstricks/aliasfilter/files/stacks_image_5430.png We know what the test target looks like, and the lines are not curved as they appear here. This sort of thing will be a general feature of aliased sampling, though the details may change depending on, well, the details. If one wants to make this tradeoff, that's fine with me. Personally, I dislike image artifacts more than I desire increased detail, so I would prefer not to see the industry go toward cameras without AA filters being the default as with the D7100. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
