Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of denoir's message #10329228 « Still no love for the Ricoh GXR? »

  

denoir
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Still no love for the Ricoh GXR?


theSuede wrote: Claims like "closer to reality" and "more detail" and "higher resolution" and so on makes me itch however. Because they're simply not true - quite the opposite.

It isn't a black and white issue. First, what is reality? A photo certainly isn't an accurate representation - if nothing else, it misses one dimension. We're talking about a pretty arbitrary projection on a planar surface with a huge number of factors affecting the end results - the AA filter (or lack thereof) being one of the least significant ones.

More detail is another complex issue - yes, you do get more detail but it also includes false detail. Then again, what details in a digital photo are not false? A pattern sampled below the nyquist limit is false detail in a very theoretical sense, but in practice since none of it is an accurate representation of reality the issue becomes purely academic - and as you mention, a question of personal preference.

You do of course get higher resolution if you don't low-pass the signal - which the AA filter does. At the expense of artifacts, some that most people find annoying (color artifacts) and some that are a question of personal preference (the "grainy digital" look).

Ultimately it boils down to whether you more prefer low-pass filtered mushy rendering or crisp with artifacts. For practical use of the images I don't really think it makes much difference. It's mostly what you are used to seeing when looking at 100% and if you prefer mushy rendering or artifacts.



Feb 09, 2012 at 11:20 PM



  Previous versions of denoir's message #10329228 « Still no love for the Ricoh GXR? »