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.