This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015No low pass filter
p.1 #1No low pass filter
Okay I am a learning photographer but I do not know what no low pass filter is be kind please...
Feb 04, 2015 at 12:37 PM
p.1 #2No low pass filter
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
See under "DEMOSAICING ARTIFACTS"
See under "DEMOSAICING ARTIFACTS"
Feb 04, 2015 at 12:43 PM
p.1 #3No low pass filter
Alundeb, thank you that is Great information But I'm still a little confused I have a 50D canon it has a built in low pass filter. now with the two cameras that have come out both 50 megapixel I've been waiting Nine years for this do I need a low pass filter one has one one doesn't Bill.
Feb 04, 2015 at 01:30 PM
p.1 #4No low pass filter
In my opinion it is better to choose the one with a low-pass filter, especially if you are in doubt.
Feb 04, 2015 at 01:34 PM
p.1 #5No low pass filter
There are a number of articles, & reviews of The Sony A7-R, which does not have the filter; which may be helpful in making a decision.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r
There is some "subject matter" that's more prone to DEMOSAICING ARTIFACTS; but if it's there, it's near impossible to remove in post-processing.
It's been rumored that Canon's new "high" MP cameras are using sensors that are a Canon / Sony collaboration, but I haven't seen that confirmed.
Personally, I'd want to see some test results before I sprung for either one.
Leigh
.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r
There is some "subject matter" that's more prone to DEMOSAICING ARTIFACTS; but if it's there, it's near impossible to remove in post-processing.
It's been rumored that Canon's new "high" MP cameras are using sensors that are a Canon / Sony collaboration, but I haven't seen that confirmed.
Personally, I'd want to see some test results before I sprung for either one.
Leigh
.
Feb 04, 2015 at 01:50 PM
p.1 #6No low pass filter
After all the hype witth the d800e which has no AA filter I found it a none issue. That extra sharpness is worth it. Plus you will always wonder if you should have got it.
Feb 04, 2015 at 01:56 PM
p.1 #7No low pass filter
I want the low pass filter replaced by clear glass, not some stack of self canceling AA filters.
I don't care about moire, I do landscapes at f8 and up. I eventually want a DSLR that is like my old Nikon FE. I never sharpened slide film. Sharpening seems to me rube goldberg.
I don't care about moire, I do landscapes at f8 and up. I eventually want a DSLR that is like my old Nikon FE. I never sharpened slide film. Sharpening seems to me rube goldberg.
Feb 04, 2015 at 01:57 PM
p.1 #8No low pass filter
MikeW wrote:
After all the hype witth the d800e which has no AA filter I found it a none issue. That extra sharpness is worth it. Plus you will always wonder if you should have got it.
I had a D800E and would want an AA filter the next time.
After all the hype witth the d800e which has no AA filter I found it a none issue. That extra sharpness is worth it. Plus you will always wonder if you should have got it.
I had a D800E and would want an AA filter the next time.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:02 PM
p.1 #9No low pass filter
alundeb wrote:
I had a D800E and would want an AA filter the next time.
What do you shot? When do you get moire or other artifacts?
MikeW wrote
After all the hype witth the d800e which has no AA filter I found it a none issue. That extra sharpness is worth it. Plus you will always wonder if you should have got it.What do you shot? When do you get moire or other artifacts?
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:04 PM
p.1 #10No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
I had a D800E and would want an AA filter the next time.What do you shot? When do you get moire or other artifacts?
I shoot a variety of subjects, and at all apertures. For natural subject matter I don't always stop down past f/5.6. I got artifacs especially with conifers.
alundeb wrote
MikeW wrote
After all the hype witth the d800e which has no AA filter I found it a none issue. That extra sharpness is worth it. Plus you will always wonder if you should have got it.I shoot a variety of subjects, and at all apertures. For natural subject matter I don't always stop down past f/5.6. I got artifacs especially with conifers.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:09 PM
p.1 #11No low pass filter
alundeb wrote:
I had a D800E and would want an AA filter the next time.What do you shot? When do you get moire or other artifacts?I shoot a variety of subjects, and at all apertures. For natural subject matter I don't always stop down past f/5.6. I got artifacs especially with conifers.
I play with night shots at low aperture, but its just play until ISO is several orders of magnitude better. I also do some event photography at high iso low aperture. But I expect to use my 5d3 for that. The rest is f8 to f11 and just landscapes.
ben egbert wrote
alundeb wrote
MikeW wrote
After all the hype witth the d800e which has no AA filter I found it a none issue. That extra sharpness is worth it. Plus you will always wonder if you should have got it.I play with night shots at low aperture, but its just play until ISO is several orders of magnitude better. I also do some event photography at high iso low aperture. But I expect to use my 5d3 for that. The rest is f8 to f11 and just landscapes.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:12 PM
p.1 #12No low pass filter
I'm thinking about the same issues. I want the most resolution I can get for my bucks, which favours the R version (no AA filter). OTOH, I understand how the AA filter works, and why it can be very useful - call it 'data insurance'. I've done a lot of realtime data acquisition for ship experiments and sea trials, and I'd never go without analogue AA filters on the input channels. Some people argue that you can oversample and omit the AA filters, but I've seen cases where that doesn't stand up and, as Sy sez, once you have aliasing you usually can't easily remove it, if at all.
I'm also thinking that the increase in resolution from my current 18 MP and 20 MP full frame sensors to 50 MP (or so) is such a large increase, that the differences between with and without AA filter will be 'in the noise' (not only a pun).
I'm also thinking that the increase in resolution from my current 18 MP and 20 MP full frame sensors to 50 MP (or so) is such a large increase, that the differences between with and without AA filter will be 'in the noise' (not only a pun).
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:14 PM
p.1 #13No low pass filter
ben egbert wrote:
The rest is f8 to f11 and just landscapes.
To clarify for the original poster:
The blurring effect of diffraction increases at narrower apertures. At f/11 the diffraction blur itself is a low pass filter strong enough that you don't need it on a sensor with resolution about 50 MP and higher.
The rest is f8 to f11 and just landscapes.
To clarify for the original poster:
The blurring effect of diffraction increases at narrower apertures. At f/11 the diffraction blur itself is a low pass filter strong enough that you don't need it on a sensor with resolution about 50 MP and higher.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:20 PM
p.1 #14No low pass filter
The idea of an AA filter never made any sense to me. It always seemed like poor, stopgap engineering. Why blur everything just to avoid rare cases of moire? Using sharpening software does not restore what was lost and adds additional artifacts. One reason for high resolution sensors is to eliminate this poor design.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:26 PM
p.1 #15No low pass filter
alundeb wrote:
To clarify for the original poster:
The blurring effect of diffraction increases at narrower apertures. At f/11 the diffraction blur itself is a low pass filter strong enough that you don't need it on a sensor with resolution about 50 MP and higher.
I prefer to shoot at f8, and below 24mm its generally all I need. but for some scenes at longer focal lengths I need to stop down a bit. And of course blurring water may need even more. But unless I start focus stacking, I can't get by at f5.6.
But depending on how they implement the R model and how much extra they charge for it, I may skip. My issue is more of a mind set against stuff like this. Sort of like a governor on a car.
ben egbert wrote
The rest is f8 to f11 and just landscapes.The blurring effect of diffraction increases at narrower apertures. At f/11 the diffraction blur itself is a low pass filter strong enough that you don't need it on a sensor with resolution about 50 MP and higher.
I prefer to shoot at f8, and below 24mm its generally all I need. but for some scenes at longer focal lengths I need to stop down a bit. And of course blurring water may need even more. But unless I start focus stacking, I can't get by at f5.6.
But depending on how they implement the R model and how much extra they charge for it, I may skip. My issue is more of a mind set against stuff like this. Sort of like a governor on a car.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:26 PM
p.1 #16No low pass filter
Camperjim wrote:
The idea of an AA filter never made any sense to me. It always seemed like poor, stopgap engineering. Why blur everything just to avoid rare cases of moire? Using sharpening software does not restore what was lost and adds additional artifacts. One reason for high resolution sensors is to eliminate this poor design.
There is a tendency that the more people know and understand about this matter, the more they prefer to have an AA filter. It is not stopgap engineering and it is not just to avoid rare case of moire. It is the only way to get every fine detail look right in a Bayer sensor. If yoy don't have an AA filter, you need some other sort of blurring, otherwise the demosaic algorithm will not output a true representation of reality. Some people prefer crunchy detail that is not a true representation of reality, becaus it looks sharper. Been there, done that.
The idea of an AA filter never made any sense to me. It always seemed like poor, stopgap engineering. Why blur everything just to avoid rare cases of moire? Using sharpening software does not restore what was lost and adds additional artifacts. One reason for high resolution sensors is to eliminate this poor design.
There is a tendency that the more people know and understand about this matter, the more they prefer to have an AA filter. It is not stopgap engineering and it is not just to avoid rare case of moire. It is the only way to get every fine detail look right in a Bayer sensor. If yoy don't have an AA filter, you need some other sort of blurring, otherwise the demosaic algorithm will not output a true representation of reality. Some people prefer crunchy detail that is not a true representation of reality, becaus it looks sharper. Been there, done that.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:36 PM
p.1 #17No low pass filter
Camperjim ask fashion shooters or architecture shooters if they want an AA filter or not!
Until we get so much resolution we can resolve all fine detail any regular pattern will show moire. This is less fixable than a slight amount of blur.
Until we get so much resolution we can resolve all fine detail any regular pattern will show moire. This is less fixable than a slight amount of blur.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:42 PM
p.1 #18No low pass filter
I haven't run into any terrible trouble (yet) with the D800e, but shooting buildings and subjects with patterns, I figure it's just a matter of time before I am confronted with unfix-able artifacts and color moire.
I'm thinking that the 5Ds will be "with AA" for me. With all that resolution, and my past good results with AA bodies, I figure it's a safe bet for my type of subjects.
I'm thinking that the 5Ds will be "with AA" for me. With all that resolution, and my past good results with AA bodies, I figure it's a safe bet for my type of subjects.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:54 PM
p.1 #19No low pass filter
Hey I think Fred Miranda shoots the AA free Sony, I hope he weighs in on this.
Feb 04, 2015 at 02:59 PM
p.1 #20No low pass filter
Camperjim wrote:
The idea of an AA filter never made any sense to me. It always seemed like poor, stopgap engineering. Why blur everything just to avoid rare cases of moire? Using sharpening software does not restore what was lost and adds additional artifacts. One reason for high resolution sensors is to eliminate this poor design.
Study the math, it is not complicated, and can be understood with junior high graphing. It can be illustrated by non-mathematical examples.
There are sound mathematical reasons for AA filters. It is called Anti-Aliasing, because Aliasing generates false data. You can't fix the second picture below with software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Moire_pattern_of_bricks.jpg/197px-Moire_pattern_of_bricks.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Moire_pattern_of_bricks_small.jpg/197px-Moire_pattern_of_bricks_small.jpg
Two different sinusoids fit the same data, below. If you sample at this rate, the faster sine wave will alias as the slower one. In an image with fast changing patterns, you get slower changing ripples. High resolution does not cure anti-aliasing because there are always scene data that are higher resolution. What high resolution does is push the lenses to the limit so that sometimes, maybe even often, they act as the low pass filter.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/AliasingSines.svg/300px-AliasingSines.svg.png
When you have studied this, you will never make such a statement claiming AA filters are "poor design".
Edited on Feb 04, 2015 at 08:08 PM · View previous versions
The idea of an AA filter never made any sense to me. It always seemed like poor, stopgap engineering. Why blur everything just to avoid rare cases of moire? Using sharpening software does not restore what was lost and adds additional artifacts. One reason for high resolution sensors is to eliminate this poor design.
Study the math, it is not complicated, and can be understood with junior high graphing. It can be illustrated by non-mathematical examples.
There are sound mathematical reasons for AA filters. It is called Anti-Aliasing, because Aliasing generates false data. You can't fix the second picture below with software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Moire_pattern_of_bricks.jpg/197px-Moire_pattern_of_bricks.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Moire_pattern_of_bricks_small.jpg/197px-Moire_pattern_of_bricks_small.jpg
Two different sinusoids fit the same data, below. If you sample at this rate, the faster sine wave will alias as the slower one. In an image with fast changing patterns, you get slower changing ripples. High resolution does not cure anti-aliasing because there are always scene data that are higher resolution. What high resolution does is push the lenses to the limit so that sometimes, maybe even often, they act as the low pass filter.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/AliasingSines.svg/300px-AliasingSines.svg.png
When you have studied this, you will never make such a statement claiming AA filters are "poor design".
Edited on Feb 04, 2015 at 08:08 PM · View previous versions
Feb 04, 2015 at 07:18 PM