douglasf13 wrote: bluetsunami wrote:
The way I see it the more you sharpen an image that\'s hobbled by an AA filter the more strained the image look. The Ricoh is already nearly there without the need for sharpening.
The point is that having no AA filter hobbles a digital sensor in a different way, by actually adding digital artifacts that can be misinterpreted as more detail. It\'s also partially why AA-less cameras initially seem noisier. If adding sharpening looks more strained, than it\'s just a good job of sharpening. There\'s no free lunch, and it\'s why most DSLR makers don\'t yank the AA filter (which would be cheaper,) because they\'re less concerned with edge performance, although I might argue that DSLRs would also be better off at the edges without an AA filter.
The thing is, how does one even differentiate between whats false detail and actual detail? And what bearing does it have on real world images and the very real difference in sharpness at the pixel level? No amount of sharpening will recreate the detail (be it false or real) the GXR is picking up. All I know is that the detail from RAW files from the Ricoh is phenomenal and takes really well to resizing and sharpening while retaining detail. One area being fine texture of objects which gives various lenses an almost Zeiss like feel (versus files from AA\'ed cameras) due to this.
And I\'d rather have a bit of noise that can be cleaned up in post to the specified strength I need than a catch-all reduction in detail to protect against \"false detail\" and moire. This is a proof is in the pudding situation for me after playing with many GXR DNGs. I just prefer the quality of files from the GXR vs what I\'ve played with from the 5N.
I\'m personally surprised no one as of yet has gotten the AA filter taken out of the 5N (or better yet the NEX7). Interested in seeing what effects it has on lenses with the various problem lenses.
douglasf13 wrote: bluetsunami wrote:
The way I see it the more you sharpen an image that\'s hobbled by an AA filter the more strained the image look. The Ricoh is already nearly there without the need for sharpening.
The point is that having no AA filter hobbles a digital sensor in a different way, by actually adding digital artifacts that can be misinterpreted as more detail. It\'s also partially why AA-less cameras initially seem noisier. If adding sharpening looks more strained, than it\'s just a good job of sharpening. There\'s no free lunch, and it\'s why most DSLR makers don\'t yank the AA filter (which would be cheaper,) because they\'re less concerned with edge performance, although I might argue that DSLRs would also be better off at the edges without an AA filter.
The thing is, how does one even differentiate between whats false detail and actual detail? And what bearing does it have on real world images and the very real difference in sharpness at the pixel level? No amount of sharpening will recreate the detail (be it false or real) the GXR is picking up. All I know is that the detail from RAW files from the Ricoh is phenomenal and takes really well to resizing and sharpening while retaining detail. One area being fine texture of objects which gives various lenses an almost Zeiss like feel (versus files from AA\'ed cameras) due to this.
And I\'d rather have a bit of noise that can be cleaned up in post to the specified strength I need than a catch-all reduction in detail to protect against \"false detail\" and moire. This is a proof is in the pudding situation for me after playing with many GXR DNGs. I just prefer the quality of files from the GXR vs what I\'ve played with from the 5N.
Feb 05, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Previous versions of bluetsunami's message #10313006 « Still no love for the Ricoh GXR? »
