Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Panasonic S1H and 24-70mm f/2.8 announced
#1
S1H:
https://www.panasonic.com/au/consumer/lu...hgn-k.html

S PRO 24-70mm f/2.8:
https://www.panasonic.com/au/consumer/lu...e2470.html
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
S1H is sick, in a good sense. The size of S1R and S1 seem like a putoff at first, but once you get it in your hands, you can immediately appreciate the ergonomics and build quality. If only S1R had some of the ergonomic improvements that S1H got... Or if only S1H had a higher MP sensor with no AA filter.
#3
I always find it strange, the wish for alassing.
#4
It's aliasing. 

And I always find it strange to wish for an extra blur filter to get nothing else than pixels out of a sensor - just blurred ones...

Tongue
#5
(11-22-2019, 06:51 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: It's aliasing. 

And I always find it strange to wish for an extra blur filter to get nothing else than pixels out of a sensor - just blurred ones...

Tongue

You must have stopped doing anything to do with computer graphics (games, art, text, lines) in the early 90's then, because after that they were done with pixelated graphics Tongue
#6
(11-22-2019, 07:15 AM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(11-22-2019, 06:51 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: It's aliasing. 

And I always find it strange to wish for an extra blur filter to get nothing else than pixels out of a sensor - just blurred ones...

Tongue

You must have stopped doing anything to do with computer graphics (games, art, text, lines) in the early 90's then, because after that they were done with pixelated graphics Tongue

Back in these days the resolution of screens and sensors were far below 10 MP. Even below 1 MP. Therefore it's completely useless to demand AA filters for 45+ MP sensors. The only difference to be seen is lower contrast of the sensors with AA filter in front of it and blacks are usually sort of dark grey thanks to the straylight the AA filter generates.

Apple II's "high resolution" mode was 280×192 pixel... 0.05376 MP.

I found an article in c't from 2001 when Sony introduced a display with a resolution "up to 2560 × 1920" with Sony's trinitron tube tech. Not even 5 MP. And tube monitors had a mask, Sonys trinitron tech had lengthy holes insted of circular ones, so that was their AA filter already.

Today no one would want an AA filter in front of a modern display - on the opposite, years ago Apple started with clear glass instead of matte plastic, just to deliver more sharpness.

I still don't know what's better in blurry images... and so far no on ecame up with sesor tech producing vectors instead of pixels.
#7
Today EVERYTHING you see drawn on your modern display is anti aliased. And yes, that includes the vector graphics that the mac's display routines are based on.
#8
Aha, and you think it gets better by double anti-aliasing it?

If the screen already does it, and the printer also doesn't manage to spray rectangular pixels, you simply don't need the fake smoothness on a sensor. Alright, you need it, I got that by now, but no one else.
#9
(11-22-2019, 11:03 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: Aha, and you think it gets better by double anti-aliasing it?

If the screen already does it, and the printer also doesn't manage to spray rectangular pixels, you simply don't need the fake smoothness on a sensor. Alright, you need it, I got that by now, but no one else.

JoJu, do you do that on purpose, just to make any real debate impossible?

Everything MacOS draws, be it lines, fonts, icons, gets anti aliased. It does NOT anti alias bit maps from images unless it scales them. 

You were saying that on modern screens things don't get AA-ed, as argument that image captures with square pixel image capture devices don't need anti aliasing. I told you that everything your mac draws DOES get AA-ed, and that it therefore is NOT a valid argument at all.
#10
Yes, I do it on purpose: I fully deny the sense of an AA filter in front of a modern camera sensor. And you keep on telling about "fake sharpness", that also happens on purpose, no?

So, get it into your thick-walled skull that I allow myself to have a different opinion on AA filters from the moment on I saw the result of a D800E and compared it to a D800 - and now don't come around to tell, but there still is another filter. 

Everything out of the way in front of a lens and in between the lens and the sensor is good because it doesn't falsify the result. 

AA filters were necessary in the beginning of digital photgraphy because of Moiré due to interferences. I haven't seen them for quite a while now.

Also BC, what are you talking around in a Panasonic thread? You won't buy into L-mount anyway, so what's the point?  Dodgy
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)