10-05-2010, 02:22 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1286032045' post='3454']
It is very true. Of course, you do need to use a good RAW converter in the first place. Care to share the heaps of evidence?
[/quote]
I did, in my previous post. Let's look at this another way... keeping the fact that some AA-filters are overly strong, are you saying that Bayer CFA manufacturers don't want people to get more detail out of their sensors?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1286193725' post='3475']
Here the Nikon D200 as example:
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm
[/quote]
The technical correctness of that test is questionable. Here are the reasons:
1. They're comparing two different cameras here. One is modified with a new clear glass filter which most probably has a different thickness to what the standard camera has. How accurately did they re-shim their focusing screen? And did they check the shimming of the stock camera's focusing screen to ensure that both produce the same level of accuracy (after all, manufacturing tolerances are normal).
2. These cameras don't have LV, so super-precise focusing necessary for focusing distances and magnifications like that is impossible... plain and simple. With or without eye-based focus bracketing, which is not accurate.
3. The AA-filterless camera here is what they refer to as a "hot rod" ("HR" postfix in the names, etc.) which is a full spectrum camera. Anyone who has experience with full-spectrum and IR imaging (/me raises both hands) knows that this introduces too many extra variables here.
3a. For one thing, most lenses focus UV, visible and IR light in to slightly different places (like multi-spectral CA) and only visible light can be seen at the time of focusing (obviously) but the final image contains UV and IR too.
3b. Then does the ICF they're using on the modified camera have the same spectral transmission curve as the ICF in the unmodified camera? Short answer: No. So what are we really seeing here (refer to 3a)? And on a side note, how did they manage to match the colours between the two so accurately when these image-capturing differences exist.
4. Not all AA filters are made equally. This is talking about a Nikon and a D200 of all things... technology has come a long way since then. Also according to what science is this observation going to be true for any other camera model? AA filters are different on every sensor. Since the D200 was available, for example, Canon has had the 5D (12MP FF), 30D (8MP), 40D (10MP), 450D (12MP), 50D (15MP), 60D (18MP), 1D2 (8MP APS-H), 1D3 (10MP APS-H), 1D4 (16MP APS-H), 5D2 (21MP FF), 1Ds3 (21MP FF/AA filter diff. from 5D2) all of which have their own unique AA filter. That's 11 different AA filters. Are you suggesting that all 11 of these were made like the D200's AA filter?
For me the biggest weakness in this test is what I mentioned in #2 above. Don't forget that these maxmax guys are also trying to sell their service...
GTW
It is very true. Of course, you do need to use a good RAW converter in the first place. Care to share the heaps of evidence?
[/quote]
I did, in my previous post. Let's look at this another way... keeping the fact that some AA-filters are overly strong, are you saying that Bayer CFA manufacturers don't want people to get more detail out of their sensors?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1286193725' post='3475']
Here the Nikon D200 as example:
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm
[/quote]
The technical correctness of that test is questionable. Here are the reasons:
1. They're comparing two different cameras here. One is modified with a new clear glass filter which most probably has a different thickness to what the standard camera has. How accurately did they re-shim their focusing screen? And did they check the shimming of the stock camera's focusing screen to ensure that both produce the same level of accuracy (after all, manufacturing tolerances are normal).
2. These cameras don't have LV, so super-precise focusing necessary for focusing distances and magnifications like that is impossible... plain and simple. With or without eye-based focus bracketing, which is not accurate.
3. The AA-filterless camera here is what they refer to as a "hot rod" ("HR" postfix in the names, etc.) which is a full spectrum camera. Anyone who has experience with full-spectrum and IR imaging (/me raises both hands) knows that this introduces too many extra variables here.
3a. For one thing, most lenses focus UV, visible and IR light in to slightly different places (like multi-spectral CA) and only visible light can be seen at the time of focusing (obviously) but the final image contains UV and IR too.
3b. Then does the ICF they're using on the modified camera have the same spectral transmission curve as the ICF in the unmodified camera? Short answer: No. So what are we really seeing here (refer to 3a)? And on a side note, how did they manage to match the colours between the two so accurately when these image-capturing differences exist.
4. Not all AA filters are made equally. This is talking about a Nikon and a D200 of all things... technology has come a long way since then. Also according to what science is this observation going to be true for any other camera model? AA filters are different on every sensor. Since the D200 was available, for example, Canon has had the 5D (12MP FF), 30D (8MP), 40D (10MP), 450D (12MP), 50D (15MP), 60D (18MP), 1D2 (8MP APS-H), 1D3 (10MP APS-H), 1D4 (16MP APS-H), 5D2 (21MP FF), 1Ds3 (21MP FF/AA filter diff. from 5D2) all of which have their own unique AA filter. That's 11 different AA filters. Are you suggesting that all 11 of these were made like the D200's AA filter?
For me the biggest weakness in this test is what I mentioned in #2 above. Don't forget that these maxmax guys are also trying to sell their service...
GTW