10-05-2010, 10:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2010, 10:10 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1286245329' post='3482']
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?
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
[/quote]
1. Maxmax does use a correct replacement glass with the same refractive index.
2. That is just plain silly. The silliest point you can have made... sure, blame it on a wrongly focussed non-HR-ed image. Too silly for words. But you can look at the D300 and D700 samples. Or any other samples of people who have had their camera converted to AA-filter-less.
3. It is NONSENSE what you say. Maxmax uses HR for AA-filterless. High Resolution. Hot Rod visible.
They also do OTHER conversions, which are called IR-only (as they state: Dedicated IR cameras. 715nm or 830nm options. Same price.). And High Red. And UV+Visible+IR. And UV-ONLY. And Black and White (CFA removal).
4. I know AA-filters all are different. What is your point here? Sigh. Yes, I happened to show an example of the difference with a D200. So what? You go find comparisons of any Canon model with and without AA-filter if that makes you feel better.
It does not matter how strong the AA-filter is, what matters is that we can see foveon like detail (AA-filter-less detail) and that we can clearly see that luminance detail is clearly extracted from the different colour sensels.
Does that mean the output will be the same as what a Foveon sensor outputs? No of course not. I never said anything like that either. I merely have explained that a foveon/sigma sensor appears to resolve more is because they decide to not use an AA-filter. And we can see that clearly, we see (with the D200 without AA-filter) pixel wide lines, sharp aliased lines.
For some reason lomskij things black and white makes some exception.. I have no idea why. Since black and white are the clearest example how luminance information gets extracted very detailed from the different colour sensels.
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?
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
[/quote]
1. Maxmax does use a correct replacement glass with the same refractive index.
2. That is just plain silly. The silliest point you can have made... sure, blame it on a wrongly focussed non-HR-ed image. Too silly for words. But you can look at the D300 and D700 samples. Or any other samples of people who have had their camera converted to AA-filter-less.
3. It is NONSENSE what you say. Maxmax uses HR for AA-filterless. High Resolution. Hot Rod visible.
They also do OTHER conversions, which are called IR-only (as they state: Dedicated IR cameras. 715nm or 830nm options. Same price.). And High Red. And UV+Visible+IR. And UV-ONLY. And Black and White (CFA removal).
4. I know AA-filters all are different. What is your point here? Sigh. Yes, I happened to show an example of the difference with a D200. So what? You go find comparisons of any Canon model with and without AA-filter if that makes you feel better.
It does not matter how strong the AA-filter is, what matters is that we can see foveon like detail (AA-filter-less detail) and that we can clearly see that luminance detail is clearly extracted from the different colour sensels.
Does that mean the output will be the same as what a Foveon sensor outputs? No of course not. I never said anything like that either. I merely have explained that a foveon/sigma sensor appears to resolve more is because they decide to not use an AA-filter. And we can see that clearly, we see (with the D200 without AA-filter) pixel wide lines, sharp aliased lines.
For some reason lomskij things black and white makes some exception.. I have no idea why. Since black and white are the clearest example how luminance information gets extracted very detailed from the different colour sensels.