10-05-2010, 01:41 AM
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1286230042' post='3479']
The above example photos, and the interesting arguments by Lomskij and others in the currently raging Sigma SD1 thread, remind me how much detail we may all be losing thanks to our cameras' AA anti-aliasing filters.
[/quote]
Well as you might have noticed my saying in that thread, I have a AA-filterless 50D an I really see no improvements in image quality, even with the best lenses out there. What you see at 100% are slightly blocky details in areas of high-frequency detail (e.g. grass in far distances). Removing the AA filter helps when the AA filter is too strong and the lenses can resolve enough detail. Otherwise, the lens blur acts like a blur filter of its own.
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1286230042' post='3479']
I wonder if, with the increasing CPU power every year, AA could be implemented in software. Something along the lines of an optional blurring function, to be applied to ordinary JPEGs and/or raw files. Have not thought this through, maybe one of you brainiacs have.
[/quote]
Have you seen this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_ant...i-aliasing
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1286230042' post='3479']
And, does anybody know how to remove the Anti-Aliasing filter on my Sony Nex?
[/quote]
I can think of 2 reasons why this is not a good move:
1. Very few lenses out there can resolve to the level of individual pixels on a Nex. Without such lenses, you're not really going to see improvements.
2. There are far more important things that affects image quality than the AA filter, in the pipeline. For example, which RAW converter do you use and like what Brightcolours said, how do you sharpen your images? Also how do you stabilise the camera and most importantly which lenses do you use?
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1286230042' post='3479']
And does Klaus and other Photozone folks have an opinion on whether or not it would be field significant to have no AA filters on, say, 30cm x 40cm (hmm that's pretty big) uncropped final prints?
[/quote]
Spatial visual information that wasn't there on screen is not suddenly going to appear in prints. What you should really be thinking about is how your printer does any up-scaling. Calculate the pixel resolution needed to print an image to a certain magnification at a certain DPI and then up-scale your source image to that size using the best up-scaling algorithm you can find. This way you're in control of how pixels are interpolated rather than letting the printer decide it. Also you got to take attributes of the paper in to consideration when it comes to all this and how sharpening, etc. should be done.
GTW
The above example photos, and the interesting arguments by Lomskij and others in the currently raging Sigma SD1 thread, remind me how much detail we may all be losing thanks to our cameras' AA anti-aliasing filters.
[/quote]
Well as you might have noticed my saying in that thread, I have a AA-filterless 50D an I really see no improvements in image quality, even with the best lenses out there. What you see at 100% are slightly blocky details in areas of high-frequency detail (e.g. grass in far distances). Removing the AA filter helps when the AA filter is too strong and the lenses can resolve enough detail. Otherwise, the lens blur acts like a blur filter of its own.
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1286230042' post='3479']
I wonder if, with the increasing CPU power every year, AA could be implemented in software. Something along the lines of an optional blurring function, to be applied to ordinary JPEGs and/or raw files. Have not thought this through, maybe one of you brainiacs have.
[/quote]
Have you seen this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_ant...i-aliasing
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1286230042' post='3479']
And, does anybody know how to remove the Anti-Aliasing filter on my Sony Nex?
[/quote]
I can think of 2 reasons why this is not a good move:
1. Very few lenses out there can resolve to the level of individual pixels on a Nex. Without such lenses, you're not really going to see improvements.
2. There are far more important things that affects image quality than the AA filter, in the pipeline. For example, which RAW converter do you use and like what Brightcolours said, how do you sharpen your images? Also how do you stabilise the camera and most importantly which lenses do you use?
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1286230042' post='3479']
And does Klaus and other Photozone folks have an opinion on whether or not it would be field significant to have no AA filters on, say, 30cm x 40cm (hmm that's pretty big) uncropped final prints?
[/quote]
Spatial visual information that wasn't there on screen is not suddenly going to appear in prints. What you should really be thinking about is how your printer does any up-scaling. Calculate the pixel resolution needed to print an image to a certain magnification at a certain DPI and then up-scale your source image to that size using the best up-scaling algorithm you can find. This way you're in control of how pixels are interpolated rather than letting the printer decide it. Also you got to take attributes of the paper in to consideration when it comes to all this and how sharpening, etc. should be done.
GTW