Do you think they will make a d610 with no low pass filter



  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    edited June 2014
    @kanuck: Are you snickering because you totally understand how to get it not to happen? If so please share. If there is a way and it is protracted and involved, it will be no good to me as I don't have the time to do much during a wedding. Maybe you're saying that the D800e configuration just doesn't suffer from it like say, my D7100 definitely does?

    I believe there is a difference in manufacture and design of the critical area between the D800e/D7100 sensors. Maybe the D7100 is the same system as the D610. I don't know if they have a stable formula yet that works on all sensors or whether different sensors need different treatment. I do know it has been a problem for me.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    In almost any version of current generation digital media (or any quantified media, even analog television), artifacts are possible, even sensors with AA filters get them occasionally, unless the AA filter is so strong that it obviates the exercise. I have seen (not done) tests where the D800 was quite close to the D800e in getting artifacts in the same situations because the AA filter is weak.

    I have seen what I thought was moire, which was the image interacting with my screen, and went away with more magnification.

    The point (at least for me) is not to guarantee there will never be artifacts, can we do that, yes, would I want to live with the result which would be that all my shots were sub par in exchange for eliminating a vanishingly small set of problem shots, no I would not make that trade-off. I cannot set priority or values for others.

    The exercise for me is to reduce the likelihood of artifacts below my tolerance level without adversely effecting image quality on the overwhelming majority of frames, and the most direct method of doing that is more pixel density, ( or non-beyer sensors, none of which are acceptable to me for other reasons).

    Reducing lens resolution, either directly or via AA filter, or poor technique, does not work for me, and as ade correctly stated, merely makes artifacts less likely, not impossible.

    Can artifacts happen at nyquist and MTF 10, theoretically possible, I have never seen it in my work.

    In fairness, I do very few weddings, and bridal veils or herringbone suits would make me nervous, I typically shoot them slightly varying the distance if I can. So far I have not had problems, which is not to say that I won't tomorrow, If one or two out of a 600-1000 frame shoot is off, no-one will ever see it and I will accept compliments on the others.

    I also never use direct flash or other contrast enhancing techniques.

    Those looking for absolutes are unlikely to find them in this space.

    Regards ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited June 2014
    I see moire and other optical artifacts in the real world, without looking through a camera. I think it's cool, not undesirable at all. Window screens, chain-link fences, fabrics, strain patterns on glass, plastic, etc... Basically any time there is a repeating pattern. Heck I even use audible moire (beats) to tune musical instruments. I guess I don't understand the desire to eliminate something that occurs all the time in the natural world. When I find it in a photograph I'm just as excited as when I do in reality :)>-
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member

    We want our cameras to capture what we see. Aliasing creates a situation where the sensor captures moire unnaturally often -- in situations where our eyes normally do not see moire.

    We also get false-color moire which looks very different than the moire we see "in reality". Moire can absolutely ruin a picture; Not great if you're being paid to take that picture.

    @kanuck I don't know what type of photography you do, but I get moire at a rate maybe 10x yours, i.e., closer to 3 incidents per 10,000 photographs instead of 100,000. Still not a lot, but enough that I have to be aware of it. I'd say over 95% of my pictures on the D800e are fashion/runway, portraits, and kids -- all involving fabrics. I can post a few samples if people want to see but maybe on another thread...
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    The limits are probably a larger issue for Foveon sensors as each pixel more or less equals a pixel on the image where for common Beyer sensors a bunch of pixels equals one outputted pixel on an image. Moiré though doesn't exist out of Foveon sensors. (The caveat to it all is that there is not much info on how Foveon sensors (or any other company for that matter) interpolate the output data from the sensor.)

    One can also add Fuji's X-Trans sensor to the mix since it not only has a different pattern, but is rotated as well. That simple act of rotating the sensor changes the dynamics how the sensor reacts to things like moiré. What most are reporting is that vertical and horizontal moiré never shows but diagonal will.

    Interesting article of someone testing a D800e against a Sigma DP2 Merrill. If you are the type of shooter that always shoots at base ISO, uses a tripod, and really takes their time, the Foveon sensor is made for you.

    I get my fair share of moiré as well. Whether or not it is an issue depends on the output format (i.e. print, web, even the type of printing done.)

    Here is a few suggestions to reduce moiré I seen/read/use:
    •Lower the "sharpening" in camera. It is amazing how much this can effect it.
    •Lower the "contrast" in camera. I've never noticed much of an effect.
    •Move or change the distance you are to your subject or even zoom the lens in or out. A few inches can make a world of difference.
    •Change the angle to your subject. Again a few inches changes the effect to not appear.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Moire absolutely exists on Foveon sensors. As explained above, Foveon sensors are not susceptible to one particular type of moire caused by interpolation of out-of-phase colors. But since laws of physics still apply, cameras with Foveon sensors -- which typically lack AA filters -- are still subject to moire.

    X-Trans being diagonal or horizontal or vertical has nothing to do with it's moire performance. X-Trans is designed so that the color patterns aren't as "regular" as the Bayer pattern -- in any direction. Also, unlike the Bayer pattern where all the colors are shifted from one another, X-Trans always includes all three colors in each plane (row or column).
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited July 2014
    And the Asshat is back. God help you when the day comes that you find out the world can't be defined on Wikipedia.

    How Sigma Foveon sensors cure moire
    Each pixel is 3 layers deep – it captures all three wavelengths of light at different depths, because each wavelength penetrates the sensor at different levels.

    Therefore there is no need for the Bayer / Colour Filter Array / Interpolation technique to produce the full colour image, and no risk of moire – hence no low pass filter required.
    Luminance aliasing can happen but not the color moire we are all talking about.

    Further reading on Foveon's web site.

    Investigation of Color Aliasing of High Spatial
    Frequencies and Edges for Bayer-Pattern Sensors and
    Foveon X3® Direct Image Sensors
    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited July 2014
    Luminance aliasing also causes moire. So by admitting that luminance aliasing can happen on Foveon sensor, you are already contracting yourself.

    For a real life example, the following image from this article clearly shows moire from an SD9:

    (Moire pattern on SD9, link)

    So to say that moire "doesn't exist out of Foveon sensors" is obviously wrong.

    Even if we restrict our discussion to the type of color aliasing Bayer arrays are more susceptible to, Foveon sensors are not completely immune from it.

    See Foveon's own marketing white paper you linked to:

    "For both the edge image and the bar pattern, the Foveon X3 direct image sensor generates few or no color aliasing artifacts associated with sampling."

    Notice the careful wording, "few or no". So even in Foveon's own testing they have seen some instances of color aliasing.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    And the Asshat is back.
    To think that this is coming from someone whose favorite phrase has been for years "this is actually not true at all", pompously delivered while correcting other people, with a tacit "you moron" trailing, for everyone to add in their heads silently... but now that someone holds a mirror in your face you wet your pants. You're a real class act.

    Mods are closing threads left and right because some newbie doesn't know how to use the search function, but name calling is ok now?? Or are some people just more equal than others? I've deliberately waited a day to see if someone with a sudo account shows any reaction to this, but no.

    The pissing contest the two of you have been taking for months now I find somewhat amusing for the most part, albeit annoying whereever it takes away from the real discussion. Why don't we get you a separate thread outside and you can take it out there?? You're both knowledgeable enough to be a real benefit for all of us here, so why don't you pull it together!
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    @Ade - Again you are trying to push the topic into something else in this childish attempt to save face yet again.

    Oh and your labels to your images are swapped - you should have followed the links back to the original author instead of some college student copying others work.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited July 2014
    I'm not the foremost expert on things but I have a considerable technical background on relevant fields. I've always tried to provide the best information I know to benefit this forum, and supply references / citations / links from reliable sources as appropriate.

    We all have our own subjective opinions, but sometimes when I see blatantly wrong information then I feel compelled to respond. Often I go out of my way to create charts, illustrations, etc.

    This is all very time consuming to me. I can't fathom why some insist on posting wrong things about concepts they obviously don't grasp. And it really irks me when I see others here come to misleading conclusions based on very bad info.

    People can choose to be ignorant, but they have no right to mislead others.

    But as with another thread going on here... I'm done. I just don't have the time or energy to continue to feed trolls. I really have better things to do and I don't need the abuse. I've seen a couple other long time posters being driven away from this forum due to largely the same issue, and I can 100% understand why. There seems to be no consequences to poor behavior on this forum.

    I'm working on a few fun mobile apps some here might enjoy, so I'll come back from time to time as I finish them up.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,300Member
    I understand a few of your comments I really do. I shoot a variety of different subjects but I just can't see it very often. Architecture with lines or certain patterns usually will fool my D800E. Here are a few examples of fabrics that appear to be clean and an architecture shot with moire present without getting too carried away. These were shot in RAW and processed through CS5. I never shoot JPEGs.

    Age & Experience

    Hard Explored Feb 8th #500 exactly ^^

    Service with a Smile

    by Matt MacDonald, on Flickr">Spiral Vertigo Explored May 3rd #2 Thanks <img class=" />
Sign In or Register to comment.