Rockwell proves I am not mad

Pistnbroke

A while back whilst experimenting with my new Sigma 150-500mm I found that bird pictures were or looked sharper at 6mp rather than 24 ( D7100)
No one could tell me why except that I was wrong (mad) but Mr Rockwell today(11.11.15) conducting tests explained that using the sensor at about 1/4 of its native resolution cancells the effect of the Bayer filter and it looks sharper.
Towards the bottom in the 12MP =12MP.

And you and I thought I was mad.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-11-02-apple-canon-fuji-sony/index.htm

kenadams

"BREAKING NEWS: Images sharper after using the sharpening tool!"

Seriously, IMO this is just like saying that the D700 is sharper than the D810, and that Nikon dropped the ball on this.. and does that now mean that the 50MP 5Dsr downsampled to 12MP is the world's greatest downsampled camera?


"This downsampling ratio (50 to 12 MP) eliminates all Bayer interpolation, which is a completely different softening effect than anti-alias filtering." - if Bayer interpolation is eliminated .. shouldn't the image be in black and white?? *sigh*

heartyfisher

12MP at 12MP is not as sharp as >12 at 12MP ... err ..I always knew this. dont we all know this ?

Paperman

A while back whilst experimenting with my new Sigma 150-500mm I found that bird pictures were or looked sharper at 6mp rather than 24 ( D7100)

You are aware this is not exactly what KR is trying to say , right Pistnbroke ?

haroldp

Downsampling 36mp to 12mp has been successful for me in high ISO / noise situations. Images are cleaner and sharper than either de-noised 36mp or native 12mp.

... H

Pistnbroke

Thanks haroldp ..I was just looking for an explanation of what I found ,,not sure if I found it ....oh photography is such fun.

heartyfisher

Thanks haroldp ..I was just looking for an explanation of what I found ,,not sure if I found it ....oh photography is such fun.

Didn't we have a thread on this mystery of yours? I am still curious as to why it is. I was hoping to see a resolution to this as I know you are rather tenacious @Pistnbroke

Maybe we should revive that thread ... I don't remember what it was called :-) as you probably had a nice creative title LOL :-)

As to what KR was saying .. it is true of course 12MP is actually 3 MP with Bayer Math magic added to increase resolution to maybe 4-5 MP "smeared" into 12MP.. add to that the AA filter which smears it differently .. however I think since its only 4 MP to start with anyway the AA smearing really doesn't make much of a difference. (detail wise)

Now these days we have 24MP DX with no AA filter. so it really is only 6 MP "Bayered" to maybe 8MP of detail. If you down sample the 24MP to 12 MP you still have the intrinsic 8MP of detail. Whereas if you look at a 12MP DX sensor with AA you only have 3-4MP of intrinsic detail. But of course we all knew this right ?

as a bit of an aside .. there has been maths recently developed by the smart people at various universities that has improved on the regular Bayer method. From what I have seen they use not just the 4 (rggb) "Bayer" pixels but groups of larger than 4 say 5,7,9,12 to make the calculations resulting in truer colors and more resolution and no need for AA.. maybe some of it is in the new Expeed processors .. probably maybe not and it will be implemented soon so we probably can expect more boosts in resolution in the next few EXPEED generations.

Paperman

Guys, KR is just saying a downsized 12 Mp from 24 or 50Mp is better than a 12 Mp from a 12 Mp camera.

Nowhere does he say, one gets better sharpness/resolution at lower Mp than higher Mp ( in same camera ). The comparasion is between cameras, not between images at different Mps from same camera.

He explains the reasoning behind it - that's all ... Does not say the 12 Mp image has more sharpness/details than the 50Mp one.

Ironheart

Thanks haroldp ..I was just looking for an explanation of what I found ,,not sure if I found it ....oh photography is such fun.

Didn't we have a thread on this mystery of yours? I am still curious as to why it is. I was hoping to see a resolution to this as I know you are rather tenacious @Pistnbroke

Maybe we should revive that thread ... I don't remember what it was called :-) as you probably had a nice creative title LOL :-)

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/4684/is-rockwell-right-or-am-i-mad

Pistnbroke

oops sorry I repeated myself ..well almost ....like I said did not get and still dont have a full answer to my original question...

Ironheart

One possible answer: you are mad :-)
If you put some photos up on Dropbox I can show you how to post them here and we can examine the depths of your madness in detail
Just PM me

manhattanboy

One possible answer: you are mad :-)

LOL. I read the Rockwell article and its conclusions are not justified. What is really needed is for the sensors to all have the same size. Comparing a full frame sensor downsized versus much smaller sensors is not really helpful for the Bayer filter argument. Why not shoot a 12mp full frame versus other higher resolution ones downsampled to be able to isolate the effects of the filter? Or just compare it to the sigma fovean?
Anyway the one take away I got from that article is obvious, in that you can't really view the pics from cell phones at 100% and expect DSLR level of sharpness.

WestEndFoto

One possible answer: you are mad :-)
If you put some photos up on Dropbox I can show you how to post them here and we can examine the depths of your madness in detail
Just PM me

Priceless!

haroldp

Even If you are paranoid, it does not mean that they are not out to get you.

Paranoids of the world unite .... if you dare.


..... H

heartyfisher

Its a conspiracy to get you all together in one place .. I tell you !