Smartphone heavy moiré

Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.
--

Alfred Molon

It will be built down to a price, Alfred, and the typical,
photographically uneducated, customer may prefer "sharp" to "anti-alias".

Thanks for posting, though. Proves the lens isn't too bad, I suppose!

Cheers,
David

On 2011-10-22 09:34 , Alfred Molon wrote:
Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.

What, really, do you expect from a camera system worth about $20 at the
factory. Probably less for that matter.

As David says, it speaks pretty well for that cheap glass.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

In article , David J Taylor says...
Proves the lens isn't too bad, I suppose!

Indeed, if it manages to resolve the fine pattern of the jacket.
Impressive what is possible at this price level.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 23/10/2011 3:51 a.m., David J Taylor wrote:
Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.
--

Alfred Molon

It will be built down to a price, Alfred, and the typical,
photographically uneducated, customer may prefer "sharp" to "anti-alias".

Let 'em buy Leicas

Apteryx

On 23/10/2011, Alfred Molon wrote:
Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.

Interesting, that it's at its worst dead centre of the image. Try
taking the shot with the centre of the image on the right front of the
jacket.

--
N

In article , Bruce
wrote:

In truth, it is the typical, photographically uneducated consumer who
prefers the mushy result of a strong anti-alias (AA) filter which is
then artificially sharpened, allegedly to resemble the original
unmushed image. Of course any resemblance is purely a coincidence.

To those who are photographically educated, shooting images that are
sharp straight out of the camera without an AA filter is a fulfilling
experience. It is a heck of a lot more fulfilling than shooting mushy
images that are artificially sharpened.

bull****, and actually the opposite is correct.

those who are educated, particularly with regards to what aliasing
actually is know that the only way to guarantee a resemblance to the
subject is with an anti-alias filter.

without an anti-alias filter, you get alias artifacts, which is *false*
detail, but some people apparently think it looks good. on occasion it
can but there's no way to know that ahead of time. usually, aliasing
causes ugly artifacts, particularly when it's low frequency.

That's why Hasselblad, Leica and other medium format digital cameras
don't have AA filters, and the Leica M8 and M9 too. Ask anyone who
actually uses these cameras about the alleged "problems" of moire and
aliasing and they will laugh in your face.

no, it's because aa filters large enough for a medium format sensor are
very expensive and the camera already has enough resolution for it to
not matter in most cases. the lens becomes the limiting factor.

Moire is alleged - by those who don't know any better - to be a
particular problem in fashion photography. But absolutely every
fashion photographer I know who uses digital equipment uses cameras
that don't have AA filters.

how many do you know? not a single one uses a d3x or 1ds?

Similarly, aliasing is alleged - by the
very same people - to be a particular problem in architectural
photography. But architectural photographers also tend to use cameras
that don't have AA filters.

actually, most use cameras that do have an aa filter, regardless of
subject. the only cameras that lack an aa filter are cameras that don't
sell in high quantities (that should tell you something right there).

Why throw away the ability to resolve fine detail because of two
non-problems that exist only as a theory in the minds of the ignorant
and uneducated?

an anti-alias filter does not throw away detail, it limits detail that
is beyond what the sensor can resolve.

In practice, moire and aliasing are as rare as they
are easily dealt with.

not after it's captured it isn't.

In article , nospam says...
an anti-alias filter does not throw away detail, it limits detail that
is beyond what the sensor can resolve.

AA filters are indeed necessary to get rid of detail beyond the Nyquist
limit, it's just that with digital cameras there are two problems:

1. In a Bayer sensor the colour resolution is much lower than the
luminance resolution, so I'm guessing that the AA filter is dimensioned
to block somewhere between the colour and the luminance resolution, in
an effort to maximise the detail and keep aliasing not too high. This is
one of the reasons why Bayer sensors suck.

2. I suspect that these AA filters are not too terribly efficient.
Probably a soft slope curve, rather than a rectangle response (i.e. 100%
until the limit, then 0).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"N" wrote in message
...
On 23/10/2011, Alfred Molon wrote:
Samsung Galaxy S2, look at the jacket:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Apparently Samsung forgot to put an AA filter into the camera module.

Interesting, that it's at its worst dead centre of the image. Try
taking the shot with the centre of the image on the right front of the
jacket.

If the subject was uniform, you would expect the aliasing to be worst
where the level of the highest spatial frequencies was highest, i.e. where
the lens was sharpest. Typically, at the centre of the image.

Cheers,
David

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , nospam says...
an anti-alias filter does not throw away detail, it limits detail that
is beyond what the sensor can resolve.

AA filters are indeed necessary to get rid of detail beyond the Nyquist
limit, it's just that with digital cameras there are two problems:

1. In a Bayer sensor the colour resolution is much lower than the
luminance resolution, so I'm guessing that the AA filter is dimensioned
to block somewhere between the colour and the luminance resolution, in
an effort to maximise the detail and keep aliasing not too high. This is
one of the reasons why Bayer sensors suck.

Yes, it will be a compromise setting, and different cameras have different
compromises, different between manufacturers, and different between
different cameras in the same manufacturer's range. For most people, the
compromises of the Bayer sensor are preferable to those of the Foveon
sensor, otherwise far more people would buy the latter.

If someone prefers to see the aliasing artefacts, then they can buy a
camera with a weaker AA filter. Their choice, but the images will be less
accurate. For advertising, perhaps image accuracy is less important! G

2. I suspect that these AA filters are not too terribly efficient.
Probably a soft slope curve, rather than a rectangle response (i.e. 100%
until the limit, then 0).
--

Alfred Molon

Yes, IIRC it's approximately rectangular in the spatial domain, rather
than in the spatial frequency domain. Unlike audio anti-alias filters,
it's much more difficult to make optical anti-alias filters with a sharp
cut-off response.

Just as with over-sampled filters in audio making the smoother cut-off
more acceptable, it may be that optically having a higher sensor density
(much nearer to the lens cut-off spatial frequency) effectively
over-sampling the image may produce better results, other things being
equal. Of course, other things are never equal!

Cheers,
David