If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
In article
, RichA wrote: Seems like lighter and lighter AA filters are appearing in certain cameras. The Leica has none. Could it be that this second-last barrier to resolution (the Bayer filter being the last) isn't long for the world? only if someone can prove shannon/nyquist wrong, nor is it a barrier to resolution. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
In article , nospam
writes In article , RichA wrote: Seems like lighter and lighter AA filters are appearing in certain cameras. The Leica has none. Could it be that this second-last barrier to resolution (the Bayer filter being the last) isn't long for the world? only if someone can prove shannon/nyquist wrong, Not necessarily - if the pixels are small enough to meet the Nyquist sampling criteria of the optical image then the AA filter is unnecessary. Since "never" is an extremely long time, this direct implication of shannon/nyquist will occur long before anyone proves them wrong. nor is it a barrier to resolution. The optical AA filter is a barrier to resolution because it is an imperfect AA filter according to shannon/nyquist. It is not flat in the pass band and its blocking region is non-zero and the transition between the two regions is not infinitely steep. The ratio of alias to signal attenuation is a judgement call by the designers - none is perfect and all are barriers to useful resolution to a greater or lesser degree. Extremely small pixels combined with appropriate in-camera or on-chip downsampling, similar to what is currently implemented in one-dimensional audio systems, would allow a near perfect AA filter to be implemented digitally, as well as eliminating the Bayer resolution restriction. Things are moving in that direction already with several cameras offering sRAW options to output lower resolution images than the native sensor format, with improved frame rate and/or "pixel" SNR. It will be some time off, but optical AA filters will disappear eventually. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
In article , Kennedy McEwen
wrote: Not necessarily - if the pixels are small enough to meet the Nyquist sampling criteria of the optical image then the AA filter is unnecessary. Since "never" is an extremely long time, this direct implication of shannon/nyquist will occur long before anyone proves them wrong. that just makes the lens the anti-alias filter. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
On 10-03-27 10:34 , Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , nospam writes In article , RichA wrote: Seems like lighter and lighter AA filters are appearing in certain cameras. The Leica has none. Could it be that this second-last barrier to resolution (the Bayer filter being the last) isn't long for the world? only if someone can prove shannon/nyquist wrong, Not necessarily - if the pixels are small enough to meet the Nyquist sampling criteria of the optical image then the AA filter is unnecessary. Since "never" is an extremely long time, this direct implication of shannon/nyquist will occur long before anyone proves them wrong. nor is it a barrier to resolution. The optical AA filter is a barrier to resolution because it is an imperfect AA filter according to shannon/nyquist. It is not flat in the pass band and its blocking region is non-zero and the transition between the two regions is not infinitely steep. The ratio of alias to signal attenuation is a judgement call by the designers - none is perfect and all are barriers to useful resolution to a greater or lesser degree. This confirms what I said to nospam a couple days ago about how sharply the filter is defined. Extremely small pixels combined with appropriate in-camera or on-chip downsampling, similar to what is currently implemented in one-dimensional audio systems, would allow a near perfect AA filter to be implemented digitally, as well as eliminating the Bayer resolution restriction. Things are moving in that direction already with several cameras offering sRAW options to output lower resolution images than the native sensor format, with improved frame rate and/or "pixel" SNR. It will be some time off, but optical AA filters will disappear eventually. I doubt it. No matter how fine the resolution of the sensor there is always scene detail that falls at a line freq that will cause aliasing. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
In article , nospam
writes In article , Kennedy McEwen wrote: Not necessarily - if the pixels are small enough to meet the Nyquist sampling criteria of the optical image then the AA filter is unnecessary. Since "never" is an extremely long time, this direct implication of shannon/nyquist will occur long before anyone proves them wrong. that just makes the lens the anti-alias filter. Exactly - no need for any additional optical AA filter. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
In article , Alan Browne
writes On 10-03-27 10:34 , Kennedy McEwen wrote: Extremely small pixels combined with appropriate in-camera or on-chip downsampling, similar to what is currently implemented in one-dimensional audio systems, would allow a near perfect AA filter to be implemented digitally, as well as eliminating the Bayer resolution restriction. Things are moving in that direction already with several cameras offering sRAW options to output lower resolution images than the native sensor format, with improved frame rate and/or "pixel" SNR. It will be some time off, but optical AA filters will disappear eventually. I doubt it. No matter how fine the resolution of the sensor there is always scene detail that falls at a line freq that will cause aliasing. No lens, not even a theoretical one, has infinite resolution. Diffraction determines the maximum spatial resolution of a perfect lens. That is a function of the relative aperture of the lens and the wavelength of the light it is resolving. The former is limited by the finite size of the lens aperture (be aware that the photographer's approximation of relative aperture is increasingly in error at low f/#s due to Lambert's Law), whilst millions of years of human evolution, the temperature of the sun's corona and the transmission spectrum of the earth's atmosphere place serious restrictions on the wavelength of light your lens has to resolve. For an extremely good practical lens the limit of resolution is much lower. There is always a spatial frequency above which the lens MTF is zero, and a sensor with pixels small enough to place the Nyquist above that will never suffer from alias. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message ... In article , nospam writes In article , Kennedy McEwen wrote: Not necessarily - if the pixels are small enough to meet the Nyquist sampling criteria of the optical image then the AA filter is unnecessary. Since "never" is an extremely long time, this direct implication of shannon/nyquist will occur long before anyone proves them wrong. that just makes the lens the anti-alias filter. Exactly - no need for any additional optical AA filter. But the lens is a really lousy AA filter. When diffraction isn't a problem, the MTF has a very long tail. So you need many times your target resolution, and then that number squared, data points. And does post-demosaicing pixel bining actually work? Don't you lose DR compared to larger pixels? -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
In article , Kennedy McEwen
wrote: that just makes the lens the anti-alias filter. Exactly - no need for any additional optical AA filter. not an additional one, but there is still an anti-alias filter in the system. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:57:59 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: I doubt it. No matter how fine the resolution of the sensor there is always scene detail that falls at a line freq that will cause aliasing. The same can be said for your printer's pseudo-random dithering patterns, or your LCD display, or phosphor dots and scan-lines on an industry-standard CRT. This is why there are software solutions whenever it is encountered. Unless you have the original scene and subjects with which to compare the resulting display then no one's the wiser. There will never be an exact 1:1 correlation between any subjects captured in any photograph and reality. It's all approximations. One more added whenever you need to get rid of aliasing artifacts. Be it by using misty atmospheric conditions, haze-filters, soft-focus methods, in-camera sensor antialiasing filters, or post-processing gaussian-blur digital manipulation. Don't any of you people actually take photographs and do something with them? If you ever had you'd know that you're now just mentally masturbating about all of this. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is the AA filter on the endangered list too?
In article , James Nagler
wrote: The same can be said for your printer's pseudo-random dithering patterns, or your LCD display, or phosphor dots and scan-lines on an industry-standard CRT. nonsense. This is why there are software solutions whenever it is encountered. impossible to do post-capture. Don't any of you people actually take photographs and do something with them? If you ever had you'd know that you're now just mentally masturbating about all of this. as opposed to you physically masturbating? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Filter List for rec.photo.digital, 24 November 2007 | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 5 | December 1st 07 03:33 PM |
Anyone NOT wanting to be trolled by SMS use this list! Filter List for rec.photo.digital, 24 November 2007 | SMS ??? ?[_2_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | December 1st 07 03:33 PM |
Anyone NOT wanting to be trolled by SMS use this list! Filter List for rec.photo.digital, 24 November 2007 | SMS ??? ?[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | December 1st 07 03:33 PM |
"rec.photo.digital.txt" Filter File Posted Online (for newsreadersthat can import a list of e-mail addresses to filter out) | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 2 | November 25th 07 11:00 AM |
Filter List for rec.photo.digital, 22 November 2007 | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 15 | November 25th 07 06:27 AM |