Anti-aliasing - please explain. « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Weird & Fun

Anti-aliasing - please explain.

(43 posts) (20 voices)
  • Started 1 year ago by dormant
  • Latest reply from npolish
  • Related Topics:
    1. Those three legged friends, Tripods, Love or Hate
    2. D600 orders and availability
    3. D800, D800E, D4, Are We Ready to Compare?
    4. pny vs sandisk
    5. NR is censoring criticism

Tags:

  • catwoman costume
« Previous12
  1. aesnakes

    preferred member
    Joined: Dec '09
    Posts: 138

    offline

    Hi all, I need some insight on this AA thing as well. (SO you know where im coming from) Im a VFX artist doing visual fx, do a lot of video and photos every day. Quality is a big issue for me, the image (noise, contrast, black point, sharpness etc) must look exactly the same as it did on import after adding effect CG , 2d elements. I shoot sill elements and video so what would be a better preference..

    Ive been able to remove Moire patterns using the YCBCR techniques (convert colorspace to YCBCR and soften the Y channel and it goes away without damaging RGB

    Also Ive gotten some success applying AA using a matrix operation

    010
    242
    010

    What Im wondering with this is if I got the D800 with AA removed would it be better to applying these method when I need them or is the camera just going to do a different and better job at this in your opinion.

    Sorry for the long long post

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. Spy Black

    senior member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 51

    offline

    You can still get Moire patterns even with the AA filters found in camera sensors. Sooner or later the pattern of a surface, combined with the particular magnification of that pattern on the sensor plane, will cause interferometry with the sensor array and thus Moire.

    I've seen this countless times in product shots for catalog work. If the studio photographer is smart, he'll ignore the client/designer request for that "perfect arrangement" and shoot an alt where the sensor's array and the pattern don't clash. Otherwise the only solution in post is typically to blur the Moire pattern and then substitute it with noise. Not always a pretty site (although it does sometimes work well).

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. NikoDoby

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    True Spy Black, there are differing degrees of AA filter strength but moire will be the strongest when there is no filter.

    This is what moire looks like for those who don't know what we are talking about.

    It's really not an issue as long as you are aware of how and where it happens. I mostly see it on fabrics with fine detail and on newer cars with carbon fiber body work or certain plastic headlight covers.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. Nikoner

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 171

    offline

    Drab said:
    Could you post a photo somewhere? I don't have a P6000, can't speak to the P6000, but I'd like to see the moire.

    Thanks

    Hi Drab,

    I sold my P6000 a year and half ago to keh dot com, but yes the pattern I got was very similar to what NikoDoby has posted above except instead of the rainbowish colors I got only a single color pattern. The one I recall was on my brother's gray suit and the pattern was silver metallic, intertwined - sometimes in a curvy-wavy pattern, and some times in symmetric zigzag pattern.

    I will try to dig up the picture from archive, but this week is busy with homecoming.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. dormant

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 182

    offline

    aesnakes said:
    Also Ive gotten some success applying AA using a matrix operation

    010
    242
    010

    I'm not disputing the success of your approach, but you cannot apply do anti-aliasing to a digital image unless you are down-sampling afterwards. Aliasing happens when the digital image is created at the sensor, and the AA filter has to happen before this.

    Here's an explanation from audio signal processing. If you create a digital signal with a sampling rate of 10 kHz, the highest signal that can be recorded is 5 kHz, or the Nyquist frequency. If you take your 10 kHz recorder and try and record a signal with a frequency of 6 kHz, it will be aliased and appear with a frequency of 4 kHz. There is no way you can turn that 4 kHz signal back to 6 kHz because you cannot distinguish it from a real 4 kHz signal.

    Images are the same, but two-dimensional. Images with regularly repeating patterns with a spacing less than the Nyquist frequency (2 pixels) are worst affected. Aliasing will also affect sharp edges, as an edge contains a wide range of frequencies.

    Apologies if I've confused anyone.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. jonnyapple

    Goldfingers
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 3,400

    offline

    This was actually included in some posts that got deleted from this thread, Dormant. We got a little far afield, but unfortunately the AA info got lost along with the other stuff!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. sevencrossing

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 1,265

    offline

    So the D800 may be available soon, with and without an A-A filter

    Has anyone worked out which one they want

    if the main blog is correct $900 is a lot to pay NOT to have something

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. adamz

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    if I will ever get d800 I want the non AA version

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. dormant

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 182

    offline

    I will get the non-AA version.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. sevencrossing

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 1,265

    offline

    adamz can explaine your choice
    I am still trying to get to grips to reason for two versions
    am i right in thinking it is one or the other

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. mirtos

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 159

    offline

    Can someone explain why it will be more expensive to have the filter removed? Wouldnt it be cheaper to not include something? Or am i missing something.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    sevencrossing said:
    adamz can explaine your choice
    I am still trying to get to grips to reason for two versions
    am i right in thinking it is one or the other

    Think of taking a picture of satin ties or seeing newscasters who's tie is "trippy" looking - more lines, fun-house wavy looking. Basically the cloth's lines exceede the lens and sensor frequency and it converges. An AA filter helps remove that. The way it does that is by having a zebra pattern filter (clear-dark-clear...) that removes every other line - in a way. (I'm keeping it layman simple.) That helps remove lines that have met the resolution frequency of the lens but you loose a small amount of sharpness and resolution. Moire is one of those things that is really hard to remove in post, kind of like adding a polarizer effect in post, it just never quite works well.

    If moire is not an issue, remove the filter and you are able to utilize the full potential resolution and sharpness of the sensor. Leica has done this, Sigma doesn't use one, and you can tell a difference if you study the images. The draw back is, if someone is wearing a suit that moires really bad, you are toast.

    mirtos said:
    Can someone explain why it will be more expensive to have the filter removed? Wouldnt it be cheaper to not include something? Or am i missing something.

    It is an exception of normal production thus adds additional time. Just like paying more for a manual transmission on a vehicle. My guess is they are planning on making the changes by hand. That adds time and cost. The actual cost of an AA filter is peanuts next to the cost of hand work on a camera.

    I'm willing to bet so many will want one without the AA filter, they will end up running two productions so maybe the cost will drop.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. CaryTheLabelGuy

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '11
    Posts: 224

    offline

    If I were to buy the D800, it would def be a non AA-filter D800.

    Of course, we'll have to see how much I like the D800. I've got to get through the D4 first! ;)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. MikeFrewer

    member
    Joined: Nov '11
    Posts: 46

    offline

    So what I can gather from all of the previous posts is:

    An AA filter gets rid of the Moire (funny patterns)that you get on certain items with close spaced lines on them when photographed. But at the expense of a small ammount of sharpness and resoloution.

    Without an AA filter, you can use the full potential of the sensor, but with a chance that you will get moire on certain items when photographed.

    Now we all have to decide wether we are concerned about the moire.

    My thoughts are that this will only be critical when taking portraits or buildings. So I may possibly go for the no AA filter option. But I may be wrong.

    Since I havent had the chance to buy my new camera just yet, Ill now wait and see what is in the forthcoming Nikon announcement and decide then if it will be a D700 or D800.

    I`d just like to thank everyone for explaining this confusing subject for me.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. SquamishPhoto

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 1,076

    offline

    The idea is that you'd buy a camera without an AA filter as a second, third or fourth body. I see it as similar to owning an IR converted camera. You aren't going to use it all the time and certain photos wont lend themselves terribly well to using it, but you've got it for the things that you know that it will excel at. The ideal future scenario for someone like me is having a D4 or D3s for most of my work, the D800 for premium quality studio and landscape, and the D700 as a backup and lightweight alternative to both. And the D7000 for wildlife. :]

    This is going to get expensive! lol

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. adamz

    The Predator
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 3,461

    offline

    @7X - I already have a prime camera, which in my case is d3s, I also have d300s, which I'll be most likely selling this year in order to get d800. as I'm not that much concerned with moire effect I can allow myself to have one pure camera (non AA) in order to get extremely sharp snaps, the way I want.

    @mike - it's very expensive hobby, especially in the field of animals and sport photography :(, although I think that d800 will handle the job of d7000, as the dx gonna be around 16mpx, more than I really need.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. sevencrossing

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 1,265

    offline

    TaoTeJared said:
    Moire is one of those things that is really hard to remove in post,

    Just noticed, LR4 beta, has a moire slider on the adjustment brush , tested it on Niko's sample and it works

    PS

    The new Clarity slider is awesome
    as is Shadows adjustment

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. npolish

    new member
    Joined: Jan '12
    Posts: 2

    offline

    So, like an earlier poster, I am a signal processing person. Here is my perspective on AA in audio. Perhaps some of you have some thoughts on how it applies here.

    Aliasing must be avoided at all costs. Any sampling technology must have something ahead of it that limits the frequency of what it receives to half of the sampling rate. Anything else is an ERROR. If you can be absolutely sure that you will never encounter such frequencies, then fine. However, I think in photography that would be equivalent to saying that the resolution of your lens system is low enough that fine details will not appear. That seems a poor bet.

    In audio we have sampling rates such as 44khz. Which means that we must never see frequencies above 22khz. The problem is that real world low pass filters have rolloff. So to be sure that 22khz is 96db down (the limit of 16bit samples) requires that frequencies such as 19khz will be somewhat pulled down as well. No one likes this. The solution to this in audio was to over sample. So you sample at 88khz. So now you have to avoid things above 44khz. A real crappy AA filter pulls things down but by the time you get to 22khz there is no rolloff at all. So you over sample, anti-alias, and then down sample to 44khz. Presto, you have great audio frequency response out to the edge of the system.

    So applied to photography, it looks like this: at 12mp you use an AA filter and you lose some fine detail because AA filters have roll off. Instead, run things at 36mp (oversample) with an AA and down sample to 12mp and you have essentially perfect 12mp images. Running the 36mp system without an AA would only make sense (to me) if you KNEW that the lenses were low enough resolution that they were doing the AA for you.

    So...That leads to my question(s). Are the Nikon lenses high enough resolution to exceed the resolution of the 36mp sensor? I think the answer is "yes". This I suspect because the pixels at 36mp are very similar to the grain size of film. Has Nikon or anyone else done studies or white papers on this?

    Thoughts?

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous12

Reply

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com