Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Jack, you're right! Thanks.Are you talking the crops Rob posted where he processed identically, or are you talking crops that you processed to each sensor's ideal? I assume the former, because I think if you actually take the time to do the latter, you won't see the differences like in the former...
Jack, thanks for the excellent analysis. Depending on the subject matter, lighting conditions, and ISO settings, I'm guessing that the extra sharpening needed for the regular version will emphasize any noise in the file relative to the E file since the AA filter blur detail without affecting noise. Either way, it's probably going to be an on-screen at 100% phenomenon.ended up setting the E at 120/0.6/2.0 which appears to be right at the edge of being oversharp. I then adjusted settings on the regular file to a similar look, which took sharpening up to 240/0.6/2.0 and required a clarity bump to 25 to get teh micro contrast similar
Exactly Uwe! That was precisely my feeling as illustrated in my post above, when I described what I thought might be behind Nikon's implementation of this (their) unique AA cancelling filter in the D800E (besides standardizing production assembly of both cameras). The net result is sort of a compromise of partial removal of AA filtering and along with this, the modulation of possible incidence of moire'. Some proof of this will be when someone has aftermarket removal of the AA filter on their regular D800 and image output is compared to both a regular production D800 and D800E.I think this is not a camera with just "no" AA filter. More like a camera with a lower AA filter effect.
Tim,Ideal PP (the best for each file) instantly un-levels the playing field and opens up the issues of personal preference, personal bias, quid-pro-quo of trade-off decisions etc. In the case of this thread, my problem with sharpening the D800 file to match the apparent resolution of the D800E file is that sharpening has costs. Artefacts. Enhanced grain, more or less evident at different ISOs and in highlights and shadows. Changes to tonality gradations. Clarity adjustments do the same thing. So now we lose more of the belief group; me for example.
Thanks for that Jack - actually I agree that with these files there's not a significant difference. It's more in marginal files at higher ISOs or with shadows you want to bring out a lot that I think the small things might show. All other things being equal I think the more base detail the better, even if it's only a small improvement, but I am at least for now keeping the non-E alongside the E until I've done a lot more fabric shooting. If people have a broad based practice covering many different genres, I think what you have done is show that the 800 is probably the better choice. For landscape, I want as much detail in distant leaves and grasses as I can get but if I end up doing a friend's wedding I'll be reaching for the non-E. I will also probably use the non-E for any portrait stuff that comes along.Tim,
Normally I'd agree with you -- but in the case of the files above, my sharpening amounts as stated were right at the edge of adding artifacts while just shy of doing so, and did not accentuate noise (why threshold 2 instead of the default 1). If you have not done so yet, I suggest you download them and process them in C1 with the settings I gave, then let me know what you think -- you might not get lost
That said, I respect anybody's right to their own opinion for their needs -- that was the whole point I was trying to make by encouraging folks to work these files for themselves.
The surprise for me was clarity slider difference. Normally clarity REDUCES perceived DR -- however in the case here, the E file appears to start with less perceived DR, and so when processed per above the end result is still pretty identical -- at least close enough I do not perceive a DR difference onscreen or in print. (We can assume that the native sensor DR is identical in both cameras, so what I am referring to here is DR as visible in the processed files.) Moreover, and again to my eyes, the E file is too hot on micro contrast at the base setting of 0 clarity. I have since reworked these files and find that using a -10 clarity as base for the E file and then bumping the regular D800 to +15 makes both look "better but still equal" than my initial settings of 0 and +25. So were I to get an E, my base style would include a -10 or even a -12 clarity as standard.
Again, I specifically did not post screenshots from my crops as I wanted to encourage each to process for themselves. So I'll repeat: I heartily encourage EVERYBODY interested in either one of these cameras to download these raw files and work with them yourselves -- in this way you will see firsthand the difference, and can decide if it's really relevant/significant/meaningful for your needs.
I think you meant you'll be grabbing the E (no AA) for landscape and the non-E (w/AA) for weddings and portraits?For landscape, I want as much detail in distant leaves and grasses as I can get but if I end up doing a friend's wedding I'll be reaching for the E. I will also probably use the E for any portrait stuff that comes along.
Uwe raises another good point: In addition to the perception of "fake" detail, like adding grain can sometimes do, with my Phase I frequently find moire in tiny leaves and grasses. Fortunately, it is usually of such a small level it never shows in a print, but sometimes is significant enough that it needs to be blurred or processed out. Either way, you do find it surprisingly often in "nature" shots.>I want as much detail in distant leaves
I understand. But also to be sure: Often aliasing shows as detail but actually is fake. Very obvious with video.
I am not so sure. Assume polarized light hits the first splitter (call it vertical), so a single point source turns into 2 points even though it's polarized. Now it hits the 1/4-wave plate, and since it's already split the split pair gets rotated 90 degrees regardless of polarization. Now the beam pair hit the second splitter (call this one horizontal) and it still gets split into 4 points. I may be wrong in my understanding though...Here's an idea to play with. A friend suggests, based on the design of the lowpass filter array, that a simple linear polarizing filter on the lens, oriented either vertically or horizontally, will cancel the effects of one of the filter elements on these cameras.