Challenge: First 1D Mark III Headshot, add yours!

[Klaus Esser]

"I don't see it, although the small samples presumably did suffer from down-sampling losses. That would just take some sharpening to fix."

I tried a sharpener - besides usm, i used FocusMagic´s "focus blurr" and "motion blurr" (convolution-sharpener). It gets sharper - but there still is some irritation. Maybe, it´s really a downsizing issue.

best, Klaus

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Ray!

Honestly: i´m absolutely no "pixel-peeper"! To me it doesn´t matter if an image is sharp or not - if it´s a good photograph.
But when it come to new cameras or lenses, a close and critical look at it under pure technical aspects seems just logical to me .

best, Klaus

 

[Paul Bestwick]

Klaus I am with you on that call. I, like you am no pixel peeper..........no dust whinger either. But yes, I think minute examination of a new tool is essential. Put it under the microscope. Subject it to the most intense going over. Get the frickin hubble on the sucker. This is one time I am going to pay some serious attention to those chart shooting, aperture analyzing, shutter sequencing, curves calculating, levels leveraging types.


Cheers,

Paul

 

[Asher Kelman]

"I don't see it, although the small samples presumably did suffer from down-sampling losses. That would just take some sharpening to fix."

I tried a sharpener - besides usm, i used FocusMagic´s "focus blurr" and "motion blurr" (convolution-sharpener). It gets sharper - but there still is some irritation. Maybe, it´s really a downsizing issue.

best, Klaus

Klaus,

Are you looking at the consequence of a less effective anti-aliasing filter?

Asher

 

[Klaus Esser]

"Are you looking at the consequence of a less effective anti-aliasing filter?"

what could it mean "less effective"? Either it works fine or not. If it doesn´t work fine, it´s useless. If it works fine, you don´t realize the filter. . . .

An AA-filter, which cost resolution definitely IS useless.
An AA-filter, which smears details definitely IS useless too.

An AA-filter, that is effective doesn´t cost visible resolution nor does it smear details or produces artifacts.

It really is that simple . . . ;-) in my eyes, the best AA-filter is the one, you don´t need.

best, Klaus

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Either it works fine or not.

The effect is a trade-off between losing effective resolution or losing artifacts. There are design choices involved, and they are all not perfect.

An AA-filter, that is effective doesn´t cost visible resolution nor does it smear details or produces artifacts.

Unfortunately, the design of an AA-filter is a no-win proposition. One reason is that the green filtered sensels take more samples than the red and blue filtered ones. Therefore Red and Blue need a stronger AA-filter than Green, but we only have one (compromise) for all.

The most important reason is that in order to eliminate all aliasing risk, the filter needs to be so strong that we'd lose say half of the effective resolution of the Red and Blue or close to 1 quarter of the sampling resolution. Instead we now only lose a few percent in luminance resolution, but also don't eliminate all aliasing. Sad but true.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

So, let's now have more portraits!

I'm looking forward to more portraits with a link to download a RAW image if that's O.K. with the client!

Let's see what is possible!

If Benjamin can make th Pentax K10 shine, let's push the 1DIII too!

Asher