Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Fungus now filters
From: henningw at (Henning Wulff)
Date: Fri Jul 2 14:35:01 2004
References: <000001c4602a$0534dd20$6401a8c0@dorysrusp4> <>

At 1:48 PM +0100 7/2/04, Peter Dzwig wrote:
>The point of anti-aliasing is to smooth out "the jaggies", the 
>jagged edges in digitised images caused by finite resolution. In 
>theory with a large enough number of pixels in a camera you should 
>be able to ignore the effects because the human eye wouldn't be able 
>to resolve them. The need for anti-aliasing is a result of the 
>artifacts introduced by the availability of a finite number of 
>pixels to display an image in. For a standard monitor this number is 
>1.25Mp and here anti-aliasing is necessary without doubt.
>It MAY be - and I say may because I don't know for certain - that at 
>14 MP, up to certain "reasonable" magnifications the effects are 
>either not noticeable or are swamped by other effects or are 
>cancelled out by the effects of other algorithms, when the digital 
>image is viewed or printed.
>Peter Dzwig

In the Kodak DCS SLR/n and c, the moir? artifacts are visible, just 
where you expect them to be. Since a bayer pattern is used, you get 
funny-coloured moir? patterns under some circumstances. The Kodak 
software does not seem to be able to handle the results as well as an 
anti-aliasing filter. Whether it makes any difference in real world 
pictures is another matter.

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  |[ ]|

Replies: Reply from bladman99 at (Dan C) ([Leica] Fungus now filters)
In reply to: Message from dorysrus at (Don Dory) ([Leica] Fungus now filters)
Message from pdzwig at (Peter Dzwig) ([Leica] Fungus now filters)