How to Fight with Moire with IIs ? Raw Ideas.

obscura · 09-28-2012, 05:57 AM

simico has a point, 15-20% is an exaggeration, though we havent seen images from the new k5, if we consider the other brands, the sharpness is nowhere near 15%... its much less...
time will tell my friends...

vonBaloney · 09-28-2012, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by obscura

simico has a point, 15-20% is an exaggeration, though we havent seen images from the new k5, if we consider the other brands, the sharpness is nowhere near 15%... its much less...
time will tell my friends...

We are talking pixel-level sharpness. Unless the current AA filter is outrageously strong, the improvements will only be noticeable in large prints. On the screen you'll only notice it in 100% crops, so pixel peepers will love it, but if you print out two 8x12s of a full image AA and AA-less you won't be able to see much if any difference. But if you blow them up to 24x36 and beyond it should help. It will also help with the ability to make decent prints from crops that are smaller areas of the original -- so in-effect it also gives us extra reach. I'll be looking forward to it, but 15% is highly exaggerated.

cbaytan · 09-28-2012, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

I'll be looking forward to it, but 15% is highly exaggerated.

%10-15 increase in sharpness is my non-scientific wild guess from the pictures in the web. One thing for sure increase is depends on the AA filter used in the original camera- . Below pictures are before and after the commercial complete removal of the AA filter, not like double AA filter used in Nikon D800E. We'll see the results in the K-5

REMOVING THE Anti-Aliasing-Filter FROM YOUR DSLR - Otto Schulze Photographers

Nikon D300HR

vonBaloney · 09-28-2012, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by cbaytan

%10-15 increase in sharpness is my non-scientific wild guess from the pictures in the web.

At web resolutions where everything is downsampled, it is impossible to see the difference except in 100% crops. Then it will look dramatic, but doesn't really tell you the effect you get when looking at a whole picture, which again on the screen will be nil. Only in larger prints will the two versions begin to separate themselves, or if you want to crop tighter you will be able to get away with a bit more than before.

tclausen · 09-29-2012, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by cbaytan

i.e macro and landscape photography needs mostly razor ike sharp photos, but wedding and most portrait photos are on the opposite side

IIs is not definitely for weddings that require soft dream like pictures, nobody wants to see zits, freckles skin blemishes, from a sharp photo in the weddings, bride would get mad. A soft filter or a nylon stocking

can be used tho. so moire won't be a problem.

But, won't the bride also be upset if you pull a pair of nylon stockings over her head before each photo? I'm given to understand that it ruins the make-up job...

obscura · 09-30-2012, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by tclausen

But, won't the bride also be upset if you pull a pair of nylon stockings over her head before each photo? I'm given to understand that it ruins the make-up job...

but... but... trust me... it makes you look beautiful !!!

philbaum · 10-03-2012, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

We are talking pixel-level sharpness. Unless the current AA filter is outrageously strong, the improvements will only be noticeable in large prints. On the screen you'll only notice it in 100% crops, so pixel peepers will love it, but if you print out two 8x12s of a full image AA and AA-less you won't be able to see much if any difference. But if you blow them up to 24x36 and beyond it should help. It will also help with the ability to make decent prints from crops that are smaller areas of the original -- so in-effect it also gives us extra reach. I'll be looking forward to it, but 15% is highly exaggerated.

I'm tempted to write to that company that cbayton mentioned below to see what they would charge for an existing K5. I made one 24x36 canvas print last year and sold it. That one was sharp enough not to require any AA, but i assure you, i passed over several of my images that i didn't think would work at 36". perhaps AA removal would redeem some new photos enough to go the distance :-), when they would otherwise had been marginal.

The removal company mentioned they have a 1 to 2 day turnaround on cameras sent to them. that would be sweet.

tclausen · 10-03-2012, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by obscura

but... but... trust me... it makes you look beautiful !!!

I'm told that the only thing working for me is a pillow-case.....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
k-5 IIs - Infrared Filter?	Noisychip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	09-20-2014 05:28 AM
Anyone Pre-order a K5-II or IIs yet?	Eric Auer	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	97	11-09-2012 01:44 AM
K-5 IIs - Same as Mark 2 but minus AA filter... why?	Nachodog	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	53	10-29-2012 09:52 PM
K5-IIs and Moiré	troenaas	Photographic Industry and Professionals	31	09-22-2012 04:40 AM
Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs OFFICIALLY Announced	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	9	09-11-2012 08:43 AM

09-28-2012, 05:57 AM	#16
obscura Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 127	simico has a point, 15-20% is an exaggeration, though we havent seen images from the new k5, if we consider the other brands, the sharpness is nowhere near 15%... its much less... time will tell my friends...

09-28-2012, 11:09 AM	#17
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by obscura simico has a point, 15-20% is an exaggeration, though we havent seen images from the new k5, if we consider the other brands, the sharpness is nowhere near 15%... its much less... time will tell my friends... We are talking pixel-level sharpness. Unless the current AA filter is outrageously strong, the improvements will only be noticeable in large prints. On the screen you'll only notice it in 100% crops, so pixel peepers will love it, but if you print out two 8x12s of a full image AA and AA-less you won't be able to see much if any difference. But if you blow them up to 24x36 and beyond it should help. It will also help with the ability to make decent prints from crops that are smaller areas of the original -- so in-effect it also gives us extra reach. I'll be looking forward to it, but 15% is highly exaggerated.

09-28-2012, 11:27 AM	#18
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010 Original Poster	Originally posted by vonBaloney I'll be looking forward to it, but 15% is highly exaggerated. %10-15 increase in sharpness is my non-scientific wild guess from the pictures in the web. One thing for sure increase is depends on the AA filter used in the original camera- . Below pictures are before and after the commercial complete removal of the AA filter, not like double AA filter used in Nikon D800E. We'll see the results in the K-5 REMOVING THE Anti-Aliasing-Filter FROM YOUR DSLR - Otto Schulze Photographers Nikon D300HR

09-28-2012, 12:16 PM	#19
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by cbaytan %10-15 increase in sharpness is my non-scientific wild guess from the pictures in the web. At web resolutions where everything is downsampled, it is impossible to see the difference except in 100% crops. Then it will look dramatic, but doesn't really tell you the effect you get when looking at a whole picture, which again on the screen will be nil. Only in larger prints will the two versions begin to separate themselves, or if you want to crop tighter you will be able to get away with a bit more than before.

09-29-2012, 11:06 AM	#20
tclausen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,397	Originally posted by cbaytan i.e macro and landscape photography needs mostly razor ike sharp photos, but wedding and most portrait photos are on the opposite side IIs is not definitely for weddings that require soft dream like pictures, nobody wants to see zits, freckles skin blemishes, from a sharp photo in the weddings, bride would get mad. A soft filter or a nylon stocking can be used tho. so moire won't be a problem. But, won't the bride also be upset if you pull a pair of nylon stockings over her head before each photo? I'm given to understand that it ruins the make-up job...

09-30-2012, 04:19 AM	#21
obscura Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 127	Originally posted by tclausen But, won't the bride also be upset if you pull a pair of nylon stockings over her head before each photo? I'm given to understand that it ruins the make-up job... but... but... trust me... it makes you look beautiful !!!

10-03-2012, 11:59 AM	#22
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by vonBaloney We are talking pixel-level sharpness. Unless the current AA filter is outrageously strong, the improvements will only be noticeable in large prints. On the screen you'll only notice it in 100% crops, so pixel peepers will love it, but if you print out two 8x12s of a full image AA and AA-less you won't be able to see much if any difference. But if you blow them up to 24x36 and beyond it should help. It will also help with the ability to make decent prints from crops that are smaller areas of the original -- so in-effect it also gives us extra reach. I'll be looking forward to it, but 15% is highly exaggerated. I'm tempted to write to that company that cbayton mentioned below to see what they would charge for an existing K5. I made one 24x36 canvas print last year and sold it. That one was sharp enough not to require any AA, but i assure you, i passed over several of my images that i didn't think would work at 36". perhaps AA removal would redeem some new photos enough to go the distance :-), when they would otherwise had been marginal. The removal company mentioned they have a 1 to 2 day turnaround on cameras sent to them. that would be sweet.

10-03-2012, 02:01 PM	#23
tclausen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,397	Originally posted by obscura but... but... trust me... it makes you look beautiful !!! I'm told that the only thing working for me is a pillow-case.....