Daylight transparency

Erm! no FUJIFILM forum under equipment for some reason so I thought I'd post here (apologies in advance for any pain I might cause).

I came across the "expert" statement below by a well established online photography "guru" with a massive following which, IMHO, borders embezzlement. any thoughts? - watch the space.

 

Certainly possible but proof of concept of an image that would show moiré well (finely ruled lines) with this and an traditional sensor would go a long way to convincing people who find marketing speak alone iffy.

Certainly possible but proof of concept of an image that would show moiré well (finely ruled lines) .

 

This is killing me- heres one of my own shots of a classical moire setup from an x100T (xtrans ii) OOC - the "sharper more detailed" image looks more like a Renoir IMHO.

 

and heres ACR processed shot using matching classic chrome profile - 20% sharpening

 

an heres, shock and horror, irident extracted file post processed in ACR - you can jack up colour noise reduction all you like and it wouldnt change a thing -

 

Ideally you would shoot a raw of a target or something looking like this:

http://digitaldog.net/files/Sharpening%20Grid.jpg

Ideally you would shoot a raw of a target or something looking like this

 

nothing beats real life - I just feel sad for all those who bought into the system myself included based on, to say the least, doctored marketing and dodgy expert insights.

Edited July 25, 2021 by bitphotospace

nothing beats real life

Targets for evaluating moiré and sensors qualities is indeed real life.

IF the images you've used for testing provide an evaluation you desire, fine. You've answered your own question.

Targets for evaluating moiré and sensors qualities is indeed real life.

IF the images you've used for testing provide an evaluation you desire, fine. You've answered your own question.

 

My question was actually re. thoughts on unsubstantiated presumably trustworthy claims hoodwinking those with no means of practically checking.

My question was actually re. thoughts on unsubstantiated presumably trustworthy claims hoodwinking those with no means of practically checking.

“There are no right answers to wrong questions” -Ursula K. Le Guin

"If you want a wise answer, ask a reasonable question." -Johann von Goethe

You got some thoughts and a testing (proof of concept) suggestion. My job here is done.

Come up with any conclusions that make you happy. Based on empirical testing or assumption.

My question was

I don’t think you had a question so much as an agenda. You’re perfectly entitled to an agenda and the Internet seems the place to go to badmouth others to an audience which often doesn’t include that other who might speak for themselves. It seems more along the lines of gossip than question.

unsubstantiated presumably trustworthy claims hoodwinking those with no means of practically checking.

That just doesn’t sound like part of a sincere question, now does it? :)

Well at least Sam, he did admit: "apologies in advance for any pain I might cause" <g>.

I think more effort in proper exposure and/or raw processing* (at least based on the three building images from the OP) would go farther than worrying about this Fuji sensor or what someone on a Fuji forum stated that may actually end up being true: after proper testing.

 

*Download any of the above images, crop just the image: the degree of channel and full highlight clipping seen in a good Histogram or Levels with clipping overlay shows, there is more problems with this 'test' image than moiré <g>.

 

http://digitaldog.net/files/BADclipping.jpg

Edited July 25, 2021 by digitaldog

 

That just doesn’t sound like part of a sincere question, now does it? :)

 

 

“If one cannot read or rather “perceive” a question - one cannot provide a reasonable answer” quoting myself :) it’s just not that “simple” -

[quote="digitaldog, post: 5911403, member: 361342"

I think more effort in proper exposure and/or raw processing* (at least based on the three building images from the OP) would go farther than worrying about this Fuji sensor or what someone on a Fuji forum stated that may actually end up being true: after proper testing.

 

[/quote

I thought you already provided the “right” answer by advising on using the linear pattern target - but appreciate your additional effort nonetheless- extremely helpful!

[quote="digitaldog, post: 5911403, member: 361342"

 

I think more effort in proper exposure and/or raw processing* (at least based on the three building images from the OP) would go farther than worrying about this Fuji sensor or what someone on a Fuji forum stated that may actually end up being true: after proper testing.

 

[/quote

I thought you already provided the “right” answer by advising on using the linear pattern target - but appreciate your additional effort nonetheless- extremely helpful!

 

Can I help you further in learning how to format posts here, or expose your raws without blowing out highlights?

Edited July 25, 2021 by digitaldog

Articles on exposing for raw, without need to worry about moiré first (apologies in advance for any pain I might cause):

OneZone – The Optimum Digital Exposure

ETTR

The Optimum Digital Exposure - Luminous Landscape

http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf

The Unbearable Lightness of Mystic "Exposure" Triangle

Red Flowers Photography: Now It is Easy to See the Real Picture

Exposure for RAW vs. Exposure for JPEG

Beware the Histogram

Establishing the in-camera exposure meter calibration point is the way to extract more dynamic range from your camera

Can I help you further in learning how to format posts here, or expose your raws without blowing out highlights?

 

appreciated! But then again - my question was re. Moiré :)

appreciated! But then again - my question was re. Moiré :)

Your "question" was "answered" as best as can be based on the qualities (or lack thereof) of the question. By you to some degree. It probably is based on a lack of firm evidence and certainly on sound testing but, as Sam suggested, this really does appear more an agenda than a quest for a factual, proof based process and thus answer.

 

Really, the big problem I see for you, at least based on what you've shown us isn't moiré, its either the lack of making a proper exposure of the raw, or how that raw was processed.

Moiré is the least of the issues as you've shown us.

Maybe consider solving the 'big' problems first, then the minutia?

Edited July 25, 2021 by digitaldog

Really, the big problem I see for you, at least based on what you've shown us isn't moiré

 

really appreciate you spending more educating time on this thread. btw the image was overexposed to test the raw DR but that’s another “question” -

really appreciate you spending more educating time on this thread. btw the image was overexposed to test the raw DR but that’s another “question” -

Yet another reason why, as suggested, that image isn't appropriate for testing moiré.

As for testing exposure, what product are you using to view a raw Histogram?

I think there is confusion in the word "detail". Moire affects identically repeating patterns and can prevent good visualization of detail in those repeating patterns (suspension bridge wires, some architectural elements, fabrics) but random fine detail such as is usually found in nature will be fine and will not require an anti-aliasing filter. So I think the blanket statement of sharper more detailed images is too simple, especially as many (most?) mirrorless cameras no longer have anti-aliasing filters. Moire is much less of a problem for most images as sensor resolution has increased and simple software solutions are available if it occurs, so I do think that the X-trans sensor's raison d'etre is not all that strong these days.

that image isn't appropriate for testing moiré.

 

Would you pls. elaborate? You’re not suggesting moiré occurs as a function of over exposure - are you?

Would you pls. elaborate? You’re not suggesting moiré occurs as a function of over exposure - are you?

I told you earlier the ideal way to test moiré and no, clipping highlights that might contain moiré and other image data isn't a useful 'technique' in evaluating anything in the image.

the X-trans sensor's raison d'etre is not all that strong these days.

 

Its never been in fact strong nor true for that matter - see the massive false colour in the fabric (particularly the collar) at base iso xtrans is capable of generating once you extract "near trure" sensor output (left image - I used irident which I suspect deploys merksteijn demosaicing algorithm - comparable results can be obtained in RT). see how the camera engine renders (oh I swear by their colous!) the JPEG - dead almost cartoonish reconstruction hiding the false colour anomalies (mid image) - oh so much for the sharper, more detailed images rivaling full-frame chips etc. Even ACR struggles not to mention worms once you jack up sharpness a tiny bit (right image).

 

Like countless others, I have invested in this system (not much thankfully as I quickly spotted the trick) and so called reputable internet gear experts are partly to blame but I am still puzzled by the whole affair.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by bitphotospace

I told you earlier the ideal way to test moiré and no, clipping highlights that might contain moiré and other image data isn't a useful 'technique' in evaluating anything in the image.

 

what you say is true - but as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread - tis never that simple. regardless, many thanks for taking the time -