07-19-2019, 09:41 PM
(07-18-2019, 08:57 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Another braindead post. JoJu, your nonsense does not convince anyone. Your total lack of any knowledge about aliasing, what AA-filters are, sampling, CFAs and so on is obvious, but remains very strange.
And that you will denend Sigma with your life over their nonsensical MP-count is maybe even stranger.
Don't do so much projection, it really is very much like to what we get to see from Trump and the Republicans.
Now you outed yourself as braindead, stubborn and dumb. You never ever delivered any significant proof of what you continue to blabber. Why not showing a comparison between "fake and true sharpness"? Because you're incapable to deliver, as simple as that. You're so totally off reality that I see no reason to take your crap seriously anymore. And speaking of Trump: Long before he became president, you had his attitude: Never to excuse yourself for false information and insulting other people who dared to take another position. I guess you're both the same age.
But for those who want to really know what's going on I made a comparison between a pretty outdated Foveon sensor with 14.75 MP size and a Fujifilm X-E2 with a sensor of 15.98 MP with an AA filter - the Fujifilm already should have an advantage. Even more so because base ISO of the Sigma is ISO 100 and the Fuji starts at ISO 200 - so I put both on ISO 200. Now find out for yourself, how real BC's AA-filter delivers "true sharpness" and how much of Sigmas details you find "fake" and visible aliasing: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Fov...2/n-5vGCz3
Those are PNG screenshots of 100% views of processed 16 bit RAWs without sharpening and it's pretty obvious that the AA filter constantly smudges details. Prove me wrong, you old fool. I'm sick of your stupid, meaningless and insignificant attacks.
At first, no printer is able to print squarish pixels - they all print strictly non-cubistic structures, inkjet deliver drops, Laser-printers work with powder and none can ever show any sensor patterns. Therefore in reality one will never see in pixel patterns at print resolution.
Also, no sensor can ever record vector structures. The only thing AA filter does is putting a soft-filter on a geometrical pattern. That was needed back in the day, when sensors were below 10 MP. It has no meaning anymore, it costs contrast and sharpness. Plus, all cameras without AA filters - quite a few these days - then need to be callled out for "fake sharpness". This is a ghost shaking its rusty chains only in the brain of BC.