K5 2S moire-Just for the record

Here's a is an example of moire using the K52S. It's a crop at 2:1. f4.5 16mm

I fully agree, the image above is a good example as is the one pointed out by Steve. This is completely different to anything on the images of mine that Algi has linked to.

I think we have to be really careful not to give people the wrong impression and a misunderstanding of what is moire versus compression artefacts. If you zoom right in on Gary Cabstar's image taken with a K-5ii (not iis) at the top of page 2 on this thread, there are lots of jaggies around edges (see guitar especially), but this is not moire either, it is mostly the result of compression.

Regards
David

David is correct in his differentiation of moiré and other artifacts.

(But note that how it appears will vary with system/monitor/graphic card combos.)

But in these 2 examples, it is sufficiently large, I wonder if the K5 (Mk1) might not display it if photographed in exactly the same circumstance/time.

If you follow this link you can see the moire on the jaxket

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabstar/9199162945/in/set-72157634466184392

More pronounced than the small compressed image i posted here

You're right Nigel, there is a lot of colour noise on the image you have mentioned. I've zoomed it to 700% on the version posted on the Forum (which is very compressed in the first place) and luminance / colour noise is visible in most areas. However, let's be sensible about this, if you zoom any of the Forum images posted by anyone you will see a level of colour and luminance noise! How anyone can conclude this is 'moire' is beyond me I'm afraid.

Take Gary's image at the top of page 2 for example, or the images you posted of the Steam Fair Waltzers a day or two ago - these also exhibit large areas of colour noise to a greater or lesser degree. I did not clean up colour noise on any of the Mediterranean images I posted and this one in particular was quite dark on the original so has had a fair increase to shadows / levels. This obviously impacts on image noise, especially if I haven't cleaned it up! Check out other images on the same Mediterranean thread taken with the K-5iiS and you will see far less noise where the exposure was more accurate, but if you choose to pixel-peep you can find some in any image on here.

We really are in danger of jumping to incorrect conclusions based on little or no knowledge of the facts. All I'm trying to do is to be sensible and explain that what people are seeing is not moire in these images, whereas in the recent examples posted tonight it clearly is moire. Colour noise does not mean moire, luminance noise does not mean moire, jaggies on compressed images does not mean moire. I don't strive to publish, print or display my images for any other reason than photography is my hobby, so I don't pay particular attention to ensuring they will withstand large print sizes or zooming to ridiculous levels on a website forum, so I would fully expect some of them to have colour and luminance noise!

It does annoy me slightly (you may have noticed) when people take images posted on this site as 'evidence' that for example the 'K-5iis is not suitable for architectural images'. Please excuse my bluntness, but 'what a load of codswallop'.

Regards
David

The psycology of defending one's purchase.

Who cares. Let's just enjoy our cameras. They all take great pictures.

The No:1 Rule in professional photography is that you don't take
chances That's why in the film era 5"x4" was the minimum
acceptable for architectural photography even though it could
have been risked and done in half the time with a Hasselblad.

A magazine editor working to a deadline would love you if they
sent you to get some shots of the piece of sculpture holding
the blue flowers in it's natural surroundings and wanted it
800 pixels wide and they got a complaint from the printers
saying they couldn't use it and won't meet the deadline because
the edges were jagged

I don't think the editor would be very impressed with the
excuse that you've got the full sized one in front of you
and it's OK and it's Photoshops fault and you don't know
how to use any other tools with say Lanzcos algorithmns

That's why they (editors) use photographers that they've
known for years, because they can get the image correct
and meet the deadline. That's the reason the likes of
David Bailey have such long careers. Editors won't risk
using unknowns.

-

Whilst the point you make has truth in it Algi, the context isn't as relevant.

I doubt very much that David or anyone else would send a low resolution copy of an image to a magazine. They would send the full sized one, properly prepared to specification. If they didn't it would get chucked out.

The image provided for a web forum is something else and it can only really be viewed sensibly at the normal screen size as presented. If it is then it will look fine. Many images seen are less than optimal, but not everyone knows how to prepare them for web.

It depends on where the jaggies came from John. The anti-alias
filters were put on the cameras so that it wasn't coming from
there. Remove it and there is a big risk that it will return,
making it unsuitable for professional architectural use. which
is all I said in the first place, but people seem to want to
make it into something bigger.

I know what you mean by the size submitted, but the fact
is that no one can put back what isn't there, because
it's been removed by moire. It's also a poor reflection
on the photographer that he can't do his own PP. What
does he do ring the magazine and say I know you want
this 800 pixels wide, but I can't reduce it without
jaggies, so I'll send you the full RAW and see if
you can do it any better

--

I'm not sure you're not just teasing us Algi, but the potential is there for beginners to be very confused by what is being said. That could well lead them to inappropriate purchases when PU is actually here to help people. Flippancy can have expensive consequences.

If you're serious then there are things you are misunderstanding I think and it might merit looking at again with an open mind.

I am sure Algi genuinely believes he is making valid points. That is the troubling thing.

I think it's time this subject was closed. It's well covered
on more technical forums and blogs for anyone who is interested.

Incidentally the Pentax K100D had a very weak anti-alias
filter and suffered badly from moire..... nice example here.

--

You've linked to a discussion of the Nikon D800/D800E. is there a reference to the K100D or were you just linking to an explanation of the differences between an AA and non-AA camera in a general sense?

Roll down the page John, there's a K100 sample pic of a silo with moire.

Agree it's probably time to stick a fork in this one.

It's done.

Ah yes, thank you. A very unusual example, but a good one.