K5 2S moire-Just for the record

My final contributions to this subject are as follows:

1. Zoom into any image posted on this Forum or on the Gallery and you will see jagged lines and pixel structure. Images are made up of small squares that are visible when viewed at the appropriate level of zoom. Please explain how you will correct this issue that all photographers on this site are falling foul of.


2. People who take calculated risks are usually those who are successful in business and in life in general


3. When have I said that I upload any of my images to magazines? I don't, but if I did I would make sure they were right before I did so


4. When did I say it's 'Photoshop's fault'? Regardless, this is irrelevant due to point 3 above.


5. You have a PM Smeggy, please don't write rubbish about me.

Regards
David

It's pretty clear your hyperbole surrounding the K-5IIs from the day you got it, including the snide comments denigrating the lowly opinions of others including myself for not owning the camera and further regarding the moire issue here and other debates is down to you defending your purchase.

If you behave that way on a forum then other people who are the brunt of your comments are going to respond. I'm not writing rubbish about anyone. I just tell it like it is.

Just enjoy your camera and stop worrying if other people can't see the point of the K-5IIs for it's tiny IQ difference versus the extra expense, or they don't want to risk getting moire.

I won't be opening your PM as frankly I've spent too much time on this childish rubbish already.

OK, that's enough guys. No further comments on this please, it's just descending into a slanging match.

This might be of some interst..

http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm

--

Very interesting, thank you Algi.

Personally I just use Photoshop CS5 and Bicubic resampling. USM is 50%, Radius 1.4 pixels and Threshold 3. That assumes an image size of around 1000 pixels wide on the longest side.

It shouldn't be about anyone defending their purchase, nor is it about anyone's skills and or creativity - it is just about what is visible for inspection on an image shot with the camera. David's photo has been put up as an example, and I wanted to focus on that. David, its a good shot well captured - what is interesting though is the quite catastrophic noise in those areas I referred to before.

I believe there are some signs of a layering type pattern (not unlike common moire effect) to the colour noise, and apparently repeating patterns in the surface textures of the subject here. But the noise needs to be eliminated before any moire can be identified clearly IMO.

The real questions here are - does moire & noise interact in any way to exaggerate either issue, and is traditional colour noise removal in any way effective where moire is also present?

I only raise these because the shot, as taken on a K5IIs, would not normally be at risk of high noise under the lighting conditions would it? I don't know the ISO, but these cameras should perform better I'd have thought up to a high ISO level.

And lets put to rest the 'jaggies' and compression thing - I don't think anyone is seeing or referring to this compression effect - I doubt that it is occurring on any of the images that are being referred to as the amount of compression would need to be very high. And am I right in saying that jpeg compression does not increase the density of colour noise that is visible?

LMAO. I can't see this 'catastrophic colour noise'. Have you been rubbing your eyes too hard? ;P

Off topic posts removed.

And again....

link i like the music as well

Thank you for the links, Algi (i.e. Nikon d800 + Down-sampling) - interesting and helpful.

Philip

Sorry, don't understand LMAO . The dramatic language has a function - its only referring to those very localised areas - not 'catastrophic' to the image as a whole (although at large sizes IMO it would make it unusable), but rather 'catastrophic' to the integrity of the subject texture, colour and detail on those areas.

It only takes a little closer look to see - the top panel of the black lamp in the foreground, but more so on the stone wall rising to the left of the dome, and the sandy coloured underhang below the roof of the building on the left.

But the only thing that is of interest here is whether the noise on the patterned textures is interacting with moire causing an exaggeration of either - and of course the main question, whether moire is a concern on artitectural shots of this nature.

I currently test a Ricoh GR from Pentax/Ricoh Germany.
As the weather is not really good here, I also have looked at color moiré.
Imho, it was quite easy to provoke problems:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/photos-of-and-with-the-gr----44957#comm48...