Hi,

I have scanned trough some articles regarding MTF and "fill factors". It seems that there is a lot of research going on about MTF of sensors at the subpixel level. One issue that came to my mind is that CCD sensor cells approach 100% fill factor (according to some of the articles) while CMOS sensors have a much smaller "fill factor" and the actual sensel area is quite irregular, usually "L-shaped".

As CCD-s seem to have larger fill factor, it seems that they would be in less need of AA-filtering (or OLP-filtering to use another word). This may explain, in part, while MFDBs and Leica can do without AA-filter.

Partly, because it's obvious that both MFDBs and Leica M9 can have "color moiré" in certain cases.

Just "Google" for "fill factor and MTF" and you will find a lot of articles....

Best regards
Erik

Beyond these totally relevant technical factors, the biggest difference between CCD and CMOS is probably the fact that Japanese companies all use CMOS with AA filters while non Japanese companies all use CCD without AA filters.

It would be interesting to think about the reasons why these different technological options were selected by different engineering cultures, but I am more interested today in the downstream part of the process, the communication between brands and reviewers.

It is obvious that Western reviewers like Michael have much closer contacts with Western brands using CCDs without AA filter than they have with Japanese brands using CMOS with AA filters.

It seems fair to say that the promoters of CMOS with AA filters have not invested as much effort in communicating to Western reviewers about their motivations. We are basically only hearing one side of the story.

Cheers,
Bernard

Another area that gets little attention is gamut, which surely is due to the choice of colour filters. I suspect the Japanese manufacturers attend more to things that look good in specs and tets such as high ISO performance, and pixel count i.e. the things that dpreview pixie peepers focus on.

Well... they are not alone. I remember being laughed at big time when I claimed last year on this very forum that true RGB devices like Betterlight backs delivered significantly better colors...

Cheers,
Bernard

The fill-rate (amount of light-sensitive area) is IQ-wise one of the most important technical aspects of sensors. The higher the fill-factor, more photons hit the (larger) light-sensitive surface and more photons can hit it before saturation sets in (important for DR). Of course the analogue sensor signal then has to be amplified and converted in digital information - but what's lost in the sensor, cannot be restored.

Full-frame CCDs need special manufacturing sites (they're expensive), they're slow, they consume much energy and they're stupid (they're just a large array of photodiodes). But they have one big advantage: fill-rate, it's still not 100% but close.
So they are able to gather more information, create a high-quality and still pretty much unprocessed (no filtering etc.) signal. That's why they are used for prefessional digital cameras.

CMOS-based systems have come a long way, but their fill-rate is still quite low but they're capable of very sophisticated image-processing to reduce noise (and they have to, especially certain kinds of pattern noise due to the specific amplification process of CMOS), that's why high-iso-files from these cameras appear quite clean but also tend to be more artificial.
When comparing noise, we have to compare processed (because CMOS-files are always filtered internally) RAW-files regarding noise AND detail. Regarding CMOS and CCD we then have to care about the same pixel-pitch, usage of microlenses and the age of the architecture. The common 6.8µm-CCDs are from 2004! We will have such a rare opportunity to compare "CMOS vs. CCD" again with the appearence of the S2 - it has microlenses (the other 6µm-CCD-systems don't have those) and is comparable to the 20+MP-DSLRs and when the engineers didn't mess up the processing (conversion...) the noise/detail will look different but won't be worse than with CMOS-based systems.

CMOS is the future, the new EVIL-systems need their capability to implement live-view, even for professional camera systems. But the approach will be different, when not using AA-filters, reduce internal processing to minimum and similar HQ-color-filters as in current CCDs, their "look" won't be much different than current CMOS - if there will be a difference at all!
CMOS or CCD-sensors itself don't have a "look", they're just electronic devices to convert light into electric information! The size of the sensels, the microlenses, the architecture etc. don't even affect sharpness/MTF because these things are all affecting individual pixels (just like sharpness is no longer an issue with TFT-displays instead of CRTs). Only the AA-filter affects "sharpness" sensor-wise (given the same pixel-pitch/size)

AA-filters are needed to reduce alaising artifacts "out of the sensor" and have nothing to do with the choice of CCD vs. CMOS. That's what the Japanese DSLRs are designed for: professional press-photography in the upper end and amateurs on the lower end. They both need their images fast without post-processing, even if they have to compromise IQ. MFDB-files are processed carefully in post.
CCDs can be used without microlenses, making them more sensitive to oblique light rays and avoid aberrations - important for technical cameras. But you loose about one stop of sensitivity, because microlenses try to compensate the low fill-rate and focus light only on light-sensitive areas of the sensor. That's why they are more important with CMOS-designs, their "loss in sensitivity" due to the lack of microlenses would be much bigger.

Yes, the optical fill factor does relate to how bad the aliasing will be without an OLPF; however, CCD has not had an advantage in optical fill factor for many, many years thanks to the invention of microlenses. Digicams got up to 100% optical fill factor ~4 years ago, but it was only two years ago that 36x24mm DLSRs finally hit that last few percent to reach 100.

So no, this has not been a reason for the difference in AA-filtering for a long time.

And then the fact that there are Japanese sourced CCDs with AA filters.... .....proving that the usage of AA filters have nothing to do with CCD or CMOS but a deliberate design choice by the camera (not sensor) manufacturers.

Yes, that is indeed correct if you factor in compact cameras. Aren't all Japanese reflex CMOS nowadays?

Regards,
Bernard

Beranrd,

There are some CCD based designs around.

I suggest that you check out this: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html

Best regards
Erik

I was speaking about Japanese DSLRs Erik.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry Bernard!

The two comments were not related. Some of Sony's low end DSLRs are CCD-based, there may be some others.

The Erwin Puts article is interesting because he compares the optical performance of the Nikon D3X with the M9. In short:

- D3X comes out on top
- M9 is very good
- But M9 has also Moiré

That helicopter shoot of yours is very sharp, BTW, you have a recepie for sharpening?

Best regards
Erik

Hi all... :-)

I'd actually say that working without an AA-filter only makes your pictures more detailed (and sharper) in SOME cases. As Fraunhofer (and Kodak, and Dalsa, and several independant studies I've seen) have found, more complex targets with smaller detail or colour-driven detail more often than not get a lower dE ("perfect" original to raw-interpolated picture, pixel-per-pixel value deviation) when you shoot (or simulate) a sensor with an AA-filter and sharpen it right. This is quite logical if you know something about sampling theory and the Bayer CFA principle. Any one pixel HAS to have some relevant and statistically conformant relationship to the surrounding pixels if the interpolation of the two missing colours per pixel is to have any chance at all to do the right estimation. Most studies use the standard Kodak picture targets, software simulated as CFA filtered raws.

The absolutely best results in "mixed" real world picture targets seems to be a controlled 8% light spread in the X- and Y-axis (none in the 45º axises), this gives the raw-interpolation engine maximum detail to work with, with reasonably good relevance to the reality in front of the lens. What is interpreted as "detail" and "sharpness" in an AA-filter-less sensor package is actually mostly interpolation noise and high-frequency detail miscalculations. It has very little to do with real detail and sharpness - except in cases as simple as the Imatest slanted edge measurement - which is a very simple "black square on white background, how sharp is the outline"-test. No detail, no colour.

Easy target, no fine detail or fine colour detail - AA-less is better. ALL other cases - Controlled AA-filter with the right strength is better. Unless you're truly comfortable with the fact that the picture isn't conformant with reality. In Fraunhofer's study, the impression of "more detail" in the AA-filter less sensor could be totally negated by adding a very fine pitch noise to the sharpened AA-filtered version - then the filtered version was perceived as "more detailed", and STILL had better conformance with reality - pixel for pixel as measured by standard deviation from the "perfect" original.

I'm also very surprised that such a seasoned and knowledgeable person as Erwin gives the Leica 250% oversharpening and forgets to scale the resolutions evenly in the comparison graphs... :-) Note that the D3x resolutions are measured out to "2500", and the M9 uses the same graph width, but is stretched to make "1800" the maximum value out right in the graph.... Do a mental correction for the scale differences before you compare the graphs - then the story looks even more "definitely not in favour" of the M9... :-)


Quite a rant for a first post, but I was actually quite "not impressed" with Erwin's latest study - he is usually a VERY dependable and neutral person. Even if his entire salary comes from the Leica PR-department... :-)

And I think that is precisely what is being talked about too. DSLRs. The current Sony A300/350/330/380 along with some of the lower-end Nikon models (D40/D40X/D60), the previous D200 and all of the Pentax models prior to the recent ones employing the Samsung CMOS chip, used CCDs with AA filters.

In all of their semi-pro and above models, Sony has completely transitioned into CMOS and only uses CCD in their lowest-end consumer models. Same story with Nikon, where in the past only the D2X came with CMOS but now all of their semi-pro and Pro models have moved away from CCD into CMOS. Pentax too have transitioned from CCD into CMOS but do retain some CCDs in their lowest-end consumer models.

Hi,

It may be helpful if you could give links to studies you refer to. Even without references I'd say that your comments put the AA-filtering issue in perspective. Regarding Erwin Puts's articles I have not noticed the 250% oversharpening. That said I often feel that data presented by Erwin Puts is not always easy to grasp or compare but I get the impression that he puts a lot of efforts into his tests.

To me it seems odd that DSLR makers would spend resources on quite expensive filters, something that would reduce image quality. It simply doesn't make any sense. Therefore I assume that they are employed for good reason.

Best regards
Erik

Yes,

Just would point out that normally a double layer of OLP are employed, one vertical and one horizontal. Some of the Pentax models seem to have only one OLP (either vertical or horizontal).

Best regards
Erik

@ErikKaffehr
AA-filters are needed if you have to avoid moire at any cost. Press-photographers usually don't have the time to post-process the images to remove moire - they rather live the loss of fine detail/contrast.

Mr. Puts has made some interesting articles about lenses and optical design, this was also his last direct connection to Leica (a brochure in 2005?). But his articles about digital photography are quite often misleading and sometimes even wrong.

@Daniel Browning
The "look" of moire has definitely changed with the various sensor-generations (with increasing fill-rate) but alaising itself appears nevertheless and never seemed to influenced the choice of AA-filter vs. unfiltered!?

@TheSuede
The aspect of bayer-interpolation is quite interesting, but I'm not familiar with these studies.

But the basics of alaising and AA-filters remain unchanged, moire doesn't destroy detail and AA-filters don't preserve it.

No. Not the brand new Nikon D3000 for example, or this year's Sony A220, A330 and A380, or the Pentax K2000 (K-m) and K200D. The Sony 10MP CCD is the main one left is use though; five of the above six use it. I suspect that Sony is squeezing the last value out of its "paid for" DSLR CCD production lines.

Anyway, over the years there have been a great many Japanese DSLR's with CCD sensors, all with AA filters, so I see no connection between AA filter and CCD/CMOS.

It might have more to do with the high end customers (MF, Leica) leaning towards optimizing sharpness and such, and being willing to do some occasional PP on moiré to get the best IQ, whereas the mainstream is more likely to sacrifice the last few percent of sharpness for more consistently usable "out of the box" results.

Which is exactly what I was refering to above.

The opinion of the back/M8/M9 owners has mostly been formed based on information coming from companies doing AA filter less devices. Once you start to listen to both sides of the story, it becomes a lot less clear cut... and as we are seeing with this contribution, there are many people around who believe that the lack of AA filter has little value if any in actual detail rendering.

Cheers,
Bernard

What is being said here is different. According to this contribution, AA filter less devices are intrinsically unable to capture the reality of a scene.

We have gotten used to the smooth fonts we see on our screens but sometimes fail to realize that the disapearance of stair cases on our display is the result of a voluntary blurring of their edges... another example where anti-aliasing is required to make a shape look the way it actually is beyond the limited spatial resolution of the digital information.

All in all, the over-simplications that are often proposed by one party to sell a technology are typically poor basis for judgement. The only option is to listen to ask the question to both parties and listen to both over-simplifications.

Another way is to look at 100% crops and make up one's mind based on the actual results delivered by the technology. Every time I do so, I end up preferring the way the correctly sharpened AA filter image looks.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm not sure how you determined this. The M8/M9/DMR owners I know of who prefer the AA filter-less approach formed their opinions by comparing output from the AA filter-less camera to their other, AA-filtered, cameras.

MaxMax (http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm) offers a AA-filter removal service for several cameras. They've posted results from a Canon 5D.

They claim up to a 30% improvement in resolution. (However, any sensor cleaning features of the camera are lost due to the conversion process.)

It was my impression that the greater the sensor resolution, then moire is less of an issue (or, is this a function more of smaller pixel size, rather than simply more of them per unit area). if this is true, then removing the AA-filter from a 5D2 or a D3x might be useful.

I removed the AA filter on my 5d MkII using Maxmax.
just to let you know they only remove one of two AA filters in the camera since one of the filters is connected directly to the sensor.

Anyway you will see a difference in tiny details especially in an architectural shot, I did one rcently where the amount of tiny detail was beyond what I expected, and yes, there was moire (which is really not a big problem here)

People mention sharpening as having a similar effect but what we're looking at here is more distinct definition of edges of objects in an image.
Sharpening helps abit but seems abit more muddy and flat.

Would it be possible for you to post before/after crops?

Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'll post a shot from the modified camera, together with some moire. unfortunately don't have a comparison shot to show you, but it may give some insight into the effect of having an AA filter removed

Here are some 100% crops.

Sharpening Amount 0, Radius 1.0, Detail 0
Click to view attachment


Sharpening Amount 25, Radius 1.0, Detail 0
Click to view attachment


Sharpening Amount 50, Radius 1.0, Detail 0
Click to view attachment

Sharpening Amount 50, Radius 1.0, Detail 15
Click to view attachment

Translation of marketing-speak: 30% increase in aliasing.

The AA filter strength is tuned to the pixel size, one only needs to blur the image over the size of a Bayer RGGB quartet in order to damp the aliasing. As the pixels get smaller, the needed blur gets smaller. In addition, the effects of lens aberrations and diffraction are fixed, and can do the job of blurring if the pixels are small enough. So as pixels get smaller, the AA filter can be even weaker since the optics is doing part of the blurring already. My understanding is that most current P&S cameras have no AA filter for this reason -- diffraction already provides sufficient blur. Current high-res DSLR's are not yet in the territory that allows removal of the AA filter without substantial aliasing effects.

No! Comparisons are all that count when pixel-peeping. No comparisons, no conclusions can be drawn.

this is the file where the crop is from. I can't remember the settings for this. But it'll give you an idea of how small the crop is relative to the whole 21mp picture.

things I noticed after modifying my 5D mkII:

edges are more defined (and CA is more visible also)
abit more subtle detail overall

Click to view attachment

Ray...
I don't owe you anything. I'm posting this stuff as a general favour. And i'm sharing my experience. If you don't like it, pay someone to do the testing for you, or pay to get it done yourself.

thanks jing for posting the images.

Thanks a lot for the crops.

I am honestly not too impressed by these crops, I feel that correct sharpening applied to d3x files results in both sharper and more pleasing images. This could be depending on the lens though, 90% or my images are shot with the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 that is really sharp.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi,

It may be my view that all pictures need som more agressive sharpening. In Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening there was an example that a 6MP camera sans AA-filter would be sharpened amount=240 and radius=0.6, while a 6MP camera with AA filter would need around amount=500. For > 11MP cameras he suggested radius=0.4.

You could try to sharpen at 0.4 and say 300%

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I don't think they are correctly sharpened.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, in the original sharpening book, Bruce did capture sharpening in two steps. The first step involved global application (with blend if sliders to protect the shadows and highlights) of the unsharp filter. The radius was determined by the megapixel count of the camera and the amount by the strength of the blur filter. The next step was to sharpen for image content (i.e low frequency or high frequency images) using an edge mask. The final step was output sharpening for screen or print output.

A very interesting Zeiss article on MTF showed point spread functions (PSPs) for a 12 MP full frame digital camera (likely the Nikon D3). The white square represents the pixel size. Coma and other aberrations are shown. Image 7 represents an ideal PSF and image 8 shows the effect of a blur filter. The effect of the blur filter appears rather nasty, but one should remember that the effective pixel size of a Bayer array camera approaches twice the pixel size, since demosaicing involves interpolation from a 2x2 pixel array.

Click to view attachment

Sharpening is critically important for cameras with a blur filter. Rather than using the unsharp mask for source sharpening, some photographers use a deconvolution filter such as Focus Magic. Deconvolution is theoretically attractive since it actually removes blur rather than merely improving edge contrast as with the unsharp mask. However, deconvolution requires that one derive a PSP describing how the blur was introduced. In astronomy when one is dealing with point sources, this is relatively simple. However, for normal photography deriving the PSP is more difficult. The Photoshop Smart Sharpen filter is another deconvolution method and it might also be tried. However, one should still sharpen for image content and output. It is not clear if these steps were done with the posted images. BTW, setting the black point improves the images considerably.

heh this wasn't shot with the sharpest lens. it's a 24-70mm.but I was just posting this as an example.
you wouldn't be able to get better photos with your 100mm because this was shot with a wide angle.

it's not a comparison either so it's not a lab test,it's just a personal opinion, from someone who uses dslrs and medium format backs and scanned film of small to large format, who prints up to 68" for exhibitions.
what i'm saying is that this level of detail is not what I would have expected in the past from dslrs if there was an AA filter present

And what I am saying is that there is value for people (a niche perhaps) not to have AA filters on cameras, and that the doom and gloom about moire is overrated.
It's no big deal removing the AA filter, and I like the quality of files coming out from my camera after having the AA filter removed.
quoting you,
'there are many people around who believe that the lack of AA filter has little value if any in actual detail rendering."

and i would like to respond that there are people around who believe that the lack of AA filter HAS value.
and they aren't just leica users who need to justify their costs.

Hi,

I'm aware of the Zeiss article. Just a couple of points:

1) The SPF in the Zeiss article seems to contain lightbeams in 45 degree angles, I'd expect 90 degrees. That said I have no expertise in this area.
2) Focus Fixer cares about camera used, maybee they have some kind of PSF for AA-filter

Looking at the stuff from the practical side, Focus Magic doesn't work on Intel Macs if not using Rosetta. I have tried Focus Magic, Focus Fixer and Smart Sharpen in PS and could not really say that one is preferable over the other.

Best regards
Erik

The "paid for CCD production lines" of Sony Semiconductor Kyushu, also make ultra-high-end CCD sensors for their video/cine-alta line. The Sony F35 Cine-alta, where the bare-bones camera costs $250,000 - not including the cost of a single accessory or lens - comes with a 36x24mm 35mm sized CCD sensor. They have several other models in the Cine-Alta range that also use CCDs exclusively. Thus Sony will not only "squeeze the last value" but will continue to promote that line for a variety of other applications that may or may not be DSLR related.

There have also been rumors about an upcoming 35mm Studio camera with a CCD-sensor from the Sony stable, with around 40MP. Whether true or not, I have no confirmation but being Sony, I would not rule out anything. It is well known that for low-ISO applications where shooting speed is not an overriding consideration, CCDs are the preferred sensor type since they don't have areas on the sensor taken up by the secondary circuitry, like CMOS sensors and thus have a lot more of their area dedicated to gathering light, which in turn translates into better quality images (at least at low ISOs and well lit studio conditions).

Great post, aaykay.



Minor correction: it's actually 23.6x13.3mm (active area). In cinema, the film runs through the camera "hot dog way" (vertically). Still photographers run film through the camera "hamburger way" (horizontally). They both call it "35mm", but one is much bigger than the other.

The F35 sensor (same as the Panavision Genesis) is interesting for a variety of reasons, and not just its astronomical cost. It has 12 megapixels, in an RGB array (not Bayer), with alternating rows having an ND filter. All 6 pixels are then combined in a proprietary process to generate one single output pixel with high dynamic range (thanks to the ND). So it only puts out 2 MP, which is the maximum that could be utilized by the highly expensive Sony tape system anyway. While I would have expected the design to make it possible for very little aliasing (chroma or luma), the unfortunate reality is that the F35 has a much higher degree of aliasing than its contemporaries.

Cool stuff. I did not know some of these finer points and some of the Film vs Still differences. Thanks for clarifying. So is such an RGB sensor design adaptable for (future) dSLRs, than employing Bayer designs ? Is this similar to the Foveon RGB design ?

It's possible, but not a good idea. It only made sense for Sony because their tape system cannot record over 2 MP. Our flash cards can record almost any resolution because we have much lower frame rates in still photography, so it does not make sense for us to throw away so much resolution.



No, Foveon takes 3 samples at a single location, whereas the F35 takes 6 samples at 6 separate locations, then combines them into 1.

A better idea is to use double read CCD at different polarization to obtain 2 files for HDR.

Almost instantaneously so that you can shoot HDR without tripod !!!

Don't remember where I found that, but they are projects of some manufacturers.

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry

I want to believe in that, and wouldn't hesitate to have the AA filter of my d3x removed, but still haven't seen any samples proving the point.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard,

The question is really if removing the the AA-filter actually increases resolution or just reduces the need of sharpening. So the question is if we can just increase sharpening to compemsate for AA-filtering. It seems that if remove the AA-filter we will have same artifacts, colorful or not, but it seems no one cares about the artifacts as long as they are monochrome.

That helicopter picture of yours was impressive, how was it processed?

Best regards
Erik

I believe there was a company mentioned eariler, that removes AA filters for a charge, right ? Would they not have before and after samples ? What if we write to them or call them up ?

Hi,

They have. Problem is that they are JPEG. I downloaded a couple of their samples and increased sharpening on the AA-filtered image and could not see a significant difference.

Here is my posting on the issue: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=144346

and here is one from Christopher: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=145485

Both have samples

Best regards
Erik

No AA filter in raw is always noticeable. But you will get moires and jaggies unless you are using a Fuji or Foveon sensor or something without a Bayer pattern (or that technically does bracketing and blending in-camera)

Note - bracketing and blending half or even a quarter of a stop apart will make artifacts disappear. It's a cheap and dirty method to get clean results if you are shooting something that isn't moving. In this case, the AA filter isn't even needed. But... finding a camera without one is essentially impossible these days as they cater to consumers instead of pros these days.

Erik,

It was converted in C1 Pro with capture sharpening set at something like 400, 0.6 if I recall (my typical capture sharpening), works great on the d3x files at low ISO since there simply no noise from highlights to shadows.

I may have added a bit of sharpening in PS, not too sure what I did, but anyway this sample it representative of what I get with the d3x when using good lenses like the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 or the 300 f2.8 VR.

I keep thinking that it looks better when viewed at 100% than all the other AA filter less samples I have seen, excluding perhaps some of the P65+ samples.

Cheers,
Bernard

George,

You made a post last week, but I didn't notice it until today.



I don't understand if you're rephrasing my statement in the form of a question or making your own statement in the form of a comment, but perhaps it will help if I just add a clarification. My position is that aliasing characteristics are dependent on the optical fill factor (with microlenses considered), not the electronic fill factor (of the bare sensor with no microlenses). I think that microlenses have given CMOS optical fill factors comparable to CCD for at least several years; therefore it has not influenced the choice to use OLPF or not.



First of all, there is no post-processing that can truly remove moire. The best software (C1P IMHO) can only smear the moire into the surrounding detail.

Second, moire is only the worst and most offensive aliasing artifact. But there are many other aliasing artifacts that I find displeasing and unnatural, including jaggies, stair-stepping, sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, bands, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, and false detail. These, too, are impossible to remove through any automated or semi-automated software process.

In real life, when you pour two liters of water into a one liter container, water spills out and makes a mess. But camera design is different: when you pour two liters of water into a one liter container, the water folds back on itself and corrupts the entire container. The amount of water is the level detail (spatial frequency), and the volume of the container is the number of megapixels in the camera. Aliasing is the corruption. Anti-aliasing filters reduce detail down to a level that can fit within the pixel resolution.

But of course, that's just me personally. Two people can look at the exact same image and each see something different. Take an aliased image for example. Where one sees overly harsh and sudden transitions from black to white in just 2 pixels, another sees microcontrast. Where one gets the impression of fakeness, another gets the feeling of sharpness. Where one is jarred by the conformation of small details into a slightly different location than they exist in nature, another is awestruck by the high acuity.

Same thing with anti-aliased images. Where one sees slow, smooth, and careful transitions from black to white, over 3 or more pixels, another sees mushy detail. One gets the impression of natural, life-like renditions, another gets the feeling of haze and low contrast.

So you may percieve an unfiltered image as having high microcontrast, sharpness, and acuity; while I see the same one as harsh and unnatural. The OLPF'd images you perceive as mushy, haze, lowcon images are, to me, smooth and natural. So it would be difficult for us to come to agreement on how big of an issue aliasing is.

I think part of the reason why some manufacturers (e.g. MFDB) exclude OLPF is cost. A good OLPF is lab-grown, high-grade, ground, and polished Lithium Niobate crystal. The cost scales exponentially with area because even the tiniest defect will show up on the image, thanks to being so close to the sensor. Even though MFDB is only three times more area than 35mm, the cost can be an order of magnitude (or more) higher. More importantly, Canon/Nikon ship millions of units a year, compared to less than 6,000/year for all MFDB combined, so economies of scale is a huge factor.

If camera manufacturers were shrewd enough, they would stop wasting so much money and effort to fight it. It's not like they get appreciated for it, they're more often lambasted (IMHO). I think the market of people that like aliasing is large enough. But since I happen to belong to the smaller part that prefers anti-aliased images, I'm glad they haven't (yet) given up on the expensive AA filters, and hope they never do. (At least until we start hitting diffraction cutoff frequencies at faster f-numbers.)



I kindly disagree. For my taste, the AA-filtered image is better, because although the detail is low contrast, at least it's real. The detail in an unfiltered image is very high contrast, but it's false detail. But I understand that others have different personal preferences.

This last comment is important. The reality is that high contrast(actual rather than artificial as you noted) and good definition is often of far more importance than absolute sharpness.

I think if you were truly interested in that you would have seeked out some AA filterless images and tested it out yourself.
I'm not the only person who removed their AA filter however it's interesting to see a lot of people who don't use AA filterless cameras coming out of the woodworks to slam the idea of removing the AA filter everytime this topic is mentioned.

MR himself seems to like his images without AA filters, maybe these AA unfiltered images are not quite as terrible an idea as everyone makes them out to be?

just sayin' you know.

the company is Maxmax.
I think it is a good idea to call them up to post new samples, or maybe they should lend a few cameras to a few people to try out and give their opinion.
I guess marketing isn't their strong point.