Larry Colen wrote: >The luminous landscape article on the 645D touched on something that >I've been wondering about. Since it's always possible to throw away >information digitally, but not recover it, why isn't anti-aliasing done >in post processing if and when it's needed?
Anti-alias filtering, *by definition*, has to be done before sampling takes place (which in the case of digital imaging is at the sensor). You can mitigate the effects resulting from aliasing after sampling, but that's not the same as anti-aliasing. Pentax have decided that the latter approach is, in fact, the one they're going to take. It ought to be more practical with a 40-megapixel MF sensor than with 35mm-class DSLR's. We'll have to wait and see. BTW: From what I've heard, cost is a major reason for eliminating the anti-aliasing filter (it's reportedly why Kodak left it off their 14MP full-frame DSLR). Apparently they're damned near as expensive as the sensors they're used on. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
