• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 100 / Visibility of aliasing GFX 50R, 100 aliasing in prints

Visibility of aliasing GFX 50R, 100 aliasing in prints

August 22, 2019 JimK 2 Comments

This is a post of interest to any mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera (MILC) user. I’ve illustrated it with images from the Fujifilm GFX 100. You can find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “GFX 100”. It’s also in the “GFX 50S” category.

I have been posting recently on aliasing in the Fujifilm GFX 50R, the GFX 50S, and the GFX 100. Yesterday, I received a question:

…given the pixel resolution of those sensors under normal shooting conditions with normal subjects, what are the chances that aliasing will be perceptible in a print?

The range of normal subjects and normal shooting conditions is extreme, so I can’t deal with that part of the question. But I can deal with the question of how big a print has to be before aliasing is visible, and that’s what I’m going to do in this post.

I started with this GFX 100 image:

 

 

If you zoom in, it shows modest aliasing:

GFX 100, 110 mm f/2, f/4

Using an Epson P800, I printed it on a piece of C-size Epson Legacy Batyra with 1-inch borders, so that the image was 15 inches high. I told Lightroom to res it down to 360 pixels/inch (ppi) before sending it to the printer driver. That means it was 5400 pixels high. The file itself is 8736 pixels high, so 5400 pixels is about 62% of the original height, so the file sent to the printer driver has only about 38% of the pixels of the original file. I told Lightroom to perform standard output sharpening.

Then I looked at the print from about 15 inches away. There was definitely aliasing visible, but it wasn’t the aliasing that you see above, which had been turned gray: it was introduced by the downressing in Lightroom.

GFX 50R 110/2 at f/4

It shows more aliasing:

Printed 15 inches high with the same Lightroom procedure, it shows visible aliasing from about 18 inches away, both the aliasing in the image above, and some aliasing caused by Lightroom’s downsizing it from 6192 pixels to 5400 pixels high.

I next printed out crops of the two images with the native resolution of the raw file matching that of the printer driver, which is 360 ppi. That would have made a full print of the GFX 50R image about 17 inches high, and that from the GFX 100 image about 24 inches high. The aliasing in the GFX 50R shot stood out like sore thumb. The GFX 100 aliasing was visible from 15 inches, but didn’t look as bad as it does in the tight crop above.

A Siemens Star can hardly be considered a natural image. So I printed full frames 15 inches high from the GFX 100 and GFX 50R images from which these tight crops came:

GFX 50R

 

GFX 100

I printed the full frames out 15 inches high, and examined them. They looked very similar in sharpness, and the artifacts in the GFX 50R shot above weren’t visible. If was interesting that the GFX50 R shot looked just a hair sharper. Then I took crops and printed them out so that full frame images would have been about 36 inches high. The artifacts were visible from 15 inches. The differences weren’t striking; heck, they aren’t striking above.

 

 

GFX 100, GFX 50S

← Optimum Z6/7 manual focusing strategies Sony a7RIV EDR and dark-field spectra →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    August 23, 2019 at 7:02 am

    Hi,

    Pixel peeping your samples on screen, I would say that the benefits of the GFX 100 are obvious. I have not checked the images 6 feet away from the screen.

    My take may be that:

    – If you look for the best image quality, the GFX 100 is the obvious choice.
    – But for moderate sized prints the difference may just not matter.

    On the other hand, the GFX 100 will always deliver the best image.

    In most cases, lesser systems may deliver images that are good enough.

    The ultimate question may be if a 24×36 mm system like A7r#, Nikon Z7 or Canon EOS R are ‘good enough’ or you need to go for 102 MP on 33×44 mm. It is a good question.

    I would guess that the answer may be about printing needs. Printing large, the GFX 100 pulls away… But, 100 MP on 44×33 mm is not the end of the game, we will see new sensors in a few years.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Reply
    • David Berryrieser says

      August 23, 2019 at 9:53 am

      We don’t currently have a higher resolution sensor on the roadmap from Sony at the 44x33mm frame size. Based on how long the older IMX161 has lasted, my guess is that we will see the current 100MP IMX461 as state of the art for the next 5 years.

      Personally, when I look at the 30″x40″ prints I get of the GFX 50S, I am pretty happy with the image quality and don’t feel the need for more resolution. Not that I would complain about having a GFX100. I’m just hoping for a GFX 100S down the line at some point, ideally without IBIS and PDAF, better battery location, and a stiffer body.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.