I have not invented aliasing, Nyquist limit or signal processing.
It is quite basic, if you put a high resolution lens in front of a low resolution sensor the sampling will introduce low frequency aliases. Cameras without OLP filtering produce aliasing, unless resolution is reduced by some means. Here is a good example of aliasing artifacts for Pentax 645D:
The example is for Pentax. I am pretty sure that similar issues would be seen on the DRM but raw files from DRM are not that abundant on the net. It would also be problematic to discuss about a feathers of a bird, you can show the cameras interpretation of the bird but it says little if you don't have a sample of the same bird.
There are two ways to reduce aliasing, one is to reduce MTF using an optical low pass filter or stopping down to small apertures, the other one is to increase resolution.
Regarding aliasing, the combination of a good lens and sensor with large pixels and no OLP is a bad combination. Microlenses can help, as they increase the fill factor. A system with higher fill factor will produce less aliases.
On everyday subjects it would be hard to tell fake and real details apart, on test charts it is more obvious, because you can count the line pairs, if you see the same number of line pairs in the image as in the subject the detail is probably real, but if you fewer line pairs than in the subject the details are obviously fake.
For real world subjects it may matter little, but once you are aware of the matter it will be much more obvious.
Sorry for my words, I am an engineer by profession. If I see something I can't understand I try to collect information, design tests and try to find out.
Just to mention, my normal print size is A2. I essentially print A2 if I print, that is 15.5"x23.4". I would like to print larger but it is not practical. A2 prints make a nice picture when framed at 50x70cm with a passepartout. If I print larger I would send the file for printing, don't do that so often. Also, I always shoot raw.
"Another observation about the DMR is that it is a camera that obviously produces a lot of fake detail. You cannot put a very good lens on a camera with large non OLP filtered pixels without producing a lot of artefacts. It seems that photographers object to colour moiré but largely ignore or even enjoy other aliasing artefacts. Aliasing will produce fake detail, that is a fact."
"I guess that the M9 has a similar pixel size to the DMR and I presume that the Leica M lenses are of similar quality, so I would presume that the DMR would perform pretty like the M9. The M9 has microlenses, at that may reduce aliasing to some extent. I don't know about microlenses on the DMR."
Your first comment was with respect to the DMR, Eric. You then go on to post a sample of a test chart taken with an M9P. Different sensor, different microlenses, different software... yet this doesn't matter to you as you use it as evidence to support your claim.
You then go on to state that you presume that "the M9 would perform pretty like the M9."
You're very presumptuous. Making assumptions like this with no evidence is of no use to anyone on any forum since you can't substantiate your claims with evidence from a different sensor, software etc. Yet still you assume.
I've never known anyone who bought a DMR to shoot test charts. Most of us use the camera so shoot everything but test charts and I've never seen the effects you attribute to the DMR. In your infinite wisdom, you've proven all of the imaging engineers at Kodak, Imacon, Leica, Sigma, Sinar, Phase, and everyone else who uses CCD and CMOS chips devoid of OLP filters to be wrong, with your statement "You cannot put a very good lens on a camera with large non OLP filtered pixels without producing a lot of artefacts." So not only are these companies selling faulty sensors on their cameras but they're peddling us mediocre lenses as excellent lenses given your assertion above.
It's truly unfortunate that all of the medium format sensor makers and all of the camera makers that use CCD and CMOS sensors devoid of OLP filters didn't consult with you before dumping untold resources into image making devices that create so much fake detail. I suggest that you present your credentials to them as it would save them a lot of money spent on technology that produces "a lot of fake detail."
You've taken sophistry to a new level. This is one of the unfortunate aspects of the internet, as some will read your post and make assumptions, just as you have, repeating your nonsense on other forums until it becomes commonplace. And all the while those of us shooting with Leica DMR's, M8's, M9's, M240's, S2's Sigma Merrill's and all medium format digital backs will be producing beautiful images with our cameras using sensors that produce so much "fake detail."
You're digging a wonderful hole for yourself in full view of the entire internet world to see. And no doubt, I've provided you with a new shovel to continue your task. Have at it.
Viva los detalles falsos!!!