Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 19, 2006, 12:31 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

jphess wrote:
Quote:
Raw images are supposed to not be affected by in camera sharpening, contrast, saturation or any other in-camera adjustments. They are supposed to be the "raw" data from the camera that has not been affected by anything other than ISO and white balance. But it appears that they are masked in the same fashion as JPEG images.
Well, I don't know about "supposed to be", since raw files from each camera model are proprietary for the most part.

It's generally believed that no processing has been applied to raw files. But, there is some controversial evidence that suggests otherwise for some cameras (for example, Nikon's compressed .nef format).

Most manufacturers do not apply the in camera settings to the raw file. But, these settings are in the metadata portion of the headers, and some raw converters can use them.

For example, most raw converters support the "as shot" white balance information (which is basically some RGB multipliers that are applied during the raw conversion process). The camera manufacturers' raw converter typically supports the most camera settings during the conversion.

As for "masking" the images, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean discarding some of the pixels that aren't needed, yes, that happens. Not all manufacturers do it the same way.

Some manufacturers even allow cropped raw files. For example, the Nikon D2x has a "high speed crop" mode that produces a 6.3MP image. If you are shooting raw with this model, the raw files are also cropped, taking up less space on your memory card, and giving you more frames before the camera's buffer fills up.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2006, 7:50 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 137
Default

Tostada wrote:
Quote:
jphess wrote:
Quote:
Whatever.
How mature of you. If you don't care about the subject, please feel free to simply avoid the thread entirely. Who are you trying to impress?



Clyde Atkinson wrote:
Quote:
Some people just have to beat asubject to death even if it has little or no meaning. If the camera captures good pics and works well for you, who really cares what the effective resolution truly is? It either does what you need it to do or you are worried with the "mine has more megapixels than yours does" mentality.

Clyde
Come on. I just wanted to know if 3:2 mode on the F30 actually had the pixels it claims to have. What is wrong with you? You don't have anything to contribute, and you feel the need to insult me? Are there problems at home?

Is there something wrong with wanting to know something? There's a strong possibility that the 3:2 mode on Fujis is pointless because it's the same as taking a regular 4:3 picture and cropping it. If that's not the case, then there might be plenty situations you'd want to use 3:2 mode. If it actually has more pixels, it might even be giving you a wider shot. Would that not be useful to know?

You really don't care if Fuji is interpolating without bothering to mention it in any of their specs? Whether or not it makes a significant difference, it's a blatant omission and they're lying about their camera. They're taking a 5.4 MP picture and pretending it's 6.1 MP. You're cool with that? Should everybody have to spend a month researching things just to make sure that their buying decision is not being influenced by bogus specs?

Would you like everybody to do this? Perhaps it would be efficient to make a perfectly square9 MP CCD that was 3000 x 3000. Say only 2848 x 2848 of those pixels are usable, but they interpolate your 4:3 pictures to 3456 x 2592. Then you've got a camera that says it's 9 MP but actually takes 6 MP pictures. Is that the way to go?

Maybe you're one of those people who could care less about lies as long as they're not life-threatening, but even if you have no personal ethics, little lies make life more difficult for everyone. It's like CRT manufacturers calling a monitor 22" when it has 20" viewable, or hard drive manufacturers measuring in base 10 when all files are in base 2. I can't help having more respect for a company that doesn't inflate their numbers.

I care about lies (from both people and companies) and think I have very strong ethics, that has nothing to do with deciding to use whatever equipment works best for me even if I don't know what every last little specification, workaround, data type, etc. is. I for one would rather spend my time shooting pics and being creative than spend that time worrying about every little detail of specs, etc. That's just me, if you really need to know that type of info then go for it.

Clyde
Clyde Atkinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2006, 9:20 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

The only thing I can figure out is that there must be a revolution taking place by a group of computer/photography geeks who just have to know every little thing about what they are using. And if that is their need, I too say, go for it! I can't help it if you didn't like my response. All I was trying to get across is that I simply don't care. It doesn't matter. My camera works, I like my pictures, they print well, and I'm having fun. I am 63 years old and I'm enjoying the digital revolution. But, personally, I just don't want to be bothered knowing the exact number of pixels. So, you ask, "Why did you bother responding?" Well, you asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion. My opinion is that it simply doesn't matter. If you don't want the opinions of others unless they agree with you, then this probably isn't a good forum for you.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 3:05 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Default

The Fuji Super CCD has not parallel pixels (but diagonal). Therefore they made allways an interpollation and later on reduce the size back to the "effective" number of pixels!
This is also the reason some RAW converter will give you an 18MP Picture for the S9500. Thanks to a clever calculating in the camera they can reduce back to the more handy original Pixelcount without loosing to much details!
An other effect of this methode is that the camera needs more buffer and time because he will first have to create an 18MP (S9500/9600) Picture and after recalculate this to 9MP which may also explain the relatively slow performance in storage!

Be aware that with Super CCD you allways have to recalculate Pixels because in the Sensor they are not parallel but on the Screen and Fileformat they have to be!

I hope I did not increase the confusion but important is, that as a result, Super CCD cameras of Fuji will deliver somewhat more detalis horizontal and vertical but not necessary also diagonal!

About some more horizontal Pixels in 3:2 File-mode, it is just an other resizing down from the internal interpolated 18MP-file. (Is more or less Marketing to stay at "exact" 9MP!)

Best regards

Daniel
DanielS23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 3:05 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

jphess wrote:
Quote:
The only thing I can figure out is that there must be a revolution taking place by a group of computer/photography geeks who just have to know every little thing about what they are using. And if that is their need, I too say, go for it! I can't help it if you didn't like my response. All I was trying to get across is that I simply don't care. It doesn't matter. My camera works, I like my pictures, they print well, and I'm having fun. I am 63 years old and I'm enjoying the digital revolution. But, personally, I just don't want to be bothered knowing the exact number of pixels. So, you ask, "Why did you bother responding?" Well, you asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion. My opinion is that it simply doesn't matter. If you don't want the opinions of others unless they agree with you, then this probably isn't a good forum for you.
You're absolutely right. I'm a 30-year-old computer geek, and it's hard for me tocomprehend paying several hundred bucks for a cool little piece of technology and not needing to know every little detail about it. I must have OCD,because it actually did frustrate me. I'm thinking, "What do you mean you don't care? How can you not care? You're obviously justbeing a jerk!"

On a practical note, though, I would like to know about the way 3:2 mode works simply because I'd like to know if it's a gimmick or not. If it's interpolated, then I should always use 4:3 mode even if I prefer 3:2, because it just gives me more to work with, and I can crop later.

You said if I like 3:2 maybe I should just get a SLR since they're 3:2, but we're talking about a pocket-sized camera that I already bought, so that doesn't really apply.


Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 3:38 PM   #16
Member
 
digraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

The thing is this. It's really easy to get into specs. We're so used to it from computer or AV shopping or whatever. And your question is fair, no doubt... but there are so many other reasons to buy a camera. When you purchase something for its artistic output, specs shouldn't be #1. When you make a portion of your camera purchase for the geek factor, I can understand wanting to know detailed specs. I think it comes down to some of us thinking 3:2 interpolated is minor, and you thinking it major. Whatever, it's a fair argument.

From my post above, I don't believe it's interpolated because Fuji says the sensor size is 6.63 total pixels

One other thing...I don't believe that cropping 4:3 is a good solution to get 3:2 prints. When you take your pictures, you're framing it in the EVF or LCD at 4:3, and then when you crop, the proportions are all wrong, you've lost the original artistic intent of the shot. You'll probably even end up chopping off someone's head or such. The only other solution is to print 4:3 on 3:2 stock... and then the borders are just wrong. So to me - that's a bad solution.



Tostada wrote:
Quote:
You're absolutely right. I'm a 30-year-old computer geek, and it's hard for me tocomprehend paying several hundred bucks for a cool little piece of technology and not needing to know every little detail about it. I must have OCD,because it actually did frustrate me. I'm thinking, "What do you mean you don't care? How can you not care? You're obviously justbeing a jerk!"

On a practical note, though, I would like to know about the way 3:2 mode works simply because I'd like to know if it's a gimmick or not. If it's interpolated, then I should always use 4:3 mode even if I prefer 3:2, because it just gives me more to work with, and I can crop later.

You said if I like 3:2 maybe I should just get a SLR since they're 3:2, but we're talking about a pocket-sized camera that I already bought, so that doesn't really apply.

digraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 4:18 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Daniel:

Ahh! Is Fuji the only one using diagonal pixels? This is probably the way of the future, like anti-aliasing in graphics cards.

If the S6500/F30/F20 are all interpolating directly from the CCD's diagonal pixels to the recorded resolution, that's important to know. Then the 3:2 format would be useful, because it would be better quality than the 2848x2136 "normal" setting. That would also have interesting implications for lower resolutions, because a 1600x1200 image interpolated directly from the source could have better quality than a 1600x1200 image that was scaled down from a 2848x2136 image.

Still, there's a good chance that every picture is captured in the buffer at 2848x2136 then converted to the lower resolution. The "top 3" and "final 3" shooting modes imply that the buffer of the camera can hold 3 pictures, and I doubt the buffer is large enough to hold three raw images that would be around 13 MP.

The fact that the F30 has 10MB internal memory makes me think a likely configuration is that the camera has a 32MB memory, with 18MB for a 3-shot buffer, 4MB for software, and 10MB available.

Then again, it could be that they just decided to limit all resolutions to 3 shots to keep things simple.


Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 4:39 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

digraph wrote:
Quote:
... When you purchase something for its artistic output, specs shouldn't be #1. ...
The camera isn't the one being artistic. The photographer is being artistic. The camera is just a tool. If there's something that actually gives a camera better artistic output, that can probably be quantified into an actual spec which shows it is superior. I suppose there could be a gray area if there's something you just like more about a camera that you can't put your finger on.

I'm amazed by all the people saying "it doesn't matter." Of course it matters. What if an artist couldn't decide between two paints, and he went around asking which one was better, which one lastes longer, which one was less likely to fade, which one looked cleaner to someone with better eyes? Is that reasonable for everybody to just tell him it doesn't matter? Sure, it doesn't matter much to him personally in the short term if he can't even tell the difference himself,but there's no question that it matters.



digraph wrote:

Quote:
One other thing...I don't believe that cropping 4:3 is a good solution to get 3:2 prints. When you take your pictures, you're framing it in the EVF or LCD at 4:3, and then when you crop, the proportions are all wrong, you've lost the original artistic intent of the shot. You'll probably even end up chopping off someone's head or such.
The problem with that is it assumes the photographer is competent to frame the shot in the first place. It doesn't really apply to me. If I'm going to actually make a print of something, I'm probably going to want to clean it up in Photoshop ... and if you chop someone's head off in Photoshop, that's your own fault.




Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 11:12 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 137
Default

Tostada wrote:
Quote:
jphess wrote:
Quote:
The only thing I can figure out is that there must be a revolution taking place by a group of computer/photography geeks who just have to know every little thing about what they are using. And if that is their need, I too say, go for it! I can't help it if you didn't like my response. All I was trying to get across is that I simply don't care. It doesn't matter. My camera works, I like my pictures, they print well, and I'm having fun. I am 63 years old and I'm enjoying the digital revolution. But, personally, I just don't want to be bothered knowing the exact number of pixels. So, you ask, "Why did you bother responding?" Well, you asked for opinions and I gave you my opinion. My opinion is that it simply doesn't matter. If you don't want the opinions of others unless they agree with you, then this probably isn't a good forum for you.
You're absolutely right. I'm a 30-year-old computer geek, and it's hard for me tocomprehend paying several hundred bucks for a cool little piece of technology and not needing to know every little detail about it. I must have OCD,because it actually did frustrate me. I'm thinking, "What do you mean you don't care? How can you not care? You're obviously justbeing a jerk!"

On a practical note, though, I would like to know about the way 3:2 mode works simply because I'd like to know if it's a gimmick or not. If it's interpolated, then I should always use 4:3 mode even if I prefer 3:2, because it just gives me more to work with, and I can crop later.

You said if I like 3:2 maybe I should just get a SLR since they're 3:2, but we're talking about a pocket-sized camera that I already bought, so that doesn't really apply.


Every picture produced in any resolution or size mode from a Fuji Super CCD is interpolated, perhaps if you need to know every little detail you should study how the SCCD is laid out and works. This is an oversimplified explanation that will give you a general idea, the pixels in an SCCD are laid out diagonally sort of like a honeycomb rather than vertical and horizontal lines of pixels on a conventional sensor. In order for your computer software, monitor, printer, etc. to be able to read thedata and display it, it must first be interpolated and changed to a format that computersoftware, etc. is able to understand. So your 6.3mp F30 files are first interpolated to approx 12mp and then rendered down to the resolution you are wanting to work with, i.e.6.3mp, 3mp, etc. Nothing mysterious, no sales hype, or lies, just a process to get to the workable completed image. By having their pixels arranged in this diagonal manner, the SCCD is generally acknowledged to resolve better than it's rated resolution, for instance the Fuji S3 dslr is a 6mp effective sensor that records 12mp (after interpolation) and is rated by most sources to resolvedetail at the same level as an 8-9mp cam despite it being a 6mp sensor. There are some sites up that explain in far greater detail and exactness how this works. While this does not answer your specific question, it does point out that perhaps there is far more you need to know about how these sensors work to even begin to understand how your questions might be answered in relation to the workings of these sensors. Myself, I just let someone else worry about all of that and continue shooting greatpics with my S7000.

Clyde
Clyde Atkinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2006, 11:23 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default


One other thing I thought of. Apparently the original poster is trying to make a decision that will lead to the purchase of a new camera. And, with the compelling need he has to know all the details, that information is obviously important to him. I can accept that. But the reason I don't care, and why I don't think I'm being a jerk, is because I have already made my purchase decision and I'm using the camera. And, for me, it really doesn't matter anymore. But then I'm not a technical geek who really needs to know every little detail. The published spec told me all I needed, and I knew that was the camera I wanted. That really is good enough for me.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:02 PM.