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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2006, 7:44 AM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3
Default

A simple test can verify if the added pixels are interpolated or real:
Put the camera on tripod and take two pictues: one with 3:2 and the other with 4:3 ratio.
If the added pixels in the x direction are real, there should be wider field of view on the first shot.
vlevi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 4:58 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

jphess wrote:

Quote:

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.
I already ordered the camera (it's showing up tomorrow). I guess I did start this thread before I ordered it, but I wouldn't say whether or not I'm happy about the 3:2 mode was enough to influence my decision significantly. I just wanted to know if there would ever be a reason for me to use 3:2 mode, or if I should always just use 4:3 mode and crop it if I want a 3:2 picture.

I guess I also wanted to know "just to know."



vlevi wrote:

Quote:
A simple test can verify if the added pixels are interpolated or real:
Put the camera on tripod and take two pictues: one with 3:2 and the other with 4:3 ratio.
If the added pixels in the x direction are real, there should be wider field of view on the first shot.
That's what I thought until I read the posts by DanielS23 (and then by Clyde) explaining that the Super CCD isn't arranged in a regular grid. That means that 3:2 could still be a little better than resizing a 4:3 picture, even if it doesn't actually have any additional resolution.

The important part is knowing how the buffer works. If the 3:2 image is interpolated straight from the CCD to 3024x2016, then the result will be arguably better than cropping a 4:3 image, even if there isn't actually a wider field of view. There's the possibility, though, that every picture is buffered at 2848x2136 then scaled to whatever the output size is, in which case you should always store your pictures in the same resolution the buffer uses.


Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 8:45 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default


For what it's worth, I usually shoot in the 9F JPEG mode or RAW mode. So I very seldom use the 3:2 because, on my camera, it will only switch to that mode in the 9N mode. So if I'm going to take a bunch of pictures that I know I only want to print 4x6 I will sometimes use the 3:2 modes so that I won't have to worry about cropping. That size of print isn't going to show any JPEG artifacts. And it just makes for quick prints. But I use the other mode most of the time just because I prefer it. Then I crop for whatever print size I want. It really isn't that big of an issue. I decide what I'm going to do with the pictures, and if 3:2 will speed things up and its appropriate for the shoot, I will use it. Otherwise, I won't. In most cases, I don't.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2006, 10:43 PM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Funny you should mention that image resolution may be better at 3:2 as this is what I have discovered on the S6500. You can see this on images that have small text or fine contrasting lines- especially in low light.

On the point of CCD-RAW,I have noticed that images are softer (viewing with S7RAW) than corresponding JPEG (fine) images (in good light anyway) at full resolution. I had to goback and check my focus etc in case I had made a mistake but Ithink I am correct. Also, note that the RAF file contains a 1600x1200 JPEG image (as well as the RAW image) and this is the image that you see when you view files with the FinePix Viewer. I don't think that this viewer was intended to give you a full resolution RAW image but I think that this resolution image cheapens the impression of the viewer. If you were going to include a JPEG within the RAW file, why wouldn't you provide a full resolution image or at least make it selectable as Canon do on their DSLRs? Apart from unduly increasing the file size, perhaps it is for the reason I mentioned above that the RAW is softer than the JPEG and looks worse in some instances. Is it that some preprocessing is done on the CCD image to sharpen it prior to JPEG compression?

Anyway, more importantly, I am generally very pleased with the S6500 - it is capable of taking excellent pictures in all sorts of conditions. The AF is fast and accurate and,contrary toreports from elsewhere, so is the auto white balance. The pre-focussed shutter lag is almost nonexistant and the download speed is also very fast at a rate of close to 4Mbytes/sec unless you are usingthe FinePix viewer where it is about half this rate.

Hope this helps you Fuji camera users.

Cheers








markcoulthard 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 12:47 PM.