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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2006, 9:51 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Just wondering if anybody knows what the deal is here. The F30 (and F20) have a max image size of 2848 x 2136, but they also have a 3:2 aspect mode which captures in 3024 x 2016.

If the CCD is actually capable of capturing 3024 pixels wide, then wouldn't that make it a 3024 x 2136 CCD, and they would probably advertize it as 6.5 MP?

Maybe the CCD isn't actually square, so it is actually capable of capturing a little more width in 3:2?

Or is the resolution just fake, and for some reason they decided to scale the image up a little before they save it?

Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 18, 2006, 10:24 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

There is only a difference of 13,056 pixels. That isn't enough to advertise the camera as a 6.5 MP camera. It is only a difference of 2/10 of 1 percent. It really isn't even enough of a difference to worry about. Actually, images are masked in the camera in every resolution setting. I don't know if it is still available, but at one time Adobe had a little utility that would recover all the pixels in images from any digital camera. I tried it on some of my images; it recovered a little around the edges, but it really didn't make any impact on the image. In reading some of the discussions about the pixel recovery utility, some cameras seemed to have a more significant mask than others. In my opinion, this is not a real issue here.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 12:30 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Your math doesn't make sense. All you did is take:

2848 x 2136 = 6,083,328
3024 x 2016 = 6,096,384
6,096,384 - 6,083,328 = 13,056



Like I said, if the CCD is capable of both of those resolutions it would be at least:

3024 x 2136 = 6,459,264

That definitely is enough to advertize the camera as 6.5 MP. With masking, they would probably advertize it as a 6.7 MP camera. But instead, Fuji says the F30 has 6.3 MP effective and 6.1 MP recorded.



If the CCD is not rectangular (say it is shaped like a plus sign), the minimum size it could be is:

2848 x 2136 + (3024 - 2848) x 2016 = 6,438,144

We're talking a bare minimum of 6.438 MP if the camera has no masking and a non-rectangular CCD, which is certainly not the case.



So, the only options I can see are:

1) They're using at least a 6.5 MP CCD and calling it 6.3 MP.

2) They failed to mention that the 3024 x 2016 resolution is interpolated.



Notice that Fuji stamps "6.3 MEGA PIXELS" right on the front of the F30, which is a little silly, since it's the "effective" MP and not the actual recorded MP. Seeing as they're already taking that liberty to inflate their MP spec, I seriously doubt they would be understating the effetive MP on a camera that actually has a 6.5 MP or better CCD.

I suppose it could be tested if someone has the S6000 or S6500, which use the same CCD and can write CCD-RAW files.

It seems pretty shady that they would interpolate 3:2 pictures without mentioning it, but I do think that's the most likely answer. If the 3024 x 2016 resolution was legit, they would probably have a "fine" setting for 3:2 pictures. The resolution options are:

6M F (2848 x 2136) = 6.1 MP = 3.0 MB filesize
6M N (2848 x 2136) = 6.1 MP = 1.5 MB filesize
3:2 (3024 x 2016) = 6.1 MP = 1.5 MB filesize
3M (2048 x 1536) = 3.1 MP = 780 KB filesize
2M (1600 x 1200) = 1.9 MP = 630 KB filesize
03M (640 x 480) = 0.3 MP = 130 KB filesize

If you look on p. 67 of the manual, they actually say next to the 6M N and 3:2 resolutions, "For better quality, select 6M F".

So, people aren't going to expect much from the 3024 x 2016 pictures, since there is no "fine" setting, and if you're concerned about quality you'll go with 6M F. Using the 3024 x 2016 resolution makes the 3:2 thing look like less of a gimmick, though, since it's 6.1 MP just like the regular resolution. Also, there's no good 3:2 resolution for them to use, since 2848 / 1.5 = 1898.67. They'd have to go to 2832 x 1888 for 3:2 aspect (although I really don't see a problem with that).

Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 12:44 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

Whatever.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 1:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 137
Default

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
Clyde Atkinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 2:57 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

My thoughts exactly. Even if the camera IS a 6.5 megapixel camera, so what? The picture isn't going to be any better or worse than what it already is. But if it makes you feel better to tell people you have a 6.5 megapixel camera, then go ahead and enjoy. If Fuji claimed that it was a 6.5 megapixel camera, then those who are on the other side of the calculator would be crying foul. 2/10 MP is nothing, and is nothing to worry about.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 3:04 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

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.

Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 3:10 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Oh, the irony of me childishly accusing someone of being childish. Ahem! Nevermind that. :-)

Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2006, 8:30 AM   #9
Member
 
digraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Here are my thoughts:
On the one hand, certainly the fine setting missing in the 3:2 resolution points to something fishy, perhaps they're extrapolating the extra lines going above the native resolution of the sensor.

I've checked around the web and haven't found a solid spec for Fuji's Super CCD HR, generation VI, so there's nothing definitive. But it seems to me that you can't really do a 1:1 comparison between fuji's technology and othere companies' sensors.

I think most people agree that with megapixels, like the MHz race, the raw number does not determine end-user quality. At the detriment of ducking your question, I would suggest you use an output-based metric. Make prints at 12x8 or 10x6.66 from the 3:2 mode, and if they don't look great, then you can complain.

IF you think that Fuji is possibly being disingenuous in their marketing material, re-read this and tell me if you've changed your mind. Remember Fuji says that on the F30:
Total Pixels: 6.63 Million pixels
Effective Pixels: 6.3 Million
Recorded Pixels: you did the math...

Fujifilm says:
Number of Effective Pixels
  • Effective Pixels: The number of light-sensitive picture elements, or pixels, actually used by the camera's image sensor (CCD) to record light, and which are "effectively" reflected in some way to the final number of Recorded Pixels stored on the memory card. For cameras equipped with Super CCDs, the number of Effective Pixels can often be less than the value than the of Recorded Pixels, which is the final number of pixels produced by a digital camera after image processing is complete.[/*]
  • Recorded Pixels: Represents the number of output, or printable, pixels in a picture that was recorded on the Storage Media after the camera processes the Effective Pixel data from a CCD.[/*]
  • Total Pixels: A specification for the image sensor (CCD) that indicates the total number of pixels contained in an image sensor. Not all the cameras' CCD pixels are used to form a final image; only the Number of Effective Pixels is actually used to capture light for an image.[/*]
I could speculation on a number of things, but it really doesn't matter. However, it seems that maybe Fuji has hobbled the F30 and not given 3:2 shooters the Fine setting for saving as a JPG, nor has it given them 3:2 for RAW.

Perhaps Fuji and others want 3:2 to go away and move toward a world of 4:3, and this is their subtle push.

digraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2006, 10:09 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

The F30 is not the only camera from Fuji that does not have the Fine setting in the 3:2 mode. I have the S9000, and if I switch to 3:2 mode I only have Normal. Not to be overly simplistic, but the normal mode does not reduce the number of pixels. If you open a 4:3 9 MP (one in Normal mode and one in Fine mode) in Photoshop or some other image editor and check the size, you will find that they both have precisely the same number of pixels. The difference in the file size is affected by the amount of additional compression that was applied to the Normal image.

The sensor does capture an image that is ever so slightly larger than what is reported by image editors. As I mentioned in a previous response, Adobe at one time was offering a little utility that would recover all the pixels from an image. I played with it a little bit, but all it did with images from my camera is extend the edges, although hardly noticeable. But now I am curious about something else. 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.

Personally, I prefer the 4:3 format anyway. But if 3:2 is more acceptable to you, then consider a digital SLR because that is the standard and the only format in those cameras.

I realize I haven't really answered anything about the original question here. In fact I have kind of just rambled on about things. The difference in the actual number of pixels and the reported number of pixels is so minuscule and has no impact on the quality of the image that I still think it is a trivial thing to be concerned about. But for those who really want to know I guess doing the math might provide some answers. I didn't mean to put down the original poster. Some people really want to know those kinds of details. I am just not one of those people.
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 1:16 AM.