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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 16, 2003, 5:29 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

It wasn't the sharpness at 6Mpix that concerned me - it was the JPEG crud on edge detail which made the detail improvement not worth having and using up memory for.

Anyway, I have another plan. I have a suspicion that the image sharpness setting at normal is putting in more edge distortion and masking any expected res. improvement at 6Mpix. So I'm repeating some tests at different res. settings using both 'soft' and 'normal' sharpening. I'm thinking 'soft' might actually mean no enhancement by the cam, rather than negative sharpness.

The other trick I'll try is to use lossless crop to extract identical sections of picture detail in the test pics, at resolutions which will match my monitors highest display res., Perhaps I confused you: by relative sharpness, I was referring to the distinctness of edge contours on foliage at about 400% zoom, for identical areas measuring the same size on my monitor, at 3M and 6Mpix. Yes there is re-sampling happening in the re-scaling of part of the image, but a printer could be using more agressive res. enhancement.

I haven't overlooked that a printer starting with a large upconverted file, might perform better, which is why I still believe it should be possible to compare edge detail from 2 identical picture areas on a monitor and see a difference!

When I see an uncompressed image, assuming the the lens is resolving detail, I'd expect to see well defined block boundaries on edges. What I have seen at 6Mpix interpolated, is about the same edge detail as 3Mpix and similar random detached pixels around the contours - not less. Watch this space for more. I've got some cam res. test charts, just need an illuminator.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2003, 8:23 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
Default

MentorRon, I'm glad someone else also came across the 3MP vs 6MP reading. I don't feel as alone now. hehe.

I guess the question is how well does the S602 upsample/interpolate in-camera as compared to doing it in post via Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, or Qimage? If the results from in-camera processing are comparable to post software processing, it would definitely save the time and trouble. Granted, 6MP files will be larger. But if one owns a lot of storage, and the results are favorable, why not? For those without a large capacity flash memory/MicroDrive(s), well, I guess that'll be their call.

At any rate do let us know what the results are Voxmagna. Samples would be great, not just for me, but for everyone else to see. Thanks for taking the time to look into it.
Alakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 3:21 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Alakai.....

Quote:
I guess the question is how well does the S602 upsample/interpolate in-camera as compared to doing it in post via Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, or Qimage?
The Jury is still out, but on 3Mpix v 6Mpix upsampled, on your above point, I sincerely hope it's being done in the cam BEFORE applying compression in the compressed modes.

Since Fuji don't offer an uncompressed 3Mpix TIFF mode- unlike some Olys having more options, It might not be a fair comparison. If there was, then a comparison of Fuji's upsampling algorithm and an other could be done - same for compression as well.

For the future, I'd like to see more uncompressed options, or the ability to set my own variable compression level. Same goes for sharpening. OEM software can get better, the cam can't (unless it's firmware upgradeable - which the 602 is not)
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 11:24 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
Default

OK

2 days ago I did a comparison between 3MP Fine and 6MP Fine, sharpness set to normal, ISO 200. End result is that at high magnification 1200X the 6MP is definitely finer (contains much more info). It does however seem to be softer then the 3MP image direct from the camera. A simple tweak of the sharpness and contrast on PS or PP and the 6MP image definitely surpassed the 3MP image. The information from the 6MP is there to work with.......

Another note here that may have been overlooked: The magnification between the 2 is not the same. It reqiures a 800X magnification for the 3MP image to match the physical size of a 6MP image at 600X magnification. This is where the difference is most apparent......



The next test will be to shoot at 3MP Fine with normal sharpness, then shoot at 6MP Fine with increased sharpness to see if that works.[/img]
BigRed450 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 11:35 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

BigRed450...I'm glad you've got some time to follow this, can you try shooting 'soft sharpen'? pics might appear softer, due to reduced contrast, but edge detail may be higher. Still wonder if compression is masking the expected 6Mpix performance? It would be nice to have had 6&3Mpix uncompressed modes. Still, you can eliminate some of it by shooting 6MPix High.

So applying a little sharpening and contrast in post might confirm my suspicion that it's better to let the cam do as little as possible, to see a better improvement at 6Mpix.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 12:43 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
Default

voxmagna~ I have heard others comment that they prefer using soft in the 6MPF mode for doing people. I will try a reshoot and compare the results with soft, normal, hard.

Now referencing the manual Pg.55
QUOTE "Hard - emphasizes the outlines.
Best for shots of subjects such as buildings or text where you want sharp images."
"Soft - softens the outlines.
Best for shots of subjects such as people, where a softer image is desireable. /QUOTE

I think this pretty well explains what I will find out. None the less I will try it out anyway........

OK heres the results


And here is the full frame with pointer to where I took the #3 from.
BigRed450 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2003, 6:16 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

I see all that white JPEG 'puddling' around edges in hard mode, and more random pixel errors. I think the comment I read was, shooting soft allows you to control the sharpening in post, whereas once you've fixed it in the cam on a scene by scene basis, you're stuck with it if you don't like it.

Incidentally, that full frame of the box is nice for UK newbies who think they can buy a cheap cam your end. It shows the NTSC TVOUT spec, whereas mine is CE PAL. Thanks - VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2003, 12:56 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
Default

voxmagna~ As you can see by the text under the last example there was jpg loss when I converted to web which makes the total loss at 6MPF Hard, look worse then it is. It actually looks more like the 3MPF version from the first example. I will redo it and repost a better example....... Sorry didn't realize it looked that bad til I looked here today......... Ok I resaved that last example for minimal loss.....

Next I will magnify the 3MP to same image size to compare..

Here it is

BigRed450 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2003, 2:45 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

BigRed450... (I've worked out that's a Quad isn't it?) For a while now I've been thinking, you have to be so careful what you do before and after image capture, a tripod for the test shots and spot on focussing is pretty important too. I Think lots of light, small f stop would give less focus uncertainty.

I was going to use lossless crop to select and compare a small area of detail. If you choose no more than 600 x 400 pixels, then upload to a web server this can be a (lossless) bitmap. Glad you're thinking about it, many before have fallen into holes.

I haven't got a site to post to, so you have a big advantage to help us. You can guess what the next question might be 'How much improvement do you get using the 6Mpix options over 3Mpix?

Now if I could see that bigger prints had the same detail as smaller prints at 3Mpix, then big files, slower cam, and more pc power might seem worthwhile. Alternatively, if theres only say 25% improvement, then I'm not so sure. Cheers - VOX.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2003, 3:30 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
Default

Yes voxmagna, BigRed450 is a Honda Foreman 450ES quad, my other passion. I have a website for that too
http://users.air.on.ca/cbjaps/ATVZone
as well as one for my wifes hobby, CBJ Appaloosa Horses
http://users.air.on.ca/cbjaps/Home.html

Yes, the issues with jpg loss/compression is very inherent while doing this sort of magnification. Also some of the photo editing programs will smooth out the pixels on resize, when enlarging for a better look. As you suggested I have been doing the work in BMP then converting to jpg for the final posting. That last one had got away on me as I forgot to check the jpg compression ratio before I saved and posted.......

As for the actual printing quality..... my bet goes on the 6MPF over the 3MPF especially for printing sizes over 8x10". As you have seen by the last comparison the added magnification needed for the 3MP image to meet the physical size of the 6MP image, hence the 3MP image requires that much more magnification fo bigger prints. This is really what shows the difference. . The 3MP becomes too blocky thus detail will be lost in larger print and you can see the actual size difference of the colored blocks/pixels that form the picture.

Now this brings on the next part of this project. I will, over the next few days, try and take 2 identical images, one at each setting, 3MP-F and 6MP-F hard, cut out a 600x400 block as suggested and compare in BMP. I will post the results for all....... Unfortunately I don't have a printer that will print bigger then 8.5x11 so I'll have to get creative in finding a way to perform the print comparison........
BigRed450 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 5:38 AM.