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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 19, 2003, 8:01 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7
Default ***NEW CAMERA*** FinePix F700 6MP

Check out www.fujifilm.com for the new 6 megapixel camera!

Retail price is $599.99
verhobb is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 19, 2003, 8:05 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7
Default

oh, and don't forget to check out the FinePix F410 too!
verhobb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2003, 9:20 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3
Default

I purchased a Fuji before they got into the "interploated" mp stuff and it is very confusing.

The images for the new cameras didnt really impress me. They just seemed very grainy . The colors are nice but clarity is not too good.
ron2368 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2003, 6:54 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7
Default Interpolated images

I wonder if it will have true 6 MP picture quality. From what I have researched, it takes two 3.1 MP images and combines them to make 6.2 MP...would this be accurate?

It is confusing...i had to watch the demo on the website to understand it.
verhobb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2003, 5:07 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

I often wondered about this as a way to increase resolution, rather like stitching pano 's. It would need to capture considerable faster than the fastest shutter speed, and have some way of offsetting the image to pixel mapping, to capture information between pixels not recorded on the first take.

But with new cams like the Pentax Optio range having higher capacity chips, there doen't seem to be a limit to the technology, so I wonder if Fuji's approach of cheaper ccds using fancy processing will compare. I already miss RAW uncompressed output from my 602. For Fuji's technique to convince me, it would need something else - like eons more sensitivity with low noise, making on camera flash unecessary!

I noticed that their quoted recording capacity for a 16Meg card was 10 shots at 6Mpix on the F700. My 602 is doing 1.2 and 2.2 Mb for 3.1 Mpix and 6 interpolated. So Guys & Girls, don't just look at the Mpix, whatever the method, also compare compression factors (and options if there are any) with other cams.

You might win on Mpix resolution, but throw it away on compression artefacts! Which is why some of the earlier quality 2Mpix cams with a decent lens can still look good!
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2003, 11:51 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 307
Default

I've read elsewhere that the Super CCDs look better on prints than they do on monitors. i.e. they look better at 3MP than at 6Mp when outputting to a monitor, but the reverse on a print.
MentorRon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2003, 11:33 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

This I could understand if prints might be off Fuji's own Frontiers, so they might have an advantage with the JPEG compression algorithm decode - since they know how they coded. The EXIF tells them it was one of their own cams.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2003, 1:52 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 307
Default

I think what they meant was that a 6MP interpolated image will be reduced in size greatly when creating an 8x10 print or smaller and the print process makes use of as many pixels as possible to create the final image, but the view on the monitor is usually done at 100 percent of original size to check for sharpness. So if you set your image size to 8x10 or less when viewing on a monitor , it may look ok as well. If you view the 3MP image at 100 percent on a monitor it should compare favorably to any other 3MP image, but the print process will have less pixels to work from.
MentorRon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2003, 5:56 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

MentorRon...So, putting it another way, a monitor will be doing 96 dots per inch (possibly 115 max), whereas a photo print on a Frontier can be doing 300 dots per inch.

Therefore, an image filling a monitor screen, will never be as sharp as a print of the same size? and in order to compare two pics from different cams, the native display resolution for both will still be 96dpi, therefore what's shown on the screen at 3Mpix will be smaller size than the same pic at 6Mpix.

Using zoom (interpolation) to scale down the 6Mpix image for comparison is flawed then, because your output device (monitor) will never show the true resolution at 6Mpix? In fact, it seems that monitors are pretty low res. devices compared to good printers.

Which also makes me wonder if sticking to the higher compression ratios cams are doing, eventually produces artefacts which are greater than gains from expensive increases in ccd resolution.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2003, 1:51 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 307
Default

Well, from what I've read elsewhere, monitors display at 72 dpi equivalent. As most of my viewing is done on a monitor (I seldom print images from digital), I buy a camera that seems acceptably sharp on my monitor at 100 percent (original size). That being said, I would normally view a series of shots using "slideshow" features of various viewers, which reduces the images to fit my screen. I find 2MP is sufficient for these purposes. The images I have printed at home from 2MP are fine at 8x10 (so far). Neither I nor anyone who has seen them has any complaints about their quality compared to 35mm prints: in fact the uninitiated are surprised when told that they are digital. That is my basic criteria: I don't bother getting into the whys and wherefors of how it works, as long as it works for me. I have not yet tried a commercial digital printing service, as I am happy with what I create at home the few times I need to print ( We use our 35mm cameras if we know that most or all of the pictures we take will be printed, such as on a holiday).
I agree that JPEG compression ratios can adversely affect pictures, but I always shoot at lowest compression (5 to 1). The highest compression (20 to 1) on my FinePix 2300/2800 is useless for scenics: there are easily visible artifacts such as color banding in skies. I wish they had made it 15 to 1 instead. If I wanted maximum capacity on my cards, I might use the middle setting of 10 to 1 to double the number of images: these require a bit of effort to notice the artifacts. I usually have to point them out to anyone who is curious about it.
I have noticed recently that the images I uploaded to Pbase.com have deteriorated in quality (more artifacts) since I first viewed them there, so I'm guessing they did something which affected them when they upgraded their equipment recently (maybe copied their database?). I did a side-by-side comparison to the originals on my hard disk and the Pbase copies are much poorer now.
MentorRon 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 6:42 PM.