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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 7, 2006, 5:53 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

jphess wrote:
Quote:
Sorry, but I have had enough of this discussion. I know how to crop. This morning's attempt was a failure. I told you, same ISO, same aperture, same program mode. No watercolor. Straight shot. Didn't work. Don't care either. Tired of arguing the original point of this discussion. Done. Finished. Through. Thanks.
Quote:
" I don't know, maybe I'm too forgiving, so I'd like to hear what some of you think."

Wooow Dude calm down. I didnt mean to get u all uptight. U asked to hear what ppl think. there it was. just trying to help out.

If i offended or upset u then sorry........:P

ken
kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 6:29 PM   #12
Member
 
SelNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Default

Ken,

How can you compare a photo taken at the distance Jims was with yours that was taken at a much shorter distance. Most of the distortion in Jims is atmospheric. Nothing to do with digital zoom.
Take a look at this image taken at a distance of about 2 1/2 miles with digital zoom. 300x2-600mm. Any distortion in it is caused by the heat of the day.
http://sel.enternet.co.nz/600mm1.jpg
I dont know if you know anything about the digital zoom on Fuji super CCDs, but they work differently than other sensors and are very usable. I find the quality fom them as good or better than cropping. In fact I have been known to crop digital zoomed pics. No one being any the wiser on seeing the final pics.

Sel ........
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Eselorme/photos.html

SelNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 7:04 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

SelNZ wrote:
Quote:
Ken,

How can you compare a photo taken at the distance Jims was with yours that was taken at a much shorter distance. Most of the distortion in Jims is atmospheric. Nothing to do with digital zoom.
Take a look at this image taken at a distance of about 2 1/2 miles with digital zoom. 300x2-600mm. Any distortion in it is caused by the heat of the day.
http://sel.enternet.co.nz/600mm1.jpg
I dont know if you know anything about the digital zoom on Fuji super CCDs, but they work differently than other sensors and are very usable. I find the quality fom them as good or better than cropping. In fact I have been known to crop digital zoomed pics. No one being any the wiser on seeing the final pics.



Hey Sel, another kiwi


Yes i thought the orig 35mm shot was nice. sharp and lots of detail. and then i saw this massive drop in quality. so instantly thought "digital zoom". After seeing the optical zoom shot i thought otherwise.

I am aware that to a degree the atmosphere is responsable for some image distortion, but in this instance it is fairly high.


In my shot comparison i was comparing that i was cropping my shot to around about 20% of my entire frame. now this is huge cropping. not what i would normally do. I was linking it to the point of the church shot only needing to be cropped to around 80% of the frame. this is such minimal cropping and you wouldnt expect distortion to amplify considerably. Therefore trying to suggest that if you only need such a minimal crop and resize why make the camera deteriorate the shot using digital zoom and why make it harder to compose by zoom ing hte cam further making it more prone to motion and handshake.?

i anticipated the optical zoom only shot to be much clearer and sharper than wat was posted hence why i suggested it.

YES ur image is very nice qnd clear and what i would have expected something similar in this situation. I am a firm believer in the bicubic resampling from Photoshop to resize all my images.

Only other thing i cant think of is maybe the shot is being compressed to heavily when posted on these forums in turn making the images look like this.

Like i said earlier no disrespect to the orig poster. s9000/9500 is a great cam. I gues some situations just cant be photgraphed.

ken





Attached Images
 
kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 7:29 PM   #14
Member
 
SelNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Default

kenmck wrote:

>I am aware that to a degree the atmosphere is responsable for some image distortion but seriously this is alot of distortion.

To me it looks like and is heat haze.

>Agreed i dont know much about the super ccd. Our reps just blab on saying its great for lo light.

Yes it is good for low light, but are you aware that the s9x00 takes all its images at 18mp and resizes. This is how you get a 2x digital zoom that works.

>In my shot comparison i was comparing that i was cropping my shot to around about 20% of my entire frame. now this is huge cropping. not what i would normally do. I was linking it to the point of the church shot only needing to be cropped to around 80% of the frame. this is such minimal cropping and you wouldnt expect distortion to amplify considerably. Therefore trying to suggest that if you only need such a minimal crop and resize why make the camera deteriorate the shot using digital zoom.

I crop that amount with normal zoom no problem, but if I want more reach I use digtal zoom because it works.

>i anticipated the optical zoom only shot to be much clearer and sharper than wat was posted hence why i suggested it.

I think Jims was a bad example.

>YES ur image is very nice qnd clear and what i would have expected something similar in this situation. I am a firm believer in the bicubic resampling from Photoshop to resize all my images.

See above about bad example.

I don't use Photoshop much. ( I do have cs2 ). I feel it is about time they updated the interface and allowed you to create you own toolbars. I use Paintshop pro-x which I consider just as good or better than Photoshop for what I use it for. It is very easy to create your own interface which speeds up the process. The smart resize is brillient. This is what I used.

>Only other thing i cant think of is maybe the shot is being compressed to heavily when posted on these forums in turn making the images look like this.

Possibly, but I still put it down to heat haze. That is what causes the wavy lines.

Do you own or use a s9x00? I do. Great camera for the price and usability.

Regards,
Sel ............
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Eselorme/photos.html

SelNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 7:33 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

SelNZ wrote:
Quote:
kenmck wrote:

>I am aware that to a degree the atmosphere is responsable for some image distortion but seriously this is alot of distortion.

To me it looks like and is heat haze.

>Agreed i dont know much about the super ccd. Our reps just blab on saying its great for lo light.

Yes it is good for low light, but are you aware that the s9x00 takes all its images at 18mp and resizes. This is how you get a 2x digital zoom that works.

>In my shot comparison i was comparing that i was cropping my shot to around about 20% of my entire frame. now this is huge cropping. not what i would normally do. I was linking it to the point of the church shot only needing to be cropped to around 80% of the frame. this is such minimal cropping and you wouldnt expect distortion to amplify considerably. Therefore trying to suggest that if you only need such a minimal crop and resize why make the camera deteriorate the shot using digital zoom.

I crop that amount with normal zoom no problem, but if I want more reach I use digtal zoom because it works.

>i anticipated the optical zoom only shot to be much clearer and sharper than wat was posted hence why i suggested it.

I think Jims was a bad example.

>YES ur image is very nice qnd clear and what i would have expected something similar in this situation. I am a firm believer in the bicubic resampling from Photoshop to resize all my images.

See above about bad example.

I don't use Photoshop much. ( I do have cs2 ). I feel it is about time they updated the interface and allowed you to create you own toolbars. I use Paintshop pro-x which I consider just as good or better than Photoshop for what I use it for. It is very easy to create your own interface which speeds up the process. The smart resize is brillient. This is what I used.

>Only other thing i cant think of is maybe the shot is being compressed to heavily when posted on these forums in turn making the images look like this.

Possibly, but I still put it down to heat haze. That is what causes the wavy lines.

Do you own or use a s9x00? I do. Great camera for the price and usability.

Regards,
Sel ............
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Eselorme/photos.html


Agreed!!!!!!!!



except the part on 18MP................... I thought the ccd was octagonal grabbing extra parts of informtaion. I didnt realise it took tiwce as much info. And y wont the cam let u take a full blown 18mp still image???? im thinking bcse the image would then be octagonal BUT then how does it enable 2x zoom with no image deteriation if the ccd is octagonal. Shouldnt this mean it can spit out 18mp.?


i thgouth the cam would use resizing algorythms or force pixel explosions to create the illusion of zoom. Or reducee the active pixels on the ccd therefore decreasing the overall area then increase angle into lense therefore generating more zoom then cam uses resizing algorythms to notch image back up to an apparent 9mp.
This has more res than canon 5d which retails for 4 times the amount of money and i think the ccd is twice as big?

ken

Attached Images
 
kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 9:11 PM   #16
Member
 
SelNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Default

kenmck15 wrote:[code]>Agreed!!!!!!!!



>except the part on 18MP................... I thought the ccd was octagonal grabbing extra parts of informtaion. I didnt realise it took tiwce as much info. And y wont the cam let u take a full blown 18mp still image???? im thinking bcse the image would then be octagonal BUT then how does it enable 2x zoom with no image deteriation if the ccd is octagonal. Shouldnt this mean it can spit out 18mp.?


>i thgouth the cam would use resizing algorythms or force pixel explosions to create the illusion of zoom. Or reducee the active pixels on the ccd therefore decreasing the overall area then increase angle into lense therefore generating more zoom then cam uses resizing algorythms to notch image back up to an apparent 9mp.
This has more res than canon 5d which retails for 4 times the amount of money and i think the ccd is twice as big?

In RAW it takes 18mp. It is the way the ccd is layed out in a diamond shape. It takes a 18mp image and interpolates it back to 9mp or less for jpg. Just like the s7000 took images at 12mp but was actually a 6mp camera. There is no reason except marketing and the public not being able to come to grips with the concept why they could not have it producing18mp jpg pics in camera.
You might find this interesting.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=15152721
This has been disscussed at length at different times :-)
I think what it all means is the digital zoom uses the centre of an 18mp image and still produces 9mp. Whatever it does it does work.
I think we are going to see some great advances from fuji. To be able to get such low noise images from such a small sensor is amazing.
Very interesting stuff.

By the way the Raw pics are excelent, but becase they are so large 18mb they take 6-8 secs to save and take up a lot of room. Also the conversion program that comes with the camera is virtually usless. The good thing is there are now plenty of other converters out there.

Regards,
Sel ......... :-)
SelNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 9:29 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

OK, now that I have vented my frustrations, same tower, same day, later, different angle, full optical zoom, some postprocessing.
Attached Images
 
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 9:44 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

digital in camera zoom is merely cropping without any sharpening or user control



you will get much better results using only optical zoom in camera and 'cropping/zooming' using post processing software



6meg camera, 200mm (equiv) lens @ approx 300' range, cropped and sharpened with PSE 3.1



shot is crap, used for illustration only






Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 10:14 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

jphess wrote:
Quote:
OK, now that I have vented my frustrations, same tower, same day, later, different angle, full optical zoom, some postprocessing.

now this shot is a million times better.



nice work on this shot

ken


kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2006, 11:47 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

kenmck15 wrote:
Quote:
jphess wrote:
Quote:
OK, now that I have vented my frustrations, same tower, same day, later, different angle, full optical zoom, some postprocessing.

now this shot is a million times better.



nice work on this shot

ken

Yes, I suppose that strictly from a technical point of view this image is better than any of the previous ones I have posted in this thread. However, getting back to my original point, I still think the digital zoom is very usable (and even necessary) in SOME situations.
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 8:51 PM.