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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 1, 2005, 12:14 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

And to add to that, My DX6490 4mp camera stores nearly 400 photos at the best setting on a 512 Sandisk card. And I get very good quality from the photos it stores.


Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 10:20 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6
Default

:?I really do appriciate your info but I already have an intimate knowledge of all the techie stuff, but the fact remains when you do an actual PIXEL count of the CCD in the Z700 camera as listed on one of the major review sites, this camera has only 66% of it's advertised 4MP. It has nothing to do with algorithms, even though it IS a question of mathematics, its the unseen lack of true pixel count that is the thrust of my complaint. Something the consumer has no way of knowing they are being ripped off. i-pod just payed out $50 per item for falsified battery life, I amintain there is no difference in this case.

rockbug63
rockbug63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 10:32 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

Then sue them or buy another camera. If you're that unhappy with the camera do one of the afore mentioned actions and let the rest of us get on with life.


Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 11:23 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
TD Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,492
Default

Whatever the case my 7590 gives a helluva picture and just in passing when you buy a computer do you think yer actually getting a 3.2gig chipset.....NOT...if its taking shots the way you like then why gripe? I talked with a pro yesterday and he said its all dependant on compression when it comes to mp and perhaps if yer not happy you might wanna buy a Pro dslr that will write in raw format and anyway when yer in photoshop and many other popular editors you will notice that the jpg is quite expanded giving you less jpg compression than the camera offers...its all about space IMO. but good luck to you :-)
TD Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 11:53 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6
Default

:?All the big corps really would like you better if you just "got on with life" while they rip you off. Have fun!!!
rockbug63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 11:56 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Tom LaPrise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 324
Default

rockbug63 wrote:
Quote:
:?I really do appriciate your info but I already have an intimate knowledge of all the techie stuff, but the fact remains when you do an actual PIXEL count of the CCD in the Z700 camera as listed on one of the major review sites, this camera has only 66% of it's advertised 4MP.
What site would that be?
Tom LaPrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 2:26 PM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

rockbug63 wrote:
Quote:
:?I really do appriciate your info but I already have an intimate knowledge of all the techie stuff, but the fact remains when you do an actual PIXEL count of the CCD in the Z700 camera as listed on one of the major review sites, this camera has only 66% of it's advertised 4MP.
That's a bunch of bull.

Virtually any image viewer can tell you how many pixels are in an image. In it's full resolution mode, the images are 2304x1728 (which is equal to 3,981,312 pixels).

Kodak is not going to put a sensor in a camera that doesn't have at least the number of active photosties being put into the final image, without advertising that it's interpolating them to achieve the results.

Now, I have seen some sites putting out what I consider to be misleading and bogusinformation -- trying to convert how well a camera does on one test or another (Imatest, etc.)to megapixels (which has nothing to do with the number ofphotosites the sensor has, or the number of pixels being represented in the final image). There are also a lot of variables not being taken into consideration for some of these tests (for example, some lenses are sharper on one end or the other (wide angle to full zoom), most are sharper if you avoid either extreme of the aperture range, etc.).

A lot of factors go into image quality -- sensor, lens, image procesing algorithms, lighting, camera settings used (aperture, ISO speed, shutter speed, focal length, contrast, sharpening, etc.), focus distance, and of course, the photographer's skills.

But, the camera is a 4 Megapixel Camera, with a final image size of 2304 x 1728 (which is pretty much standard for most 4MP models, as the number of active photosties that will be used in the final image -- even though most sensors have more photosites than this).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 4:22 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6
Default

:-)This would be the correct site with a downloadable pixel test screen. My original complaint was worded for ther general public to entice first time buyers into finding out more about what there money is really buying them.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/con...era-Review.htm
rockbug63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 4:30 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6
Default

:roll:I maintain that a viewer can only display what the firmware of the camera tells it about an image, I can write firmware for my DC290 which supported Digiscripting and tell it to say anything I wanted it to if I had access to that potion of the internal programming.No viewer has the capability to interrogate a CCD directly an do an actual count of it sensor bins.
rockbug63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 4:41 PM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

rockbug63 wrote:
Quote:
:-)This would be the correct site with a downloadable pixel test screen. My original complaint was worded for ther general public to entice first time buyers into finding out more about what there money is really buying them.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/con...era-Review.htm
To say that a camera is using x number of pixelsis nothing but a bunch of bull.

You can measure the number of pixels total for the chart (the number in the image, which is2304x1728 (3,981,312 pixels) to determine how many pixels are represented by a line.

But, resolving power has nothing to do with the number of megapixels in an image.

They are measuring monochrome resolving capability (i.e., lines per inch vertical, horizontal), not megapixels, using a resolution chart like this; and as I've already pointed out, a camera's performance on these types of tests is influenced heavily by the camera settings used.

They are trying to convert this into megapixels (when it doesn't have anything to do with the number of pixels being output-- only how well the camera is resolving the lines on the monochrome test target -- at the settings used for the test).

JimC 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 5:01 PM.