Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 5, 2004, 8:35 PM   #51
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default

These images are beautiful. Congrats and thank you for sharing such grand images. Did you clean them up with Neat Image?- Rob
robsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2004, 8:40 PM   #52
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default

Something strange happened. I took a 5mp image with the FZ20. It looked a little grainy on the back of the camera and on my monitor---but when I printed a 4 x 6 " on my Epson R200 it looked crisper than similar images I took with my FZ10. (BTW, the image was a flash self-portrait at about 3-foot.)

Has anyone else seen this?

Thanks,

Rob
robsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2004, 11:01 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

I just realized something that some of you may know or not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but...

if you took the same image at 5MP and 3MP, The size of the image would be different as we all know. But...

Not only is the size different, but each detail of the 5MP image would be made up of more pixels... Meaning that there is more detail in the 5MP image.

Am I saying this correctly?

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2004, 7:52 AM   #54
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 28
Default

mudshu wrote:
Quote:
2560 x 1920 (5MP)

2048 x 1536 (4MP)

1600 x 1200 (3MP)

1280 x 690 (2MP)

I am far from an expert, and would like some opinions on the quality of these samples. Not from a resolution standpoint, but the picture quality of each MP size.

Thanks in advance.

bobc

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The FZ20 doesn't record at 4mp, so all of your numbers are off by a factor of 1 starting down from 4mp, which should read 3mp, etc. You made a similar error in an earlier post when you cited 1280 X 960 as 2mp resolution, when in fact it is 1mp, and becomesless than 1/4 the size of 2560 X 1920. "Double the sides, square the area." BTW, 2304 X 1728 is 4mp resolution.

mud

please educate me...this is how i understand the mp's:

2048 x 1536 = 3,145,728 pixels or approximately 3MP (not 4MP)

1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels or approximately 2MP (not 3MP)

1280 x 690 = 883,200 pixels or approximately 1MP (not 2MP)

spectator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2004, 12:42 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 130
Default

RE: more megapixels are better.
The review of the FZ3 on www.dpreview.com was intersting. It had the best results of the four cameras but the lowest megapixels, so Pansonic was obviously doing something right.
I think a lot of the questons about the FZ15 are due to the frustration that it doesn't appear to be in anyone's queue to test (www.dpreview.com won't ever see it because they are based in England and its not released there).
Please see the table at the bottom of this page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/page8.asp

Bill
wmussatto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2004, 1:41 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 193
Default

robsmith wrote:
Quote:
Something strange happened. I took a 5mp image with the FZ20. It looked a little grainy on the back of the camera and on my monitor---but when I printed a 4 x 6 " on my Epson R200 it looked crisper than similar images I took with my FZ10. (BTW, the image was a flash self-portrait at about 3-foot.)

Has anyone else seen this?

Thanks,

Rob
It could be because when you took that image at a 5MP setting, which is at the max supported resolution, the image will look grainy when you zoom into it. Especially when you upload it to your computer and look at the image on a large scale.

When you print out the image or if you use photoshop to "re-size" the image down to let say 800x600 or 1024x768 or 640x480, you will not see those grain any more because you have made the image smaller thus as the result, shrunken the allowed gap spaces.

Just a thought

As for the other post.

If you taken a picture with a 5MP camera, 4MP camera, or even a 6MP camera on a standard 1280x1024 (used by most 4x6 pictures) the result will look pretty much identical. It is rarely that you would need to go beyond 1600x1200 setting unless you are going to do an 8x10 image or larger. On a larger scale picture, yes you will notice a different. On a typical computer, website, or print you will not as the resolution you usually will use will not notice that difference.

KN
smilepak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2004, 9:51 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

smilepak,

If you are refering to my post, I don't mean printable image size.

What I'm trying to say is... If you had 2 images... lets make it easy and say one is 2580 x 1920, and the other is 1280 x 960.

Each detail on the larger image would be twice as many pixels as each detail on the smaller image (in this case).

I don't know if I am saying this right or not.

Maybe I'm just confused...

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2004, 10:08 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

robsmith wrote:
Quote:
Something strange happened. I took a 5mp image with the FZ20. It looked a little grainy on the back of the camera and on my monitor---but when I printed a 4 x 6 " on my Epson R200 it looked crisper than similar images I took with my FZ10. (BTW, the image was a flash self-portrait at about 3-foot.)

Has anyone else seen this?

Thanks,

Rob

Maybe this has to do with what I am talking about... And...

Because the Epson prints at 5760 x 1440 DPI, you can notice the difference in detail even on smaller prints.

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2004, 10:47 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

This is my theory concerning the images and the noise...

And I think this will hold true with any digital camera (because they all have noise).

2 Images taken of the same thing, with the same settings, under the same conditions. one image is 2560 x 1920, and the other is 1280 x 960 (half the size of the larger image).

I think it would be safe to assume that the noise gets translated into pixels along with the details, or it would not be a part of the image.

And I would be willing to bet that if you counted the noise pixels (if you could) on both images, you would come up with roughly half the noise pixels on the smaller image along with roughly half of the detail pixels.

So the larget image would have roughly twice the noise, and also twice the detail.

I would also be willing to bet that taking the same shot at each MP size, the same ratio would hold true (roughly).

From what I have read about CCD's is that the cells are photo diodes that convert light into a signal. This signal is analog (meaning varying in strength). They have to be filtered and converted to a digital signal (fixed) through an A to D conversion process before they even become pixels.

The optics and the sensor must work together to create the proper analog signals to be converted, and the filter and engine must work together figure out what color each signal is.

I am guessing that many factors could contribute to the noise.

Did anyone notice that the FZ20 has a slightly different focalrange than the other FZxx's accourding to the specks?

Maybe this is meant to compensate for something.

But anyway... Thats my theory.

If anyone knows something more about this, please let me know?

Thanks in advance...

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2004, 11:19 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

This all brings us back to the FZ-1v2 that zoomn cited. People just don't seem to want to believe that its puny 2MPs can produce such fantastic images, and don't take it seriously but I still say, taking it's price into consideration, it's the best of the lot. Its CCD size to MPs has the best balance. I really believe that the CCD size was actually designed for 2 MPs in the first place for optimum image quality. It's a case of less is more in terms of both megapixels and money. How often do you print larger than 8X10? My experience is this, I've taken 1500 photos. 1000 are on CD-Rom, 500 deleted. 120 (12%) or so have been printed at 6X4's. 2 MP is fine for PC viewing - too much, in fact. 2 MP is more than enough for photo-quality resolution at 6X4. I have printed seven 8X10's (.07%) which look excellent.

At $250 the FZ-1v2 truly a steal. I would consider buying a 2nd one of these over any of the rest. 5 MP's on the FZ-20 is pushing it, the 15 doesn't have a hot shoe, which I think makes it almost pointless while FZ-10's are still available. That leaves you with the FZ-10, FZ-3, and the FZ-1 (which you would upgrade to the FZ-2). I prefer the compactness of the FZ-1v2 and FZ-3, a toss up between the two. If cost was the main consideration, FZ-1v2. If the extra hundred of so didn't matter, I would go with the FZ-3 - probably. If I had to have a hot-shoe then the FZ-10.

Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
NickTrop 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 1:17 PM.