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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 30, 2004, 7:59 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Treemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 628
Default

FZ10, 1/500 s, F5.2, ISO 50, straight from camera with only a resize. I cant see any noise can you?
I am happy with my FZ10 but I have to agree with Nick. The FZ1v2 is a good buy especially if you spend the money you save buying some cool extras such a flash, wide angle/macro lens.
Attached Images
 
Treemonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 9:54 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Nick

Nice pic ! From that shot, from its size there's no way to tell what MP camera been used , no way a cellphone though !

Harj
Harj - that's my point! The same would apply if it was bigger too, if viewed on a monitor. The same also applies to a 6X4 snapshot taken with a camera at or above 1.5 megapixels. The key word being size. From a "resolution" standpoint, a 600X350 pixel image is a 600X350 pixel image regardless of what camera it's taken with. The quality of an image at this size would have >everything< to do with optics and the processor, and >never< have anything to do with the number of megapixels. In the case of a big megapixel camera, you just throw more pixels away.

OBTW: this pic was taken with my "beach cam" - a sub-one megapixel "Largan Easy 800" I bought on eBay for $34, delivered.

Treemonkey wrote:
Quote:
The FZ1v2 is a good buy especially if you spend the money you save buying some cool extras such a flash, wide angle/macro lens.
Exactly! I'll end up spending the same money as the F-20 for my digital set-up. I will have IR photography capabilities, extreme macro capabilities, big flash capabilities, and increased optical zoom capabilities, and perhaps wide-angle. I gain all these capabilities, with the only trade-off being I can't print an 11X20 poster at 300 ppi (well, actually I can using software with good results, but that's for another thread... or, I can just use my 35mm SLR) - any why would I want to? And, I lose the ability to crop and magnify small portions of images at high ppi, which I seldom, if ever, do. I also lose the nice compact size size of the FZ-1, for a camera that's been made bulkier for marketing purposes only.

I'll come out and say it. I think it's nuts to spend around $600 for the FZ-20 for all those unecessary megapixels, that are usually thrown away, or add nothing meaningful to the image quality when you can spend 1/4 as much (now), get an FZ-1, upgrade the firmware, and use the money to ->vastly<- expand the photographic capabilities of your digital set-up, as I've cited above.

Nice shot! Makes me want to go to Florida this winter for a long weekend getaway.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 11:59 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
Completely incorrect, Bob. Sorry, have to disagree:

1) Pixel ->density<- is what resolves image resolution, and allows for fine detail. How many pixels are there per inch?

2) Pixel density inversely related to - and determined by, image size. If you increase the size of an image, the pixels are less dense. Decrease the dimensions of an image, pixel density increases.
Nick. I believe you are talking about Spatial Resolution. You better read up on the subject before you correct someone.

I am talking about Pixel Count Resolution. This is the total number of pixels in an image, and has nothing to do with digital cameras, screens, printers, scanners, or any other type of imaging I/O device.

You can change the ppi, dimensions, or pixel dimensions as much as you want (Spatial Resolution), but unless you resample or crop the image the total number of pixels that the image contains (Pixel Count Rsolution) remains the same.

And... All screen resolutions are not 72ppi. It depends on the size of the monitor and the resolution you set up in windows. For exmple a 17 inch monitor set to 1024 x 768 is 84ppi. The reason Photo Shop sets it to 72 is because that is the standard set for the web. And you can alter the Spatial Resolution any way you want, but the total number of pixels will never change unless you resample or crop the image.

Now. If you do not believe this, I have included a sample in this post. The following sample contains an image of 2 100% crops. They are taken from a 2560 x 1920 ppi image, and the other taken from a 1280 x 960 image. Bothcrops contain a single detail of the same picture taken at the two different sizes.

Open this up in Photo Shop and zoom in to the max 1600%, then tell me which has more detail. Anyone could see the one with more pixels has more detail, because there are more pixels per detail.

I am talking about images here... Not digital cameras... Not megapixels... Not the FZ1... Not the FZ3... Not the FZ10... Not the FZ15... Not the FZ20... Or any other camera... JUST THE BASIC FACTS ABOUT IMAGES...

I think the FZ1 is a great camera, and if I could afford it, I would buy one of each of the Lumix Line. And I know the 20 has more noise, and I agree with some of your research on the sensor sizes. And the reason I say some is because I have seen samples of cameras with much larger sensor and more noise thanthe FZ20.

By the power vested in me by the state of Pennsylvania, I hear by declare a new technical term in imaging PPD (Pixels Per Detail)...

bobc


Attached Images
 
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 12:18 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11
Default

NickTrop, Thank you so much for the information.

Is the FZ1 the same as FZ10? Also, can I print 8 x 10s? I do a lot of 8 x 10s for family and friends. Is it that difficult to find the FZ1? I recently saw a link from someone who was able to do infrared with his FZ1 and it was breathtaking. I want to be able to do that, create 8 x10s, a great zoom, and manual controls for learning.

Also, as a newbie on this site, how do your create the little boxes with the person's quote whom you are responding to?
jazzisit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 12:24 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Treemonkey wrote:
Quote:
FZ10, 1/500 s, F5.2, ISO 50, straight from camera with only a resize. I cant see any noise can you?
I am happy with my FZ10 but I have to agree with Nick. The FZ1v2 is a good buy especially if you spend the money you save buying some cool extras such a flash, wide angle/macro lens.
Great Shot. And I also agree with Nick that the FZ1 is a great buy. And I think the FZ10 is a great camera as well. In fact I think the whole Lumix line is great.

What I would like to see more of is posts like the one you just made backed up with a sample. Many people post things that they read or hear, but don't make an attempt to back it up with some samples.

Thank you for your post.

Here is a night shot from My FZ20. Manual Mode, f2.8, 8 seconds, ISO 100, tripod.

Straight out of the camera, only resize. Would you say there is a big noise problem?

bobc


Attached Images
 
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 12:27 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
And... All screen resolutions are not 72ppi. It depends on the size of the monitor and the resolution you set up in windows. For exmple a 17 inch monitor set to 1024 x 768 is 84ppi. The reason Photo Shop sets it to 72 is because that is the standard set for the web. And you can alter the Spatial Resolution any way you want, but the total number of pixels will never change unless you resample or crop the image.
(I figured out how to create the box). I think this is what really confuses me. Because when I download pictures from the fz20, in photoshop it is listed as 72 ppi. Download pics from my old canon G3, it's 180 ppi. Downloaded pics from a friend's Nikon D70 (my dream camera), it's 300 ppi. I don't change anything in photoshop so that's why I was wondering if it was the image resolution from the camera itself that was dictating the ppi numbers in photoshop.


jazzisit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 12:39 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Bob -

I know all about spatial resolution. In fact, to your point, my argument is that spatial resolution is all that really matters! Once you hit a certain "Pixel Count Resolution", from the standpoint of spacial resolution (the amount of detail in an image that is visible to the human eye), "resolution" becomes a case of diminishing returns that approaches absurdity. The level of pixel count resolution to achieve a spatial resolution that is judged to be "photoquality" is 250 ppi. It makes little sense ->to me<- (as in my opinion) to pay for pixels that have little impact on the spacial resolution - that is the perception of detail, of images whose normal viewing distance is book (6X4) or arm's (8X10) length.

bobc wrote:
Quote:
Open this up in Photo Shop and zoom in to the max 1600%, then tell me which has more detail. Anyone could see the one with more pixels has more detail, because there are more pixels per detail.
Bob - exactly my point! Yes! You WILL see more detail, when magnified 1600 TIMES!!! You have to look at it -literally- under a microscope! Why? Because the difference in resolution is INVISIBLE to the naked eye, and the spacial resolution of these images from a normal viewing distance would appear equal. I can also see a pimple on paramecium's arse at a 1600X magnification.

Furthermore, resolution - or the level of detail in an image, does not a a great picture make. Color rendition, as one example, is ->far<- more important than that, wouldn't you say? How are those greens looking on the FZ-20? Any issues? Any more posts from folks complaining of funky colored green grass with the FZ-20?

Furthermore, PS sets your res to 72 as a default because that's the resolution of most - no all - monitors. Actually, I >think< (but might be wrong) that PS reads this setting from your OS and sets itself accordingly. There are high res monitors, that most folks don't own, and there are variences based on internal settings. Your point?
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 12:55 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
Bob - exactly my point! Yes! You WILL see more detail, when magnified 1600 TIMES!!! You have to look at it -literally- under a microscope! Why? Because the difference in resolution is INVISIBLE to the naked eye, and the spacial resolution of these images from a normal viewing distance would appear equal. I can also see a pimple on paramecium's arse at a 1600X magnification.
Nick... You just hit the nail on the head. All I was saying is that the difference is there (weather it is visible to the naked eye or not). And the only way you would notice it with the naked eye is if you did some substantial cropping, or printed at a very large size. But... It is there... And it is of an advantage when it comes to cropping and printing at very large sizes.

You could resample the smaller image and make it the same spacial size as the larger image, but you would loose some detail in the proccess.

Thanks for your reply,

bobc
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 1:03 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

... ahh, but does that detail really exist if you can't see it? Or - to pose it less metaphysically, does it really matter if you can't see it? Why pay 4X more for a camera that provides detail that is invisible under most ordinary circumstances, when I can use those savings to greatly enhance the capabilities of my digital set-up?

Again, all I'm saying is that it merits consideration, and that it's unfortunate that "megapixels" have become the standard to measure camera quality. What does have that's more important to me is a manual focus ring, autofocus (though personally I always found those annoying. Take a flash picture - and you have autofocus light, white balance pre-flash, red-eye reduction flash, and the main flash. Poor subjects!), and a hot shoe.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2004, 1:17 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
... ahh, but does that detail really exist if you can't see it? Or - to pose it less metaphysically, does it really matter if you can't see it? Why pay 4X more for a camera that provides detail that is invisible under most ordinary circumstances, when I can use those savings to greatly enhance the capabilities of my digital set-up?

Again, all I'm saying is that it merits consideration, and that it's unfortunate that "megapixels" have become the standard to measure camera quality.
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is within hearing distance... Does it make a sound?

And no... Size does not matter unless it comes to cropping or printing very large prints.

It is sad that megapixels are what most people are drawn to. Megapixels are only an advantage. The image quality and features are what make the camera. If the FZ20 where 3MP I still would have bought it (knowing what I know now).

Nick... Did you hear about the new liquid lenses? They apply a voltage to the liquid and can control the shape. Make it zoom in and out. I was reading about it in a magazine that someone left on my desk at work. It looks pretty awsome.

bobc


bobc 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 1:27 AM.