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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 26, 2005, 6:50 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
rubinsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

I have resently discovered that bymanupilating 2 megapixel images from my Lumix FZ15in photoshop, i can make them look practically identicalto an image taken in 4 megapixel mode:O.A 2 megapixel upconverted to a 4 megapixel picture appears to have lessnoise with the same level of detailand is slightly brighter and more vivid. This begs the question of wether or not my fz15 is capable of putting out 4 megapixels. Based on my observations in Photoshop i have to say that it's roughly capable of putting out around 2 "real"megapixels of accuracy:sad:.

At 4 megapixels i get practically the same level of detail as 2but withthe unwantedCCD noise. But don't take my word for it, justlook at the picture I supplied and decide for yourself. I've had this camera for 8 months now, and only after switching to 2 megapixel mode do i get decent results, especiallywith indoor lighting. I'm not claiming that this camera has a 2 megapixel CCD sensor instead of a 4, but the fact that it's so noisy and jaggy in 4 megapixel mode (iso100) compels me to switch to 2mp. When i print 4x6 photos inthe fz's 4 megapixel mode with my Canon Pixma ip5000 printeri can see the jaggies on the faces of subjects, as well as noise (using iso100). At first i thought it was my printer, But i downloaded an original sample photo takenwith a Canon 350D "wish i had one"camera andit printed withno jaggies and exellent clarity, so I know its not my printer. In fact, if i print 2 megapixel upconverted to 4 megapixels pictures from my fz15 i get no jaggies on the prints.

Aside from the subject, has anyone else been really annoyed by the CCD's lack of dynamic range and the lack of gamma intensity outdoors?



Ok. Heres what I did in "Photshop-CSII" :

1. I took 2 TIFF pictures of my wife's chinesemedicine bottlesfrom 6 feet away (Yes, im currently living inChina but no Im not Chinese, i'mAmerican:G). Onepicture was takenin 2 Megapixel mode (1600x1200)and the other a 4 Megapixel mode(2304x1728).

2. I upconverted the 2 Megapixel to 4Megapixel using photoshop (with bicubic interpolation option).

3. I then sharpened the resized picture by using "unharp mask" filter in photoshop.

4. I then zoomed in 100% to both pictures and took small portions and placed them side by side to make comparisons. Now look at the picture and you tell me.

The left side shows 2megapixels coverted to 4 then sharpened. The right side shows an untouched unedited portion of a TIFF. Because of size constraints i had to convert the picture to jpeg, but in any case it looks the same.

As far as i can tell the 2 Megapixel pictures is more ideal for printing because it has the same level of detail but minimal noise. The 4MP pictures shows, among the CCD's high level noise in iso100,vertical and horizontal lines that don't exist on the actual smooth-white wall. You might have to zoom in to see these rather small lines but, in any case, this is what's causing the jaggies when i print. I hate jaggies:evil:!

Here is the EXIF for both pictures:

Camera
Make Panasonic
Model DMC-FZ15
Orientation Upper Left
Resolution unit inches
Date/time 10/26/2005 2:50:12 AM
Image
Image description
Artist
Copyright
Exposure time 1/60 s
F-number f/2.8
Exposure program Normal Program
ISO speed ratings 100
Date/time original 10/26/2005 2:50:12 AM
Date/time digitized 10/26/2005 2:50:12 AM
Exposure bias value 0.00 EV
Max. aperture value f/2.8
Metering mode Pattern
Light source Flash
Focal length 6 mm
User comment
Colorspace sRGB
Pixel X dimension
Pixel Y dimension
Sensing method One-chip color area sensor
Scene type A directly photographed image
Custom Rendered Custom process
Exposure mode Auto exposure
White balance Auto white balance
Digital zoom ratio 0
Focal length in 35mm film 35 mm
Scene capture type Standard
Gain control None
Contrast Normal
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
Miscellaneous
Exif version 2.2




Attached Images
 
rubinsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 26, 2005, 7:16 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 21
Default

Well impossible to hide that lot eople asking themselves this kind of question.

When you see the noise in FZ30 8 megas pictures and how he works fine in 5.5 shot...

It s because those differences between official informations and reality we happy to have this kind forum.
mage813 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 8:12 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
rubinsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

:?mage813your writing formis very difficult to understand. What do you mean when you say "It s because those differences between official informations and reality we happy to have this kind forum"?

Do you mean to say we should all be satisfied with "official information" and that I should not criticize? And why does it make you "happy"? :O

:?ok, i'm confused...


rubinsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 8:22 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
genece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
Default

This is only my opinion but if you see noise and Jaggies when you print photos from a FZ15 you are not printing correctly.

Reconsider how you are handling the photos.
genece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 9:10 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

rubinsky wrote:
Quote:
:?mage813your writing formis very difficult to understand. What do you mean when you say "It s because those differences between official informations and reality we happy to have this kind forum"?

Do you mean to say we should all be satisfied with "official information" and that I should not criticize? And why does it make you "happy"? :O

:?ok, i'm confused...

not to speak for someone else, but i think he's saying thatreality doesn't always match advertised performance, and he's glad to have a forum like this where people can share real-life information.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 9:15 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

awfully hard to see any difference in the sizes you posted, Rubinsky, and in 4x6 prints, a 2MO image even without upsizing will look as good as 4MP. it's when you print larger sizes like 8x10 that the differences become more apparent. have you tried making large prints (8x10 or bigger) using your interpolated files? how do those compare with similar prints made from 4MP images?

i have an FZ20, and aside from a bit of noise now and then, i'vehad no problems of the sort you describe (jaggies, etc.) at any print size up to 11x14 (haven't tried anything bigger yet).
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 9:25 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
rubinsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

Before I reply to you, I must mention that jaggies is not really my main point in this post. Ican't really go deep into the subject of prints because, well, im in China and I brought my entire computer here but not my scanner to prove my pointon prints. So thepurpose of this post is to debate the subject of measuring pixel accuracy versus what companies claim.

Anyway, I dont blame you for not seeing the jaggies, as most people interpret them as something else.They arereally quitesmall and most of my friends see them as smallspecs on their face or onsmooth objects. I know, maybe your thinking they might be freckles but what about people withperfectly clear skin? What do I tell them? When i take a magnifying glass to the photoI can see very short and small linestraveling either vertically or horizontally in a repeating pattern. Sometimes, for the lack of a better word, objects that are otherwise smooth in collor appear to look "dirty" in the prints. With a closer inspection in photoshop you can easily find the source of the problem (see the supplied picture). With a magnifying glass you can see the same pattern on the prints. Anyway when i use samples from, say, a good reference cameralike the Canon-350D, i dont get this sort of problem on screen or on prints as I mentioned before. So if i getreally goodprinting results with one camera, obviously the problem is not how im printing.

Iprint them in photoshop cs2 and in ACDsee-8 in full resolution with Kodak Premium Glossy Inkjet Paper and Canon Photo paper too and I don't lower the resolution or edit the photos but i can seethose dirty littlesubtle jaggies. Please keep in mind im not talking about "nintendo jaggies" ok? hehe

Here's an exsample of what im talking about. This is a picture of a smooth-white wall and i used 200% magnificationbecause some people will just see it as noise or specs of dirt,but noise doesn't really have a pattern, this thing does. The last time i saw this this sort of repeating pattern of subtle jagged lines,was when i tried to blow up pictures in the early versions of some old photo editing software I used when i was a young teenager (now im 35).
Attached Images
 
rubinsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 10:40 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
rubinsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

Here's a larger example of a 2megapixel fz15 picture upconverted to 4megapixel, then sharpened in photoshop. Try to compare this picture to the the 4 megapixel one i will place in the next post and you will find they look almost indentical in the level of detail. So in other words the 4 megapixel one cannot produce more detail. Please note im not refering to prints this is a picture directlly from the camera. I dont really want to get into prints because i have no scanner here in china toillustrate what i see. Also, please keep in mind this is originally a2megapixel picture converted to 4 , before you compare to the next one. Sorry, but i cannot provide the whole picture because the file is too large so i had to do some cropping but the pixels are not resampled so you guys will at least see an accurate but small portion of the picture.

My personal opinion is thatthe 2 megapixel picture converted to 4 (im not talking about prints)looks brighter and much cleaner andwith practically the same level of detail , thenif i were to take the same picture in the camera's 4 megapixel mode.

Here is a cropped example of a 2megapixel fz15 picture converted to 4megapixel then sharpened in photoshop:

Attached Images
 
rubinsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 10:50 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 511
Default

All I see is pixilization in the rectangle above.
Tazzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2005, 10:54 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
rubinsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

Now try to compare this to the picture on the top post. The top should look cleaner and brighter but both should havepractically the same level ofdetail. If this is so, then this camera (FZ15) cannot provide a higher resolution in the 4Megapixel mode and the "2megapixel+photoshop conversion"is the prefered choice for me as I am getting better visual results.

Here's an unedited, 4 megapixel picture which was cropped but without resampling the pixels so what you see is 100% original size:


Attached Images
 
rubinsky 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 7:00 AM.