«

I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means. Thank you for your assistance.
--
See the countryside on a bicycle ride.

In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.
Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M picture......yes.

Clear as mud?
"Mark Grady" <> wrote in message news:yo5bb.46786$ hlink.net...

I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means. Thank you for your assistance.
--
See the countryside on a bicycle ride.

They mask the outer edge and use that to establish the "black" signal level, at least this is what was stated on dpreview.com (a long time ago). The number of effective pixels reflects how many can actually be used to record an image.

--

"Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote in message news:dx5bb.4043$ t...
In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.
Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M picture......yes.

Clear as mud?
"Mark Grady" <> wrote in message news:yo5bb.46786$ hlink.net...

I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means. Thank you for your assistance.
--
See the countryside on a bicycle ride.

When the number of recorded pixels exceed the number of actual pixels on
chip, this is interpolated resolution. How well interpolation works is
highly dependent on subject matter.

> Mark Grady wrote:
>
>
> I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has
> 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen
> similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means.
> Thank you for your assistance.
> --
> See the countryside on a bicycle ride.

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

In message <dx5bb.4043$> ,
"Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote:

>In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.

I believe that it is a regular rectangular grid, but rotated 45 degrees,
like so:

* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *

>Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M picture......yes.

Unless you're shooting a chain-link fence! The fuji orientation favors
horizontal and vertical lines, at the expense of diagonals.

Unfortunately, you have to record a 6mp file to get the 3mp of data.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

<> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <dx5bb.4043$> ,
> "Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote:
>
> >In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern
that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.
>
> I believe that it is a regular rectangular grid, but rotated 45 degrees,
> like so:
>
> * * * *
> * * * *
> * * * *
> * * * *
> * * * *
> * * * *
>
> >Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M
picture......yes.
>
> Unless you're shooting a chain-link fence! The fuji orientation favors
> horizontal and vertical lines, at the expense of diagonals.
>
> Unfortunately, you have to record a 6mp file to get the 3mp of data.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I believe that the pixels are actually hexagonals in shape not retangular
with offset.
This results in a somewhat narrower pitch without sacrificing size.
And I seem to recall that you can record just the 3M data if you desire.
Not advocating this arrangement......don't even own a Fuji.......just
clarifying.

PC

In message <Qq6db.5128$ >,
"Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote:

>I believe that the pixels are actually hexagonals in shape not retangular
>with offset.

That's what I thought when I first heard of it, but I believe I found
out afterward that it was just a diagonal pattern.

>This results in a somewhat narrower pitch without sacrificing size.
>And I seem to recall that you can record just the 3M data if you desire.

That would only work in RAW mode, without resampling. As soon as you
rasterize it to a JPG or TIFF, you're going to have to drop detail (3mp)
or bloat the raster (6mp).

>Not advocating this arrangement......don't even own a Fuji.......just
>clarifying.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:50:07 GMT, wrote:


>
>That's what I thought when I first heard of it, but I believe I found
>out afterward that it was just a diagonal pattern.
>

Well, that's not what their website
http://www2.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/index.php?flash=6 states!!

It clearly shows that their Super CCD is actually octagonal.


--

Regards

John [Harold Hill, Essex, UK]

Remove the obvious spamtrap from the address to reply!

In message <>,
John Corbett <> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:50:07 GMT, wrote:

>>That's what I thought when I first heard of it, but I believe I found
>>out afterward that it was just a diagonal pattern.

>Well, that's not what their website
>http://www2.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/index.php?flash=6 states!!
>
>It clearly shows that their Super CCD is actually octagonal.

It clearly shows exactly what I said, that the cells are laid out in a
diagonal pattern. They happen to also be hexagonal in individual
_shape_.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:22:11 GMT, wrote:

>In message <>,
>John Corbett <> wrote:

>It clearly shows exactly what I said, that the cells are laid out in a
>diagonal pattern. They happen to also be hexagonal in individual
>_shape_.

Hmmm.....I'm not sure I agree with that.

Granted the graphic shows the photodiode rotating through 45 degrees, but
this is for illustration only. If you follow the presentation through, it
clearly shows that even though they have been rotated, they are actually
octagonal (not hexagonal) in shape!


--

Regards

John [Harold Hill, Essex, UK]

Remove the obvious spamtrap from the address to reply!