Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why in-camera interpolation.

Reply
Thread Tools

Why in-camera interpolation.

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
[]
> A lot of digital photographers don't want to use computers. Look at
> the number of printers these days that print directly from camera. I
> am not sure why these folks want digital, but for those like that,
> in-camera works for them.


Example: friend's wife said to me recently: "He's had that digital camera
six months now and I've never seen a single print. I'll buy him a better
printer for Christmas." Husband is not that computer literate, the wife
even less so, so I helped her buy an Epson R300 where she can insert the
memory card directly and get as many high quality prints at either "10 x
8" or "6 x 4" size. He can have the printer connected to his computer,
but she needs to know nothing about the computer to get a print.

One delighted couple!

(I can't answer why he bought a digital camera in the first place,
though!).

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A. Stovall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:21:20 -0600, Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>FoulDragon wrote:
>
>> I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
>> mode.
>>
>> What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP image
>> from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
>> making a larger file on the storage card?

>
>A lot of digital photographers don't want to use computers. Look at the
>number of printers these days that print directly from camera. I am not
>sure why these folks want digital, but for those like that, in-camera
>works for them.


I'm not sure, I would use the term "photographers" for these folk but
rather "picture snappers".


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

"He that we last as Thurn and Taxis knew
Now recks no lord but the stiletto's Thorn,
And Tacit lies the gold once-knotted horn.
No hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow,
Who's once been set his tryst with Trystero."

"The Crying of Lot 49"
Thomas Pynchon
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (FoulDragon) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP
> interpolated" mode.
>
> What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP
> image from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer,
> rather than making a larger file on the storage card?
>


Might be better, might not. Depends on your software, and how well you can
use it. Also depends on you having access to the RAW data that the camera
has. I don't usually shoot RAW with my camera because it's too slow for
many purposes, and RAW doesn't make better prints, in typical lighting
situations.

In my limited tests, I found in-camera interpolation (in my case, digital
zoom) to be comparable to (but not identical to) Photoshop 6.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005

"Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> FoulDragon wrote:
>
> > I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP

interpolated"
> > mode.
> >
> > What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP

image
> > from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather

than
> > making a larger file on the storage card?

>
> A lot of digital photographers don't want to use computers. Look at the
> number of printers these days that print directly from camera. I am not
> sure why these folks want digital, but for those like that, in-camera
> works for them.
>


Ricoh had one model of digital camera (the original Caplio, I believe) that
was basically a 3 MP model, but it had the ability to shoot two pictures,
separated by a width of something like one single pixel, and it could
produce a 6 MP image from it.

It was a way of approaching 6 MP image quality, without using a 6 MP chip.
But it was more than simply producing 2 pixels for every one that was
actually captured by the CCD.

Might that be what you're talking about?


 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (FoulDragon) wrote:

>I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
>mode.
>
>What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP image
>from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
>making a larger file on the storage card?


Some Fuji cameras offer this. What is going on is that the sensor in
these cameras don't record an image in 3 million pixels in the typical
grid:

0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000

but rather, like this:

0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0

There is no way to convey the information recorded in a rectangular grid
of 3 million pixels. You will lose detail. So, in order for the camera
to make a JPEG that has all the resolution of the original, it must fill
in the blanks, doubling the pixels to 6 million. If you shoot in RAW
mode, only the 3 million pixels are in the file, and the software that
converts to other files formats on your computer can expand it to 6
million pixels.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

>Sigma makes a 12.7 megapixel image out of a 3.4 megapixel Foveon CCD


How different does it look from a 3.4MP image resized 200%?

The only time increasing the size in the raw converter is useful is if
the converter is also doing CA corrections or lens distortion
corrections.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Marvin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
Sheldon wrote:
> I guess it depends which does the better job -- the camera or the software.
>

When I do it in my computer, I can go back to the original if I don't like the result. If the camera does it, I can't go back.
>
> "FoulDragon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
>>mode.
>>
>>What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP
>>image
>>from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
>>making a larger file on the storage card?
>>--
>>Marada Shra'drakaii

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Cisco 2611 and Cisco 1721 : Why , why , why ????? sam@nospam.org Cisco 10 05-01-2005 08:49 AM
Why, why, why??? =?Utf-8?B?VGltOjouLg==?= ASP .Net 6 01-27-2005 03:35 PM
Why Why Why You HAVE NO IDEA MCSE 31 04-24-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments