Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Number of pixels- Explanation

Reply
Thread Tools

Number of pixels- Explanation

 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2005


frederick wrote:
> Test shots are taken in artifical conditions. In ideal circumstances,
> the 8mp from a P&S can be just as good as the 8mp from a dslr. The
> problem only comes when the real world doesn't consist only of ideal
> conditions.

Yes a P&S can be just as sharp as a DSLR, but they normally are not.
They are getting better however and the F10 is a pretty impressive
example of this.

If you look at these photos I think you will clearly see that not all
P&S digitals are the same.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fuji...zoom/page7.asp

This is part of what they said about the camera

"It may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution,
and is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
and low noise. I cannot emphasize enough the value of usable high ISO
settings in a compact camera - from reducing camera shake to more
natural low light portraits (without flash) to extended flash range and
all the other advantages DSLR users take for granted and most compact
users - stuck to ISO 200 (or 400 at a push) can only dream of. "

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2005

"Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> If you look at these photos I think you will clearly see that not all
> P&S digitals are the same.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fuji...zoom/page7.asp
>
> This is part of what they said about the camera
>
> "It may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution,
> and is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
> potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
> and low noise. I cannot emphasize enough the value of usable high ISO
> settings in a compact camera - from reducing camera shake to more
> natural low light portraits (without flash) to extended flash range and
> all the other advantages DSLR users take for granted and most compact
> users - stuck to ISO 200 (or 400 at a push) can only dream of. "


Yes, but he didn't do any serious testing at ISO 1600. There are only two
ISO 1600 shots in the gallery, and both are really poor in terms of
sharpness. Here are two 300D (50/1.4 at f/ images; ISO 100 vs. ISO 1600
(no sharpening and no noise reduction: RSE does a lovely job of cleaning up
the noise with almost no loss of detail, so it was hard to force myself to
turn it off<g>.)

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594130/large
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594198/large

(Hit "original" to see the (Photoshop quality 9, roughly 1 MB) full image.)

Sure, ISO 1600 is somewhat softer. But not a lot. A tad of noise reduction
and sharpening, and one gets seriously usable images.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2005


David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > If you look at these photos I think you will clearly see that not all
> > P&S digitals are the same.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fuji...zoom/page7.asp
> >
> > This is part of what they said about the camera
> >
> > "It may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution,
> > and is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
> > potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
> > and low noise. I cannot emphasize enough the value of usable high ISO
> > settings in a compact camera - from reducing camera shake to more
> > natural low light portraits (without flash) to extended flash range and
> > all the other advantages DSLR users take for granted and most compact
> > users - stuck to ISO 200 (or 400 at a push) can only dream of. "

>
> Yes, but he didn't do any serious testing at ISO 1600. There are only two
> ISO 1600 shots in the gallery, and both are really poor in terms of
> sharpness. Here are two 300D (50/1.4 at f/ images; ISO 100 vs. ISO 1600
> (no sharpening and no noise reduction: RSE does a lovely job of cleaning up
> the noise with almost no loss of detail, so it was hard to force myself to
> turn it off<g>.)
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594130/large
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594198/large
>
> (Hit "original" to see the (Photoshop quality 9, roughly 1 MB) full image.)
>
> Sure, ISO 1600 is somewhat softer. But not a lot. A tad of noise reduction
> and sharpening, and one gets seriously usable images.
>


Consider the F10 to be all that useable at ISO 1600, but it looks
pretty clean at ISO 800. At lot of the small P&S cameras don't even
go that high.

It does not do well against my 20D, but then the 20D has a huge sensor
compared to the F10.

The sharpness of the photos from the F10 are much closer to DSLR then a
P&S camera.

We own a compact digital camera that we use for time when the 20D and
the F828 are just way to big, the CasioQV-R1. It is pretty typical of
small inexpensive digital cameras, whereas it claims to have close to 5
MP it would not even come close to the resolution of a 300D, it also
has a max ISO setting of 400, and you really don't want to use this.
The point is that many of the small digital cameras with the high pixel
count are misleading as to what there image quality will be like,
simply put one pixel is not necessarily as good as another. There
are people who have a hard time when Fuji points this out, that their
pixels are better then other compact cameras.

Scott

 
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
OT: Number Nine, Number Nine, Number Nine FrisbeeŽ MCSE 37 09-26-2005 04:06 PM
Simple Explanation to Networking Wirelessly?? Jaxim Wireless Networking 4 08-19-2005 05:04 AM
explanation Mariusz VHDL 1 01-13-2004 02:10 AM
DVMRP Explanation Acer0001 Cisco 0 11-20-2003 04:41 AM
Need Explanation Kaladhaur Palaniappa Perl 0 08-07-2003 09:47 AM



Advertisments