«

Is there any real info explaining the differences between these two
image processors from Canon?

Using Google to search Canon's Web site for pages containing mentions
of both, I find nothing except a statement that Digic III offers
"Face Detection Technology for superior image quality, fast operation
and low power consumption".

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
news:Xns988957051888AVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> Is there any real info explaining the differences between these two
> image processors from Canon?
>
> Using Google to search Canon's Web site for pages containing mentions
> of both, I find nothing except a statement that Digic III offers
> "Face Detection Technology for superior image quality, fast operation
> and low power consumption".
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |


I hate to be so suspicious, but I suspect that these proprietary names and
generational indicators will become the camera industry's latest replacement
for the megapixel race. In other words, touting what in reality are
relatively small, incremental improvements in the hope that consumers will
ditch their "obsolete" cameras and go with the latest technology.

The broader difficulty is that this fosters the wrong kind of mentality.
Consumers focus their attention on the equipment, rather than on creating
great photographs. Some people call them "measurebators" or "gearheads."
They are the modern incarnation of the old "cameras as jewelry" crowd--they
have the latest and greatest equipment, and they parade around with it
trying to look cool, but they can't take a decent photo to save their lives.
They have just latched on to camera equipment as a means of associating
themselves with technology and being up-to-date.

35 years ago I remember watching them strolling down Fifth Avenue in New
York, with their brand new Nikons hanging from their necks--and many of them
had cheap zoom lenses attached! They didn't understand that it was the
LENS, not the camera, that made the photo, and they thought that the Nikon
badge on their camera body marked them as sophisticated photographers. I
still chuckle when I think about those days.

Now Canon customers can start thinking about trading their Digic II cameras
for the latest Digic IIIs. In 6 months they'll be dreaming about
"upgrading" to Digic IV. Yet I'll bet that their photos are no better than
they were from when they were using disposable film cameras, purchased at
the local drug store!

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> Is there any real info explaining the differences between these two
> image processors from Canon?
>
> Using Google to search Canon's Web site for pages containing mentions
> of both, I find nothing except a statement that Digic III offers
> "Face Detection Technology for superior image quality, fast operation
> and low power consumption".

I don't know anything specific about these two chips but as a former
chip designer who worked a little on digital signal processing (DSP)
chips I'd venture that the new one is much faster so they can push more
data (megapixels) thru and keep the same or faster frame rates with
newer, higher pixel count sensors. For example one well-placed rumor
was that Canon had a 22 Mpixel sensor ready for a new 1Ds series body
for intro last Sept, but the Digic II chip was too slow to let them
process the data quickly enough for a decent frame rate. Hence the
need for faster signal processing in the Digic III.

Also they probably got the power consumption down, meaning similar
battery life with more throughput and/or longer battery life.

The basic image processing algorithms probably won't change radically
but you would typically take advantage of a re-design to tweak some
things for minor improvements.

I wouldn't be overly concerned about differences between Digic II vs
Digic III since these DSP chips are just one part in the overall camera
system, with the sensor and the software and the next generation
bodies. You need to evaluate all of them working together by looking
at the final product, the actual image.

Bill

> The basic image processing algorithms probably won't change radically
> but you would typically take advantage of a re-design to tweak some
> things for minor improvements.

All true, but I wouldn't call the step between the DIGIC in the 10D and
the DIGIC-II in the 20D a minor improvement. I started with a 20D, and
was astonished how sluggish a friend's 10D felt when I got to play with
it for a while.

If the DIGIC-III is able to handle 22MP images in the same way that the
DIGIC-II handles 8MP images, then it's a significant advancement. Albeit
to achieve the effect of standing still. ;o)

jeremy wrote:
>
> Now Canon customers can start thinking about trading their Digic II cameras
> for the latest Digic IIIs. In 6 months they'll be dreaming about
> "upgrading" to Digic IV. Yet I'll bet that their photos are no better than
> they were from when they were using disposable film cameras, purchased at
> the local drug store!
>
>

I think that Digic III has some real gains in
processing speed, etc. over Digic II. Like all
things electronic, evolution is pretty fast.

The weird "disposable film cameras" bit is so
puzzling that I can't comment. Perhaps you are
speaking from personal experience.

Phil

Bert Hyman wrote:
> Is there any real info explaining the differences between these two
> image processors from Canon?
>
> Using Google to search Canon's Web site for pages containing mentions
> of both, I find nothing except a statement that Digic III offers
> "Face Detection Technology for superior image quality, fast operation
> and low power consumption".
>


I think the sentence needs parsed: Face detection
technology and superior image quality (new
processing algorithms) and fast operation and
lower power consumption. The last three are
reasonable expectations from electronics
evolution; the first is, to me, a gimmick.

Phil

wt6uh- (Phil Wheeler) wrote in
news:tVYah.50768$:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> Is there any real info explaining the differences between these
>> two image processors from Canon?
>>
>> Using Google to search Canon's Web site for pages containing
>> mentions of both, I find nothing except a statement that Digic III
>> offers "Face Detection Technology for superior image quality, fast
>> operation and low power consumption".
>
> I think the sentence needs parsed: Face detection
> technology and superior image quality (new
> processing algorithms) and fast operation and
> lower power consumption. The last three are
> reasonable expectations from electronics
> evolution; the first is, to me, a gimmick.

I see "face detection" as a gimick too, but Canon seems quite proud
of it, since it's the only Digic III feature that I can find
explicitly explained and touted on their Web site.

Unfortunately, simply saying "fast operation and low power
consumption" without qualification or comparison to previous
technology isn't too useful.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> I see "face detection" as a gimick too, but Canon seems quite proud
> of it, since it's the only Digic III feature that I can find
> explicitly explained and touted on their Web site.
>
> Unfortunately, simply saying "fast operation and low power
> consumption" without qualification or comparison to previous
> technology isn't too useful.
>

There is a bit more said here

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/becommon.../digic3-e.html

Phil

wt6uh- (Phil Wheeler) wrote in
news:5hZah.51131$:

> There is a bit more said here
>
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/becommon.../digic3-e.html

Thanks; I only pointed Google at "canon.com".

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Bert Hyman wrote:
> Is there any real info explaining the differences between these two
> image processors from Canon?
>
> Using Google to search Canon's Web site for pages containing mentions
> of both, I find nothing except a statement that Digic III offers
> "Face Detection Technology for superior image quality, fast operation
> and low power consumption".

The difference between Digic and Digic II was huge in terms of
operation/processing speed. One easy example is seen even in small point &
shoots that were able to achieve high res, 30-60fps video for extended
periods. This just wasn't possible with the original Digic. Also, DSLR
responsiveness and image processing was a vast improvement. It also allowed
better, more complicated noise reduction algorythms, etc. to be applied to
images with little or no wait-time. Finally, each new chip has required
less power than the previous chip, which is a real benefit.

My "impression" of Digic III is that we're not talking the same kind of
"leaps and bounds" that was the difference between I & II, but I don't know
that for a fact.

The real difference will most likely (IMO) be demonstrated whenever Canon
manages to release the replacement for the 1Ds Mark II, since it will surely
have more MPs and may even increase fps. -Even maintaining 4fps would be an
accomplishment with those huge files.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson