Fuji claims.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill, Nov 26, 2003.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    As far as the Fuji S602, it is a 3MP camera with a 3MP sensor. It is sold as
    such by Fuji and labeled as such on the box! At least as far as this model
    is concerned, Fuji is not scamming the public. Yes the Super CCD has a
    unique design, but it is a 3MP sensor. Now they do include a 6MP mode IF the
    user chooses to use it....and yes that would be interpolated. However, this
    is no different than anyone using any other camera, transferring an image
    into the computer and using their photo editing software to resample to a
    larger size if they want to. But Fuji included this option in their
    firmware...again...the OPTION. It's no different than other manufacturers
    who choose to include in the camera's firmware OPTIONS to enhance color,
    sharpness,
    etc. Personally, I prefer to do any of those things on the PC where I can
    see what I'm doing. I don't like to modify an image in the camera...not even
    cropping. I can always do that later.

    But my point here is that Fuji, at least with the S602, is not trying to
    fool anyone. They do not call it a 6MP camera nor do they advertise it as
    such. The box is clearly labeled as a 3MP camera. They do mention the 6MP
    mode as a feature only.

    Bill
     
    Bill, Nov 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill

    This Old Man Guest

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:n37xb.7084$dO2.2997@lakeread03...
    > As far as the Fuji S602, it is a 3MP camera with a 3MP sensor. It is sold

    as
    > such by Fuji and labeled as such on the box! At least as far as this model
    > is concerned, Fuji is not scamming the public. Yes the Super CCD has a
    > unique design, but it is a 3MP sensor. Now they do include a 6MP mode IF

    the
    > user chooses to use it....and yes that would be interpolated. However,

    this
    > is no different than anyone using any other camera, transferring an image
    > into the computer and using their photo editing software to resample to a
    > larger size if they want to. But Fuji included this option in their
    > firmware...again...the OPTION. It's no different than other manufacturers
    > who choose to include in the camera's firmware OPTIONS to enhance color,
    > sharpness,
    > etc. Personally, I prefer to do any of those things on the PC where I can
    > see what I'm doing. I don't like to modify an image in the camera...not

    even
    > cropping. I can always do that later.
    >
    > But my point here is that Fuji, at least with the S602, is not trying to
    > fool anyone. They do not call it a 6MP camera nor do they advertise it as
    > such. The box is clearly labeled as a 3MP camera. They do mention the 6MP
    > mode as a feature only.
    >
    > Bill


    That's one excellent camera. As soon as they drop below $300 on ebay I'm
    getting another.
     
    This Old Man, Nov 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill

    Chris Gunn Guest

    On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:21:55 -0500, "Bill" <>

    >unique design, but it is a 3MP sensor. Now they do include a 6MP mode IF the
    >user chooses to use it....and yes that would be interpolated. However, this
    >is no different than anyone using any other camera, transferring an image
    >into the computer and using their photo editing software to resample to a
    >larger size if they want to. But Fuji included this option in their


    You are mistaken.

    You suggest that the 6mp file is achieved through an interpolation
    routine such as bilinear or lanczos etc, as available in photo
    editors.

    This is not the case.

    It is not possible to obtain the 6mp file from the 3mp file.

    The 6mp file has more data, as shown by the resolution charts.

    The 6mp file is the native format. The 3mp file is obtained by
    resampling the 6mp file, not the other way around.

    I recommend you do some research before posting such nonsence.

    Gunn

    602.
     
    Chris Gunn, Nov 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Bill

    Christian Guest

    Chris Gunn wrote:

    > You are mistaken.
    > You suggest that the 6mp file is achieved through an interpolation
    > routine such as bilinear or lanczos etc, as available in photo
    > editors.
    > This is not the case.


    Well, it sort of is. There are only 3 million photosites so to obtain 6
    million pixels there has to be some process of "creating" those additional
    pixels and this process is essentially interpolation. However, Fuji have
    two advantages in how they do this. The first is that it is done with the
    raw CCD data (i.e., before colour interpolation) but of course there are
    many cameras which can do this, albeit in software rather than in camera.
    The second is the hexagonal arrangement of the pixels supposedly improves
    the effectiveness of the interpolation process. A lot of people would
    consider this debatable, however, some of the results at dpreview.com
    suggest there is some merit in the claim, although it applies *primarily*
    to DSLRs with their larger sensor sizes. However, even for compact
    digitals there seems to be a small resolution advantage. But it certainly
    isn't a two-to-one (e.g., 6 megapixel to 3 megapixel) advantage.

    > It is not possible to obtain the 6mp file from the 3mp file.


    Of course it is. Megapixels is just the number of pixels. You can create
    as many pixels as you like. How much useful image information they contain
    is another question.

    > The 6mp file has more data, as shown by the resolution charts.


    It's double the size so it obviously contains more data. But what you mean
    is that it contains more information, which it probably does. But not
    twice as much.

    > The 6mp file is the native format. The 3mp file is obtained by
    > resampling the 6mp file, not the other way around.


    Well, it's still a 3 megapixel sensor so again it's debatable whether the 6
    MP format is the "native" format. Yes, the camera always interpolates its
    3 megapixels to produce 6 before then downsampling back to 3 (if requested)
    but the image still only comes from a 3 megapixel sensor, albeit one
    capable of capturing a slightly more detail than an average 3 megapixel
    sensor.

    In any case, none of this theory matters because the results speak for
    themselves! The SuperCCD certainly provides more resolution than standard
    CCDs, although not significantly more and particularly not for digicams
    such as the 602Z.
     
    Christian, Nov 27, 2003
    #4
  5. Bill

    Guest

    In message <n37xb.7084$dO2.2997@lakeread03>,
    "Bill" <> wrote:

    >But my point here is that Fuji, at least with the S602, is not trying to
    >fool anyone. They do not call it a 6MP camera nor do they advertise it as
    >such. The box is clearly labeled as a 3MP camera. They do mention the 6MP
    >mode as a feature only.


    I wouldn't treat it that way. If the camera uses the superCCD with this
    pattern:

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

    Then you *MUST* get the 6mp files from the camera to see everything the
    camera captured. A 3mp file from the camera *IS* a downsampling, and
    throws away detail.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 27, 2003
    #5
  6. Bill

    Guest

    In message <bq3qv6$6p1$>,
    Christian <> wrote:

    >The second is the hexagonal arrangement of the pixels


    There is no "hexagonal" anything in the superCCD. The pixel centers
    fall like one color of a checkerboard; a square grid rotated 45 degrees.
    The pixels themselves are octagonal.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Bill

    Guest

    In message <bq3qv6$6p1$>,
    Christian <> wrote:

    >Well, it's still a 3 megapixel sensor so again it's debatable whether the 6
    >MP format is the "native" format.


    It's not debateable. No file with anything less than 6mp can contain
    everything cpatured by a 3mp superCCD.

    A 3mp output file has absolutely no correlation to the 3mp sensor.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Bill

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:42:06 +1300, Chris Gunn
    <> wrote:

    >
    >This is not the case.
    >
    >It is not possible to obtain the 6mp file from the 3mp file.
    >
    >The 6mp file has more data, as shown by the resolution charts.
    >
    >The 6mp file is the native format. The 3mp file is obtained by
    >resampling the 6mp file, not the other way around.
    >
    >I recommend you do some research before posting such nonsence.
    >
    >Gunn


    At the risk of reigniting some very old debates.......

    The basic resolution of the S602 (ie the number of samples acquired by
    the CCD) is 3.1 Mpixels. You will find this in Fuji literature and in
    all the reviews.

    The 6Mp output file is obtained thru interpolation---AKA upsampling.

    The most consistent thing that I have seen about the Fuji issues is
    theri claim that the diagonal sensor arrangement increases resoluion
    in the horiz and vertical where it matter most. Skeptics have argued
    that the whole thing was just a trick to get better response to test
    targets.

    It is certainly true that the sampling pattern in the CCD can affect
    the resolution in certain axes---that may be what you are referring
    to.

    All this aside, the fact remains that the camera starts with 3.1Mp
    from the sensor---the 6Mp file is created later on in the processing.

    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Nov 27, 2003
    #8
  9. Bill

    Bill Guest

    Why *MUST* you? There are only 3.1 million photodiodes on the sensor,
    regardless of the way they are arranged, and despite their octagonal shape.
    I am very pleased with my S602, but it is what it is.
    Bill

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <n37xb.7084$dO2.2997@lakeread03>,
    > "Bill" <> wrote:
    >
    > >But my point here is that Fuji, at least with the S602, is not trying to
    > >fool anyone. They do not call it a 6MP camera nor do they advertise it as
    > >such. The box is clearly labeled as a 3MP camera. They do mention the 6MP
    > >mode as a feature only.

    >
    > I wouldn't treat it that way. If the camera uses the superCCD with this
    > pattern:
    >
    > 0 0 0 0 0
    > 0 0 0 0
    > 0 0 0 0 0
    > 0 0 0 0
    >
    > Then you *MUST* get the 6mp files from the camera to see everything the
    > camera captured. A 3mp file from the camera *IS* a downsampling, and
    > throws away detail.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    Bill, Nov 27, 2003
    #9
  10. "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:mOmxb.7349$dO2.3002@lakeread03...
    > Why *MUST* you? There are only 3.1 million photodiodes on the sensor,
    > regardless of the way they are arranged, and despite their octagonal

    shape.

    The arrangement makes the difference, causing a must if you don't want to
    throw away actual samples. Try extracting all samples from a grid where each
    line is staggered by half a pixel. For a rectangular output grid you must
    double the number of cells, but only half of them are filled with the
    original staggered samples. Might as well fill in the blanks as the
    demosaicing is done...

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 27, 2003
    #10
  11. "Mark Herring" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > The 6Mp output file is obtained thru interpolation---AKA upsampling.


    That's a bit misleading. The output file contains exactly the unchanged 3
    megapixels it captured which doesn't deteriorate the resolution, and
    interpolates the ones missing in the grid which doesn't add resolution. The
    original resolution is unchanged.

    > The most consistent thing that I have seen about the Fuji issues is
    > theri claim that the diagonal sensor arrangement increases resoluion
    > in the horiz and vertical where it matter most. Skeptics have argued
    > that the whole thing was just a trick to get better response to test
    > targets.


    Actually it is clever and a slightly better choice, because human vision is
    more sensitive (mentally) to horizontal/vertical features. It's not a
    coincidence that evolution caused that to be, because gravity causes more
    objects to have a more "horizon"tal or vertical orientation than anything
    else. Also movement is more likely to be either horizontal or vertical.
    With a slightly more involved (Fourier) analysis, it also is obvious that
    average image data has stronger horizontal/vertical frequency content than
    e.g. diagonal.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 27, 2003
    #11
  12. Bill

    Leonard Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <bq3qv6$6p1$>,
    > Christian <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Well, it's still a 3 megapixel sensor so again it's debatable whether the 6
    >>MP format is the "native" format.

    >
    >
    > It's not debateable. No file with anything less than 6mp can contain
    > everything cpatured by a 3mp superCCD.


    Not so. Just invent a file format that doesn't assume horizontal
    and vertical addressing axes.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Nov 27, 2003
    #12
  13. Bill

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Mark Herring <> wrote:

    >All this aside, the fact remains that the camera starts with 3.1Mp
    >from the sensor---the 6Mp file is created later on in the processing.


    It's the only logical resolution to output in, given the pixel
    arrangement. You can not represent what the camera captures in a 3.1MP
    file.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 27, 2003
    #13
  14. Bill

    Guest

    In message <mOmxb.7349$dO2.3002@lakeread03>,
    "Bill" <> wrote:

    >Why *MUST* you? There are only 3.1 million photodiodes on the sensor,
    >regardless of the way they are arranged, and despite their octagonal shape.
    >I am very pleased with my S602, but it is what it is.


    This isn't a number-of-pixels game, it is sensors collecting data from
    *specific* locations.

    You can not shift around the data collected into another shape without
    distorting the image spatially, or losing some of the detail to
    resampling.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 27, 2003
    #14
  15. Christian <> writes:

    >Well, it sort of is. There are only 3 million photosites so to obtain 6
    >million pixels there has to be some process of "creating" those additional
    >pixels and this process is essentially interpolation.


    No it is not. The Fuji uses a 3 MP sensor rotated 45 degrees. This
    increases the horizontal and vertical resolution (there are now 1.4
    times as many rows and columns of pixels) but decreases diagonal
    resolution. On output, you have a choice: use interpolation to add the
    other 3 million pixels needed to produce a conventional square raster,
    and keep the extra horizontal/vertical resolution, or downsample
    everything to 3 megapixels, losing the extra resolution.

    >The second is the hexagonal arrangement of the pixels supposedly improves
    >the effectiveness of the interpolation process.


    It's not hexagonal, despite what you might have read. It's a square
    grid rotated 45 degrees. It improves resolution, not just interpolation
    - but only for horizontal and vertical features.

    >> It is not possible to obtain the 6mp file from the 3mp file.


    >Of course it is. Megapixels is just the number of pixels. You can create
    >as many pixels as you like. How much useful image information they contain
    >is another question.


    The point is that if you have the camera save a 3 MP file, it has
    discarded some information, and you can't get it back later by enlarging
    to 6 MP. So doing so after the fact is pointless. If you have the
    camera write a 6 MP file in the first place, it retains the extra
    resolution. There's a difference.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 27, 2003
    #15
  16. Leonard <> writes:

    >> It's not debateable. No file with anything less than 6mp can contain
    >> everything cpatured by a 3mp superCCD.


    >Not so. Just invent a file format that doesn't assume horizontal
    >and vertical addressing axes.


    And now you have a file that can't be displayed or edited by any
    standard software. Even to display it with special software, you have
    to upsample the image 40% larger because the display you use is
    undoubtedly a square raster. Unless you're suggesting building special
    hardware too...

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 27, 2003
    #16
  17. Bill

    pjp Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > "Mark Herring" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > SNIP
    >> The 6Mp output file is obtained thru interpolation---AKA upsampling.

    >
    > That's a bit misleading. The output file contains exactly the
    > unchanged 3 megapixels it captured which doesn't deteriorate the
    > resolution, and interpolates the ones missing in the grid which
    > doesn't add resolution. The original resolution is unchanged.
    >
    >> The most consistent thing that I have seen about the Fuji issues is
    >> theri claim that the diagonal sensor arrangement increases resoluion
    >> in the horiz and vertical where it matter most. Skeptics have argued
    >> that the whole thing was just a trick to get better response to test
    >> targets.

    >
    > Actually it is clever and a slightly better choice, because human
    > vision is more sensitive (mentally) to horizontal/vertical features.
    > It's not a coincidence that evolution caused that to be, because
    > gravity causes more objects to have a more "horizon"tal or vertical
    > orientation than anything else. Also movement is more likely to be
    > either horizontal or vertical.


    I seem to remember in basic psych I took years ago that the reason most
    north americans (etc.) detect horizontal/vertical/90degrees, parallel lines
    etc. is because of the environment they've been brought up in, e.g.
    basically box shaped buildings. Studies showed that aboriginal people who
    grew up in more ecological (for lack of a better word) structures
    demonstrate much poorer ability at accuratly detecting the above type of
    examples, however they were much better at detecting other things, e.g.
    animals hiding etc.

    >With a slightly more involved
    > (Fourier) analysis, it also is obvious that average image data has
    > stronger horizontal/vertical frequency content than e.g. diagonal.
    >
    > Bart
     
    pjp, Nov 27, 2003
    #17
  18. Bill

    pjp Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <>,
    > Mark Herring <> wrote:
    >
    >> All this aside, the fact remains that the camera starts with 3.1Mp
    >> from the sensor---the 6Mp file is created later on in the processing.

    >
    > It's the only logical resolution to output in, given the pixel
    > arrangement. You can not represent what the camera captures in a
    > 3.1MP file.


    Exactly, should be obvious to anyone who lays it all out on graph paper.
     
    pjp, Nov 27, 2003
    #18
  19. Bill

    Christian Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:

    > Christian <> writes:
    >
    >>Well, it sort of is. There are only 3 million photosites so to obtain 6
    >>million pixels there has to be some process of "creating" those additional
    >>pixels and this process is essentially interpolation.

    >
    > No it is not. The Fuji uses a 3 MP sensor rotated 45 degrees. This
    > increases the horizontal and vertical resolution (there are now 1.4
    > times as many rows and columns of pixels) but decreases diagonal
    > resolution. On output, you have a choice: use interpolation to add the
    > other 3 million pixels needed to produce a conventional square raster,
    > and keep the extra horizontal/vertical resolution, or downsample
    > everything to 3 megapixels, losing the extra resolution.


    You've just contradicted yourself here. I've said it is interpolation,
    you've said "No it is not" and then you specifically say that you "use
    interpolation to add the other 3 million pixels". So in any case it does
    look like we're agreed that it is essentially an interpolative process.

    >>> It is not possible to obtain the 6mp file from the 3mp file.

    >
    >>Of course it is. Megapixels is just the number of pixels. You can create
    >>as many pixels as you like. How much useful image information they
    >>contain is another question.

    >
    > The point is that if you have the camera save a 3 MP file, it has
    > discarded some information, and you can't get it back later by enlarging
    > to 6 MP. So doing so after the fact is pointless. If you have the
    > camera write a 6 MP file in the first place, it retains the extra
    > resolution. There's a difference.


    No, you've discarded some data not information. The only information the
    camera can produce is that recorded by its photosides and it only has three
    million of them. So it interpolates (as we've already agreed) to produce
    extra data, essentially to pad out the shape of the image ("produce a
    conventional square raster"). But it can't produce any extra information.
     
    Christian, Nov 28, 2003
    #19
  20. Bill

    Christian Guest

    wrote:

    > In message <bq3qv6$6p1$>,
    > Christian <> wrote:
    >
    >>Well, it's still a 3 megapixel sensor so again it's debatable whether the
    >>6 MP format is the "native" format.

    >
    > It's not debateable. No file with anything less than 6mp can contain
    > everything cpatured by a 3mp superCCD.
    > A 3mp output file has absolutely no correlation to the 3mp sensor.


    What complete nonsense. The size of the output file in pixels correlates
    directly with the number of photosites! Yes, you can turn these on an
    angle to improve interpolative ability but you still can't argue that three
    million photosites are recording anymore than three million pixels! Those
    extra pixels are being invented! Yes, the inventive (interpolative)
    process seems to work slightly better than other techniques because of the
    orientation of the photosites but there's still only three million pixels
    being captured.
     
    Christian, Nov 28, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Adrian Bailey
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    503
    Moz Champion
    Nov 18, 2004
  2. TechGeekPro
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    2,158
    billyw
    Apr 10, 2004
  3. TechGeekPro
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    503
    TechGeekPro
    Apr 15, 2004
  4. Robert Folan-Johsnon

    Mozilla claims profile is running when not

    Robert Folan-Johsnon, Feb 28, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,432
    Moz Champion (Dan)
    Mar 10, 2006
  5. Bill

    Exactly where did Fuji make claims?

    Bill, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    608
    Todd Walker
    Dec 18, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page