Number of pixels- Explanation

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Blair, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. Blair

    Blair Guest

    I am a member of the Fuji Group and this article highlights the subject of
    the number of pixels.
    I know it is advertising their product but it contains interesting
    information
    Blair


    Dear MyFuji member,

    If the idea of a camera with 17 million pixels appeals to you,
    then visit http://www.17million.co.uk for something that will
    surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you...

    With regards,

    The MyFuji Team
    Blair, Jul 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Blair

    Guest

    >visit (spamlink deleted) for something that will
    >surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you.


    Those words are a bit of a giveaway, but I looked anyway - silly me..

    Mr 'MyFuji', just because the F10 is a good camera, does not make this
    anything more than annoying SPAM. The '17 million' tag HAS NO
    RELEVANCE whatsoever to any-bloody-thing. This sort of thing on a
    newsgroup does not help your cause.

    The information is not 'interesting', unless you have a morbid
    fascination for long-winded flash animations. It is simply stating the
    absolutely bleeding obvious - we KNOW that pixels are not the only
    thing that determines picture quality........
    , Jul 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Blair

    Blair Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >visit (spamlink deleted) for something that will
    > >surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you.

    >
    > Those words are a bit of a giveaway, but I looked anyway - silly me..
    >
    > Mr 'MyFuji', just because the F10 is a good camera, does not make this
    > anything more than annoying SPAM. The '17 million' tag HAS NO
    > RELEVANCE whatsoever to any-bloody-thing. This sort of thing on a
    > newsgroup does not help your cause.
    >
    > The information is not 'interesting', unless you have a morbid
    > fascination for long-winded flash animations. It is simply stating the
    > absolutely bleeding obvious - we KNOW that pixels are not the only
    > thing that determines picture quality.


    I know that it was a sales pitch and I said that.
    What I find among people in general is that most of them are ignorant of the
    technical aspects of digital camera and all seem to be transfixed by the
    number of pixels assuming that this means better quality and all I was
    trying to do was inform the non technical people.
    Someone may have learnt
    Blair
    Blair, Jul 1, 2005
    #3
  4. Blair

    Celcius Guest

    Blair,
    NASA had a very good explanation on their site some time ago.
    Their point was the following, if I remember correctly:
    1-the important thing is the sensor. It has to be large enough as well as
    its pixels. In their case, the camera was only _one million pixels_.
    2- the lens. Their lens was specially made and was of very great quality.
    Cheer,
    Marcel



    "Blair" <> wrote in message
    news:da2gp5$1n2$...
    > I am a member of the Fuji Group and this article highlights the subject of
    > the number of pixels.
    > I know it is advertising their product but it contains interesting
    > information
    > Blair
    >
    >
    > Dear MyFuji member,
    >
    > If the idea of a camera with 17 million pixels appeals to you,
    > then visit http://www.17million.co.uk for something that will
    > surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you...
    >
    > With regards,
    >
    > The MyFuji Team
    >
    >
    >
    Celcius, Jul 1, 2005
    #4
  5. Blair

    frederick Guest

    Celcius wrote:

    > Blair,
    > NASA had a very good explanation on their site some time ago.
    > Their point was the following, if I remember correctly:
    > 1-the important thing is the sensor. It has to be large enough as well as
    > its pixels. In their case, the camera was only _one million pixels_.
    > 2- the lens. Their lens was specially made and was of very great quality.
    > Cheer,
    > Marcel
    >
    >

    One limitation imposed by pixel size is explained here:
    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

    One of the other main ones - noise - seems to be a suck and see, not
    covered well by reviews or any standardised test method, and a source of
    many arguments in these newsgroups.

    A concise explanation for "purple fringing" I haven't seen.

    Nevertheless, I'n very confident that the Fuji camera referenced here
    has considerably higher real resolution per image than the 1mp nasa one,
    even if the lens cost them millions.
    frederick, Jul 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Blair

    Blair Guest

    "frederick" <> wrote in message
    news:1120221216.636578@ftpsrv1...
    > Celcius wrote:
    >
    > > Blair,
    > > NASA had a very good explanation on their site some time ago.
    > > Their point was the following, if I remember correctly:
    > > 1-the important thing is the sensor. It has to be large enough as well

    as
    > > its pixels. In their case, the camera was only _one million pixels_.
    > > 2- the lens. Their lens was specially made and was of very great

    quality.
    > > Cheer,
    > > Marcel
    > >
    > >

    > One limitation imposed by pixel size is explained here:
    > http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
    >
    > One of the other main ones - noise - seems to be a suck and see, not
    > covered well by reviews or any standardised test method, and a source of
    > many arguments in these newsgroups.
    >
    > A concise explanation for "purple fringing" I haven't seen.
    >
    > Nevertheless, I'n very confident that the Fuji camera referenced here
    > has considerably higher real resolution per image than the 1mp nasa one,
    > even if the lens cost them millions.


    Thanks for your help. I have skimmed over the article but intend to read it
    again carefully so I can really understand.
    Blair
    Blair, Jul 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Blair

    Tony Guest

    Thank you MNr Spammer, for publishing this wonderful link to more of Fuji's
    lies and bullshite. We all really believe that Fuji cameras have a lot more
    pixels than there appear to be in the photos. We also believe in Pixies -
    who put all the extra pixels in Fuji cameras.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Blair" <> wrote in message
    news:da2gp5$1n2$...
    Tony, Jul 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Blair

    Scott W Guest

    Celcius wrote:
    > Blair,
    > NASA had a very good explanation on their site some time ago.
    > Their point was the following, if I remember correctly:
    > 1-the important thing is the sensor. It has to be large enough as well as
    > its pixels. In their case, the camera was only _one million pixels_.
    > 2- the lens. Their lens was specially made and was of very great quality.
    > Cheer,
    > Marcel
    >


    It sounds like the camera on the mars rover, 1024 x 1024 pixels. The
    camera takes a large number of photos that are then stitched together,
    it only needs a small field of view because of this. This makes the
    lens design very easy and in fact is just a triplet, They run it at f22
    and it is pretty much diffraction limited.

    The CCD uses 12 micron pixels

    It uses a 12 bit A/D and it would appear that the noise is less then
    one level on the A/D, so its dynamic range would be 12 stops.

    A very limited camera but great for what it was called on to do.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jul 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Blair

    Scott W Guest

    Tony wrote:
    > Thank you MNr Spammer, for publishing this wonderful link to more of Fuji's
    > lies and bullshite. We all really believe that Fuji cameras have a lot more
    > pixels than there appear to be in the photos. We also believe in Pixies -
    > who put all the extra pixels in Fuji cameras.
    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    >
    > "Blair" <> wrote in message
    > news:da2gp5$1n2$...


    I am not sure how I feel about links to ad on the new group, a link to
    the review of the camera might have been better. But much of what they
    (Fuji) said is right on. The number of pixels is not the same as the
    resolution of the camera, any more then scanning film at 8000 dpi will
    give you that resolution. The resolution is can be limited by the
    pixel count but it can be and normally is much lower then the pixel
    count. People will often get upset if someone says that thier pixel are
    better then the pixels in your camera, but this is often the case. I
    have two 8 MP cameras, the Sony F828 and the Canon 20D, the 20D is
    clearly sharper then the Sony, which is about as sharp as a 6 MP DSLR.

    I have looked at the test photos from this camera and they are pretty
    amazing, as is the noise performance. The camera has some real
    problems however, no optical view finder, I can't see myself ever
    going back to a camera with no optical view finder. The lens is pretty
    fast at wide angle but no so much when zoomed in. For available light
    photography in doors it should be very good indeed, it can run low
    noise at ISO 800 and shoot at f 2.5, not bad for a cheap point and
    shoot.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jul 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Blair

    frederick Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    > Tony wrote:
    >
    >>Thank you MNr Spammer, for publishing this wonderful link to more of Fuji's
    >>lies and bullshite. We all really believe that Fuji cameras have a lot more
    >>pixels than there appear to be in the photos. We also believe in Pixies -
    >>who put all the extra pixels in Fuji cameras.
    >>
    >>--
    >>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    >> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    >> The Improved Links Pages are at
    >> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    >> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    >>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    >>
    >>"Blair" <> wrote in message
    >>news:da2gp5$1n2$...

    >
    >
    > I am not sure how I feel about links to ad on the new group, a link to
    > the review of the camera might have been better. But much of what they
    > (Fuji) said is right on. The number of pixels is not the same as the
    > resolution of the camera, any more then scanning film at 8000 dpi will
    > give you that resolution. The resolution is can be limited by the
    > pixel count but it can be and normally is much lower then the pixel
    > count. People will often get upset if someone says that thier pixel are
    > better then the pixels in your camera, but this is often the case. I
    > have two 8 MP cameras, the Sony F828 and the Canon 20D, the 20D is
    > clearly sharper then the Sony, which is about as sharp as a 6 MP DSLR.
    >

    Definition to the pixel level is (or should be) normal for a good dslr .
    Good glass, technique - including being aware of the diffraction
    limits, and as low as possible iso shooting to avoid noise or the need
    to over-soften makes the difference:
    http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/pixels.jpg
    That's just a normal photo I took today - detail in the eye well
    resolved down to individual pixel level. I don't know if a 350d/20d can
    do that. With the only one I ever used (350d with 18-55), it did not
    appear even remotely possible. I'm not sure if that was because of
    glass, over-strong anti-aliasing or both.

    > I have looked at the test photos from this camera and they are pretty
    > amazing, as is the noise performance. The camera has some real
    > problems however, no optical view finder, I can't see myself ever
    > going back to a camera with no optical view finder. The lens is pretty
    > fast at wide angle but no so much when zoomed in. For available light
    > photography in doors it should be very good indeed, it can run low
    > noise at ISO 800 and shoot at f 2.5, not bad for a cheap point and
    > shoot.
    >
    > Scott
    >

    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.
    frederick, Jul 2, 2005
    #10
  11. Blair

    Scott W Guest

    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/fujifilmf10zoom/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
    Scott W, Jul 2, 2005
    #11
  12. "Scott W" <> 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/fujifilmf10zoom/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/8) 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
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Blair

    Scott W Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> 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/fujifilmf10zoom/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/8) 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
    Scott W, Jul 2, 2005
    #13
    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. FrisbeeĀ®
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,065
  2. Mark Grady
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    855
  3. notreallyme
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    947
  4. kl_tom

    Can hot pixels become dead pixels?

    kl_tom, Oct 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    511
    Bill Funk
    Oct 5, 2006
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    723
Loading...

Share This Page