Pse explain "3.1m effective pixels and 6.0m redorded pixels"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by notreallyme, Dec 26, 2003.

  1. notreallyme

    notreallyme Guest

    I'm considering buying the Fujifilm finepix S5000. One of the advertising
    features
    is "3.1m effective and 6.0 m recorded pixels:" I see in the review that you
    can choose
    6m 3m 2m or 1m. Can someone explain?
    notreallyme, Dec 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. notreallyme

    Maze Guest

    notreallyme wrote:
    > I'm considering buying the Fujifilm finepix S5000. One of the
    > advertising features
    > is "3.1m effective and 6.0 m recorded pixels:" I see in the review
    > that you can choose
    > 6m 3m 2m or 1m. Can someone explain?



    3M, 2M and 1M, the camera will record the photo "as is".
    If you take a photo at 6M, the camera enlarges the photo, in the same way
    you could do using Paint Shop pro or Photoshop etc.
    The photo is actually 3.1 MP, but the camera does the work instead of you
    manually enlarging each photo on the PC.
    You'd have to ask one of the experts on this group if the quality is the
    same as a "true" 6MP, but i would guess that it isn't, as a camera cannot
    take photos with more resolution than it's CCD is designed to do. Anything
    bigger would have to be interpolated

    HTH
    maze
    Maze, Dec 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. notreallyme

    Don Coon Guest

    "notreallyme" <> wrote in message
    news:z42Hb.180680$...
    > I'm considering buying the Fujifilm finepix S5000. One of the advertising
    > features
    > is "3.1m effective and 6.0 m recorded pixels:" I see in the review that

    you
    > can choose
    > 6m 3m 2m or 1m. Can someone explain?
    >


    It's nothing but deceptive marketing if not false advertising, IMHO. They
    capture information from 3 million sensors and interpolate it to 6 million.
    Don Coon, Dec 27, 2003
    #3
  4. notreallyme

    -Gene- Guest

    After buying the Fuji F700, I don't believe anything Fuji says anymore.
    http://www.photoprojects.net/fujif700.html
    Gene

    notreallyme wrote:

    > I'm considering buying the Fujifilm finepix S5000. One of the advertising
    > features
    > is "3.1m effective and 6.0 m recorded pixels:" I see in the review that you
    > can choose
    > 6m 3m 2m or 1m. Can someone explain?
    -Gene-, Dec 27, 2003
    #4
  5. notreallyme

    Mark B. Guest

    "notreallyme" <> wrote in message
    news:z42Hb.180680$...
    > I'm considering buying the Fujifilm finepix S5000. One of the advertising
    > features
    > is "3.1m effective and 6.0 m recorded pixels:" I see in the review that

    you
    > can choose
    > 6m 3m 2m or 1m. Can someone explain?
    >
    >


    3mp is the capacity of the sensor on the camera. It uses software to
    interpolate to give you 6mp.

    Mark
    Mark B., Dec 27, 2003
    #5
  6. Fuji has their own chipl it uses hexagonal pixels (like a honeycomb)
    instead of traditional rectangular pixels (like a checkerboard)

    It can take pictures with a pixel counts of
    2816 x 2120
    2048 x 1536
    1600 x 1200
    1280 x 960
    see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5000/ (review)
    and http://www.fujigroup.net/ (pics and users and user suport)
    and http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/fuji_s5000_pg5.html
    (review)

    The top pixel count is equivalent to what a 6mp camera takes.
    I have a S602z, and it has a similar chip.
    see
    http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/3rdGenSuperCCD_2.pdf
    for more info than you probably need.

    also, see
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s602-review/index.html
    While this is a review of the 602, there may be one of the S5000. More
    importantly, this site has full untouched photos of the same place,
    same time, at EVERY resolution and EVERY compression the camera can
    take. YOU can dl and compare the 6mp, 3mp and even the 17Mb 6mp TIF
    file.
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s602-review/preprod/gallery.html
    sample images for above camera / website


    Bascially, with the sensors at an angle instead of a strait grid, fuji
    has made it possible to 'upsample' a picture with no noticeable image
    degradation. I know there are folks here that will disagree with that.
    however, if you are a pro or other nit picker, just get out your
    $2,000 and buy a dSLR. Opinions are a penny a 100 on the net. the only
    one that counts is YOURS.

    BTW, the S602 is a step up from the 5000 (7000 replaces the 602). You
    shold be ablt to find the 602 for about $400 new online, perhaps less.

    chris

    On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:52:31 GMT, "notreallyme"
    <> wrote:

    >I'm considering buying the Fujifilm finepix S5000. One of the advertising
    >features
    >is "3.1m effective and 6.0 m recorded pixels:" I see in the review that you
    >can choose
    >6m 3m 2m or 1m. Can someone explain?
    >
    Chris P in PA, Dec 27, 2003
    #6
  7. notreallyme

    Don Coon Guest

    "Chris P in PA" <cash4you@nospam_comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Fuji has their own chipl it uses hexagonal pixels (like a honeycomb)
    > instead of traditional rectangular pixels (like a checkerboard)
    >
    > It can take pictures with a pixel counts of
    > 2816 x 2120
    > 2048 x 1536
    > 1600 x 1200
    > 1280 x 960
    > see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5000/ (review)
    > and http://www.fujigroup.net/ (pics and users and user suport)
    > and http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/fuji_s5000_pg5.html
    > (review)
    >
    > The top pixel count is equivalent to what a 6mp camera takes.
    > I have a S602z, and it has a similar chip.
    > see
    > http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/3rdGenSuperCCD_2.pdf
    > for more info than you probably need.
    >
    > also, see
    > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s602-review/index.html
    > While this is a review of the 602, there may be one of the S5000. More
    > importantly, this site has full untouched photos of the same place,
    > same time, at EVERY resolution and EVERY compression the camera can
    > take. YOU can dl and compare the 6mp, 3mp and even the 17Mb 6mp TIF
    > file.
    >

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s602-review/preprod/gallery.html
    > sample images for above camera / website
    >
    >
    > Bascially, with the sensors at an angle instead of a strait grid, fuji
    > has made it possible to 'upsample' a picture with no noticeable image
    > degradation. I know there are folks here that will disagree with that.
    > however, if you are a pro or other nit picker, just get out your
    > $2,000 and buy a dSLR. Opinions are a penny a 100 on the net. the only
    > one that counts is YOURS.


    That's the myth Fuji would like you to believe. The hexagonal arangement may
    have advantages but it doesn't increase the number of sensors one iota.
    Certainly doesn't double the information collected. If you want to buy into
    the myth then do so, but it's a myth with maybe a trace of substance at
    most.
    Don Coon, Dec 27, 2003
    #7
  8. notreallyme

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <F37Hb.144477$8y1.430324@attbi_s52>,
    coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > That's the myth Fuji would like you to believe. The hexagonal arangement may
    > have advantages but it doesn't increase the number of sensors one iota.
    > Certainly doesn't double the information collected. If you want to buy into
    > the myth then do so, but it's a myth with maybe a trace of substance at
    > most.
    >


    Its that "Trace of substance" that is important thats
    important in the Fuji.

    When using the 6mp mode in my Fuji S5000, the photos are
    Marginally better than the 3mp mode. Marginally beter is
    better.

    When I bought my S5000, I read the packaging and display
    materials BEFORE counting out the cash. I knew it was a
    3mp camera. I bought it because I liked my old Fuji
    Finepix, and hoped the S5000 would work as well. It did.

    After a week of shooting different subjects in different
    modes to see what the camera could do, I decised to see
    what the 6mp mode was all about. What it was about was
    pictures that were higher in pixel count and looked
    "marginally" better on the screen and on paper. I havent
    set the camera back to 3mp mode, because marginal
    improvements are improvements none the less.

    Its like a pig that talks, what it says is far less
    important than the fact that it talks at all!
    --
    Larry Lynch
    Lasting Imagery
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Lynch, Dec 27, 2003
    #8
  9. notreallyme

    Guest

    In message <gH2Hb.6298$9.net>,
    "Maze" <> wrote:

    >notreallyme wrote:
    >> I'm considering buying the Fujifilm finepix S5000. One of the
    >> advertising features
    >> is "3.1m effective and 6.0 m recorded pixels:" I see in the review
    >> that you can choose
    >> 6m 3m 2m or 1m. Can someone explain?

    >
    >
    >3M, 2M and 1M, the camera will record the photo "as is".


    No, only the 6MP will contain everything captured by the camera.

    >If you take a photo at 6M, the camera enlarges the photo, in the same way
    >you could do using Paint Shop pro or Photoshop etc.


    Not at all. The pixels in the camera are laid out so that they fill a
    6MP grid, with half the pixels, like a checkerboard pattern. You can
    not shift every other row or column, to make a solid grid, because that
    would blur the image.

    The 6MP output is the only one that captures everything the sensor does.
    The 3MP output is the same as the number of sensor pixels, but they are
    downsized from the 6MP image, and lose some detail. The 2MP and 1MP
    images lose even more detail.

    >The photo is actually 3.1 MP, but the camera does the work instead of you
    >manually enlarging each photo on the PC.
    >You'd have to ask one of the experts on this group if the quality is the
    >same as a "true" 6MP, but i would guess that it isn't, as a camera cannot
    >take photos with more resolution than it's CCD is designed to do. Anything
    >bigger would have to be interpolated


    Quality is generally as good or better than a regular 3MP in a full
    grid, but not as good as a real 6MP sensor.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Dec 27, 2003
    #9
  10. notreallyme

    Guest

    In message <F37Hb.144477$8y1.430324@attbi_s52>,
    "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote:

    >That's the myth Fuji would like you to believe. The hexagonal arangement may
    >have advantages but it doesn't increase the number of sensors one iota.
    >Certainly doesn't double the information collected. If you want to buy into
    >the myth then do so, but it's a myth with maybe a trace of substance at
    >most.


    Advertising and design issues aside, the camera can't deliver all the
    detail it captures at anything less than the 2x-bloated resolution.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Dec 27, 2003
    #10
  11. Chris P in PA <cash4you@nospam_comcast.net> writes:
    >Fuji has their own chipl it uses hexagonal pixels (like a honeycomb)
    >instead of traditional rectangular pixels (like a checkerboard)


    The pixels are octagonal in shape, not hexagonal. They are in a square
    grid rotated 45 degrees, not a hexagonal grid. As someone else said,
    the arrangement is the same as the set of black squares in a
    checkerboard. It's done because rotating the grid like that increases
    horizontal and vertical resolution (but decreases diagonal resolution).

    If the camera could output into a file format that had
    checkerboard-arranged pixels, it would need to write only 3 million
    pixels but you'd need special software to read and edit it. Instead,
    the camera uses interpolation to fill in the white squares of the
    checkerboard with estimated pixels, giving a full square raster that can
    be stored in a conventional JPEG file and viewed and edited by standard
    software.

    If you select 3 MP output, the image has to be downsized, and you lose
    all the extra horizontal and vertical resolution.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Dec 27, 2003
    #11
  12. On 27 Dec 2003 19:12:33 GMT, (Dave Martindale) wrote:

    >Chris P in PA <cash4you@nospam_comcast.net> writes:

    <snip>

    >
    >If you select 3 MP output, the image has to be downsized, and you lose
    >all the extra horizontal and vertical resolution.
    >
    > Dave


    So then, a 3Mp SuperCCD should be used in the 6mp mode?
    There is no winning here...6mp adds info, 3mp tosses it out.

    I once read that 35mm film is equivalent to 20mp. So I figure if that
    is true, until there is a 20mp camera, all digicams are only
    approximating what 35mm can capture.

    but then, do you see what i see? How can we possibly know?
    We can calibrate our monitors, get 100mp cameras one day, but our eyes
    are our eyes, and changing every day due to age.

    Is SuperCCD better? Worse? Bayer vs Foveon? For all we know a new
    technology will be out next year that renders all our stuff obsolete.

    Bottom line? I like my camera. I like the pictures it takes. I can not
    decide between 3 and 6 mp. I toss a coin weekly. When i print them at
    4x6 or so I cannot tell teh difference. And on my computer screen or
    the web, my old 1mp camera looks the same.

    Will I make 8x10 prints? Sure, a few for fun maybe. Not nearly enough
    that what camera i have will make a darn bit of difference. In the
    interim, i will be having a ball!

    chris
    Chris P in PA, Dec 28, 2003
    #12
  13. Chris P in PA <cash4you@nospam_comcast.net> writes:

    >So then, a 3Mp SuperCCD should be used in the 6mp mode?
    >There is no winning here...6mp adds info, 3mp tosses it out.


    It all depends on what you mean by "should". To get the maximum detail
    that the sensor provides, you must select the 6 MP mode.

    >I once read that 35mm film is equivalent to 20mp. So I figure if that
    >is true, until there is a 20mp camera, all digicams are only
    >approximating what 35mm can capture.


    That 20 MP figure depends a great deal on the lens, film, and scanning
    if digital is your final output, or on lens, film, and enlarger lens if
    wet print is your final output. I think it's safe to say that most 35
    mm shots have nowhere near 20 MP of useful resolution, but that a
    knowledgeable photographer with good equipment and favourable shooting
    conditions can get there.

    >but then, do you see what i see? How can we possibly know?
    >We can calibrate our monitors, get 100mp cameras one day, but our eyes
    >are our eyes, and changing every day due to age.


    The limits of resolution of the human visual system are well known.
    There's no point in going beyond that - but it's a high bar indeed.
    For example, the resolution limit is about 60 cycles per degree at high
    contrast, and realistically it takes 3 pixels per cycle to resolve
    detail without artifacts. So 180 pixels per degree is enough resolution
    to match reality. But one degree at 12 inches is 0.21 inch, so 180
    pixels per degree is about 860 pixels per inch. To fill an 8x10 print
    at that pixel density takes 59 megapixels. A larger print at the same
    viewing distance takes proportionally more pixels.

    In practice, we settle for 200-400 PPI and call that good, even though
    it's not as good as reality.

    >Is SuperCCD better? Worse? Bayer vs Foveon? For all we know a new
    >technology will be out next year that renders all our stuff obsolete.


    >Bottom line? I like my camera. I like the pictures it takes. I can not
    >decide between 3 and 6 mp. I toss a coin weekly. When i print them at
    >4x6 or so I cannot tell teh difference. And on my computer screen or
    >the web, my old 1mp camera looks the same.


    At 4x6, 3 MP ought to do well. It's at 8x10 where you might be able to
    see the difference.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Dec 28, 2003
    #13
  14. notreallyme

    Mark B. Guest

    "Chris P in PA" <cash4you@nospam_comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I once read that 35mm film is equivalent to 20mp. So I figure if that
    > is true, until there is a 20mp camera, all digicams are only
    > approximating what 35mm can capture.
    >


    I've also read that the limiting factor to digital files capturing that much
    info will be the glass. Not to mention it would be overkill even for 11x14,
    other than allowing more cropping room.


    > but then, do you see what i see? How can we possibly know?
    > We can calibrate our monitors, get 100mp cameras one day, but our eyes
    > are our eyes, and changing every day due to age.
    >
    > Is SuperCCD better? Worse? Bayer vs Foveon? For all we know a new
    > technology will be out next year that renders all our stuff obsolete.
    >
    > Bottom line? I like my camera. I like the pictures it takes. I can not
    > decide between 3 and 6 mp. I toss a coin weekly. When i print them at
    > 4x6 or so I cannot tell teh difference.


    Of course. 3mp is plenty for 4x6. I even have an 8x10 print from an Epson
    2.1 mp cam that looks pretty darn good. Up to 8x10, it's hard to tell the
    difference between a file from my D30 and 10D. I just have a little more
    cropping room with the 10D.

    Mark
    Mark B., Dec 28, 2003
    #14
  15. notreallyme

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Mark B." <> wrote:

    >I've also read that the limiting factor to digital files capturing that much
    >info will be the glass. Not to mention it would be overkill even for 11x14,
    >other than allowing more cropping room.


    Most of the most recommended lenses are not bottlenecking the
    resolution, especially when stopped down; the sensor is the limit in
    most cases. The differences you do see in the very best lenses are more
    contrast in the images, especially at the highest frequencies that are
    attenuated by an AA filter. In order for an AA filter to cut off at the
    nyquist, it must also attenuate frequencies close to it. When images
    are taken with a sharp, high-resolution lens, the attenuation still
    leaves the high frequencies at levels well enough above the noise floor
    that you can boost them back up without artifact with USM.

    For example, with that wheel test (the 60 sinusoidal spokes), I get
    about 44 pixels as the resolution limit with almost any lens I use. An
    exception would be the Canon 75-300 IS at max aperture; that was
    somewhere around 50, IIRC. My 300mm f4L IS scored 44, and still scored
    44 when I put on either the Tamron SP 2x TC, or the Canon 1.4x TC. With
    both, it rises to 52. The main difference between the three combos that
    score 44 is in the contrast.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Dec 28, 2003
    #15
    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. Olivier

    PSE 70-296

    Olivier, Dec 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,108
  2. J Rusnak
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    376
    J Rusnak
    Oct 2, 2006
  3. Conrad Weiler

    PSE 3 engine

    Conrad Weiler, Sep 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
    Conrad Weiler
    Sep 23, 2004
  4. Paul Wylie

    PSE 3.0?

    Paul Wylie, Oct 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    418
    Charles Eaves
    Nov 11, 2004
  5. Al Dykes

    PSE 3.0 and Canon 20D RAW files ?

    Al Dykes, Nov 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    259
Loading...

Share This Page