What's the difference between effective pixels and recorded pixels?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark Grady, Sep 21, 2003.

  1. Mark Grady

    Mark Grady Guest

    I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means. Thank you for your assistance.
    --
    See the countryside on a bicycle ride.
     
    Mark Grady, Sep 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Grady

    Paul Cordes Guest

    In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.
    Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M picture......yes.

    Clear as mud?
    "Mark Grady" <> wrote in message news:yo5bb.46786$...

    I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means. Thank you for your assistance.
    --
    See the countryside on a bicycle ride.
     
    Paul Cordes, Sep 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Grady

    Herb Kauhry Guest

    They mask the outer edge and use that to establish the "black" signal level, at least this is what was stated on dpreview.com (a long time ago). The number of effective pixels reflects how many can actually be used to record an image.

    --

    "Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote in message news:dx5bb.4043$...
    In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.
    Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M picture......yes.

    Clear as mud?
    "Mark Grady" <> wrote in message news:yo5bb.46786$...

    I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means. Thank you for your assistance.
    --
    See the countryside on a bicycle ride.
     
    Herb Kauhry, Sep 21, 2003
    #3
  4. Mark Grady

    Don Stauffer Guest

    When the number of recorded pixels exceed the number of actual pixels on
    chip, this is interpolated resolution. How well interpolation works is
    highly dependent on subject matter.

    > Mark Grady wrote:
    >
    >
    > I was just reading the specs. for the Fuji S5000 and noticed it has
    > 3.1 million effective pixels and 6.0 recorded pixels. I have seen
    > similar data on other cameras and am wondering what this really means.
    > Thank you for your assistance.
    > --
    > See the countryside on a bicycle ride.


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Sep 21, 2003
    #4
  5. Mark Grady

    Guest

    In message <dx5bb.4043$>,
    "Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote:

    >In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.


    I believe that it is a regular rectangular grid, but rotated 45 degrees,
    like so:

    * * * *
    * * * *
    * * * *
    * * * *
    * * * *
    * * * *

    >Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M picture......yes.


    Unless you're shooting a chain-link fence! The fuji orientation favors
    horizontal and vertical lines, at the expense of diagonals.

    Unfortunately, you have to record a 6mp file to get the 3mp of data.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Sep 27, 2003
    #5
  6. Mark Grady

    Paul Cordes Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <dx5bb.4043$>,
    > "Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote:
    >
    > >In the case of fuji they have 3.1M actual pixels in a hexagonal pattern

    that they interpolate into 6M pixel picture.
    >
    > I believe that it is a regular rectangular grid, but rotated 45 degrees,
    > like so:
    >
    > * * * *
    > * * * *
    > * * * *
    > * * * *
    > * * * *
    > * * * *
    >
    > >Is it really a 6M picture......no. Is it better than a 3M

    picture......yes.
    >
    > Unless you're shooting a chain-link fence! The fuji orientation favors
    > horizontal and vertical lines, at the expense of diagonals.
    >
    > Unfortunately, you have to record a 6mp file to get the 3mp of data.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


    I believe that the pixels are actually hexagonals in shape not retangular
    with offset.
    This results in a somewhat narrower pitch without sacrificing size.
    And I seem to recall that you can record just the 3M data if you desire.
    Not advocating this arrangement......don't even own a Fuji.......just
    clarifying.

    PC
     
    Paul Cordes, Sep 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Mark Grady

    Guest

    In message <Qq6db.5128$>,
    "Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote:

    >I believe that the pixels are actually hexagonals in shape not retangular
    >with offset.


    That's what I thought when I first heard of it, but I believe I found
    out afterward that it was just a diagonal pattern.

    >This results in a somewhat narrower pitch without sacrificing size.
    >And I seem to recall that you can record just the 3M data if you desire.


    That would only work in RAW mode, without resampling. As soon as you
    rasterize it to a JPG or TIFF, you're going to have to drop detail (3mp)
    or bloat the raster (6mp).

    >Not advocating this arrangement......don't even own a Fuji.......just
    >clarifying.


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Sep 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Mark Grady

    John Corbett Guest

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:50:07 GMT, wrote:


    >
    >That's what I thought when I first heard of it, but I believe I found
    >out afterward that it was just a diagonal pattern.
    >


    Well, that's not what their website
    http://www2.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/index.php?flash=6 states!!

    It clearly shows that their Super CCD is actually octagonal.


    --

    Regards

    John [Harold Hill, Essex, UK]

    Remove the obvious spamtrap from the address to reply!
     
    John Corbett, Sep 28, 2003
    #8
  9. Mark Grady

    Guest

    In message <>,
    John Corbett <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:50:07 GMT, wrote:


    >>That's what I thought when I first heard of it, but I believe I found
    >>out afterward that it was just a diagonal pattern.


    >Well, that's not what their website
    >http://www2.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/index.php?flash=6 states!!
    >
    >It clearly shows that their Super CCD is actually octagonal.


    It clearly shows exactly what I said, that the cells are laid out in a
    diagonal pattern. They happen to also be hexagonal in individual
    _shape_.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Sep 28, 2003
    #9
  10. Mark Grady

    John Corbett Guest

    On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:22:11 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >John Corbett <> wrote:


    >It clearly shows exactly what I said, that the cells are laid out in a
    >diagonal pattern. They happen to also be hexagonal in individual
    >_shape_.


    Hmmm.....I'm not sure I agree with that.

    Granted the graphic shows the photodiode rotating through 45 degrees, but
    this is for illustration only. If you follow the presentation through, it
    clearly shows that even though they have been rotated, they are actually
    octagonal (not hexagonal) in shape!


    --

    Regards

    John [Harold Hill, Essex, UK]

    Remove the obvious spamtrap from the address to reply!
     
    John Corbett, Sep 28, 2003
    #10
  11. Mark Grady

    Guest

    In message <>,
    John Corbett <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:22:11 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>,
    >>John Corbett <> wrote:

    >
    >>It clearly shows exactly what I said, that the cells are laid out in a
    >>diagonal pattern. They happen to also be hexagonal in individual
    >>_shape_.

    >
    >Hmmm.....I'm not sure I agree with that.


    Me neither ... that was a typo. I am just a lot more used to using the
    word "hexagonal" than "octagonal".

    >Granted the graphic shows the photodiode rotating through 45 degrees, but
    >this is for illustration only. If you follow the presentation through, it
    >clearly shows that even though they have been rotated, they are actually
    >octagonal (not hexagonal) in shape!


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Sep 29, 2003
    #11
    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. Phöènix
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,879
    Michael J Davis
    Dec 19, 2003
  2. notreallyme
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    997
  3. Kimball K Kinnison

    Effective Pixels?

    Kimball K Kinnison, Apr 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    3,761
  4. Gregory L. Hansen

    (Effective) pixels?

    Gregory L. Hansen, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,254
    cjcampbell
    Dec 16, 2005
  5. Sosumi

    Total and effective pixels?

    Sosumi, Aug 28, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,138
    John Turco
    Sep 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page