Why in-camera interpolation.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by FoulDragon, Jan 21, 2005.

  1. FoulDragon

    FoulDragon Guest

    I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
    mode.

    What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP image
    from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    making a larger file on the storage card?
    --
    Marada Shra'drakaii
     
    FoulDragon, Jan 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. FoulDragon

    Sheldon Guest

    I guess it depends which does the better job -- the camera or the software.


    "FoulDragon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
    > mode.
    >
    > What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP
    > image
    > from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    > making a larger file on the storage card?
    > --
    > Marada Shra'drakaii
     
    Sheldon, Jan 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "FoulDragon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP

    interpolated"
    > mode.
    >
    > What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP

    image
    > from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    > making a larger file on the storage card?


    If it's a Fuji camera, Fuji has made the revolutionary discovery that
    rotating the sensor 45 degrees increases resolution. (That is, of course,
    complete BS, but Fuji rotates their sensors anyway.) Unfortunately, once
    you've rotated the sensor, then if you transform a 3MP rotated image into a
    3MP unrotated image, you lose information. So they have to provide an
    interpolated 6MP image in unrotated mode to get the 3MP of information that
    they actually capture.

    If it's not a Fuji camera, then it's meaningless.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 21, 2005
    #3
  4. FoulDragon

    embee Guest

    In good hands, the software will win hands-down. Camera processors can never
    do what even a relatively basic image editing package can do, if used
    properly. That's why I recommend shooting RAW if you can.

    "Sheldon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I guess it depends which does the better job -- the camera or the

    software.
    >
     
    embee, Jan 21, 2005
    #4
  5. FoulDragon

    FoulDragon Guest

    >f it's not a Fuji camera, then it's meaningless.

    I've seen it on several ranges. It's on the Rollei I bought, the Ezonics I
    almost got, and I note a ad which appeared in a wide range of magazines for a
    "6MP" camera ('Bell & Howell' labelled, probably by some bilge firm which
    applies the name to all manner of tripe) which apparently was only 3MP
    internally but interpolated at standard settings.
    --
    Marada Shra'drakaii
     
    FoulDragon, Jan 21, 2005
    #5
  6. FoulDragon

    Tony Guest

    "FoulDragon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >f it's not a Fuji camera, then it's meaningless.

    >
    > I've seen it on several ranges. It's on the Rollei I bought, the Ezonics
    > I
    > almost got, and I note a ad which appeared in a wide range of magazines
    > for a
    > "6MP" camera ('Bell & Howell' labelled, probably by some bilge firm which
    > applies the name to all manner of tripe) which apparently was only 3MP
    > internally but interpolated at standard settings.


    The extra pixels are called "marketing pixels".
    --
    Tony W
    My e-mail address has no hyphen
    - but please don't use it, reply to the group.
     
    Tony, Jan 21, 2005
    #6
  7. >>I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP
    interpolated"
    >>mode.
    >>
    >>What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP

    image
    >>from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    >>making a larger file on the storage card?


    If you are shooting in raw mode then I would agree. The time when
    interpolation in the camera returns a slight advantage is when you ask the
    camera to save the image as jpeg, and the advantage stems from the fact that
    the interpolation is performed _before_ jpeg compression.

    To do the interpolation later on your PC, the image goes through the
    following steps:

    1) In-camera jpeg compression.

    2) On your PC, the jpeg is decompressed. Then you perform the interpolation
    and then re-encode as jpeg.

    That double encoding is going to cost you in quality.

    Keith
     
    Keith Sheppard, Jan 21, 2005
    #7
  8. FoulDragon

    Owamanga Guest

    On 21 Jan 2005 06:07:58 GMT, (FoulDragon) wrote:

    >I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
    >mode.
    >
    >What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP image
    >from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    >making a larger file on the storage card?


    Owning a computer is not a pre-requsite for owing a P&S. With every
    camera you buy, hundreds of trade-offs are made to make the thing
    appeal to the largest market. A 6Mp interpolated image *may* print
    better than a smaller one when taken directly from the card and
    printed at wallmart.

    Also, a high percentage of P&S purchasers are technically retarded so
    something that mentions 6Mp on a bright sticker on the front of the
    camera has got to be better than 3Mp.

    As for computer based interpolation being better - it's a hard call:

    Computers have faster processors, more memory, more processing time,
    and a much larger set of developers working on the problem. They can
    therefore run more flexible and complex algorithms to do a decent
    interpolated enlargement.

    The camera has one massive advantage - access to the raw data.

    Which is better? - Only tests can show.

    --
    Owamanga!
     
    Owamanga, Jan 21, 2005
    #8
  9. FoulDragon

    Darrell Guest

    "FoulDragon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP

    interpolated"
    > mode.
    >
    > What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP

    image
    > from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    > making a larger file on the storage card?
    >

    Sigma makes a 12.7 megapixel image out of a 3.4 megapixel Foveon CCD
     
    Darrell, Jan 21, 2005
    #9
  10. FoulDragon wrote:

    > I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
    > mode.
    >
    > What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP image
    > from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    > making a larger file on the storage card?


    A lot of digital photographers don't want to use computers. Look at the
    number of printers these days that print directly from camera. I am not
    sure why these folks want digital, but for those like that, in-camera
    works for them.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis, Jan 21, 2005
    #10
  11. Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
    []
    > A lot of digital photographers don't want to use computers. Look at
    > the number of printers these days that print directly from camera. I
    > am not sure why these folks want digital, but for those like that,
    > in-camera works for them.


    Example: friend's wife said to me recently: "He's had that digital camera
    six months now and I've never seen a single print. I'll buy him a better
    printer for Christmas." Husband is not that computer literate, the wife
    even less so, so I helped her buy an Epson R300 where she can insert the
    memory card directly and get as many high quality prints at either "10 x
    8" or "6 x 4" size. He can have the printer connected to his computer,
    but she needs to know nothing about the computer to get a print.

    One delighted couple!

    (I can't answer why he bought a digital camera in the first place,
    though!).

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 21, 2005
    #11
  12. On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:21:20 -0600, Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
    <> wrote:

    >FoulDragon wrote:
    >
    >> I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
    >> mode.
    >>
    >> What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP image
    >> from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    >> making a larger file on the storage card?

    >
    >A lot of digital photographers don't want to use computers. Look at the
    >number of printers these days that print directly from camera. I am not
    >sure why these folks want digital, but for those like that, in-camera
    >works for them.


    I'm not sure, I would use the term "photographers" for these folk but
    rather "picture snappers".


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

    "He that we last as Thurn and Taxis knew
    Now recks no lord but the stiletto's Thorn,
    And Tacit lies the gold once-knotted horn.
    No hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow,
    Who's once been set his tryst with Trystero."

    "The Crying of Lot 49"
    Thomas Pynchon
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 21, 2005
    #12
  13. FoulDragon

    bob Guest

    (FoulDragon) wrote in
    news::

    > I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP
    > interpolated" mode.
    >
    > What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP
    > image from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer,
    > rather than making a larger file on the storage card?
    >


    Might be better, might not. Depends on your software, and how well you can
    use it. Also depends on you having access to the RAW data that the camera
    has. I don't usually shoot RAW with my camera because it's too slow for
    many purposes, and RAW doesn't make better prints, in typical lighting
    situations.

    In my limited tests, I found in-camera interpolation (in my case, digital
    zoom) to be comparable to (but not identical to) Photoshop 6.

    Bob
     
    bob, Jan 21, 2005
    #13
  14. FoulDragon

    Jeremy Guest

    "Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > FoulDragon wrote:
    >
    > > I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP

    interpolated"
    > > mode.
    > >
    > > What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP

    image
    > > from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather

    than
    > > making a larger file on the storage card?

    >
    > A lot of digital photographers don't want to use computers. Look at the
    > number of printers these days that print directly from camera. I am not
    > sure why these folks want digital, but for those like that, in-camera
    > works for them.
    >


    Ricoh had one model of digital camera (the original Caplio, I believe) that
    was basically a 3 MP model, but it had the ability to shoot two pictures,
    separated by a width of something like one single pixel, and it could
    produce a 6 MP image from it.

    It was a way of approaching 6 MP image quality, without using a 6 MP chip.
    But it was more than simply producing 2 pixels for every one that was
    actually captured by the CCD.

    Might that be what you're talking about?
     
    Jeremy, Jan 21, 2005
    #14
  15. FoulDragon

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (FoulDragon) wrote:

    >I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
    >mode.
    >
    >What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP image
    >from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    >making a larger file on the storage card?


    Some Fuji cameras offer this. What is going on is that the sensor in
    these cameras don't record an image in 3 million pixels in the typical
    grid:

    0000000
    0000000
    0000000
    0000000
    0000000
    0000000
    0000000

    but rather, like this:

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

    There is no way to convey the information recorded in a rectangular grid
    of 3 million pixels. You will lose detail. So, in order for the camera
    to make a JPEG that has all the resolution of the original, it must fill
    in the blanks, doubling the pixels to 6 million. If you shoot in RAW
    mode, only the 3 million pixels are in the file, and the software that
    converts to other files formats on your computer can expand it to 6
    million pixels.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 21, 2005
    #15
  16. FoulDragon

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

    >Sigma makes a 12.7 megapixel image out of a 3.4 megapixel Foveon CCD


    How different does it look from a 3.4MP image resized 200%?

    The only time increasing the size in the raw converter is useful is if
    the converter is also doing CA corrections or lens distortion
    corrections.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 22, 2005
    #16
  17. FoulDragon

    Marvin Guest

    Sheldon wrote:
    > I guess it depends which does the better job -- the camera or the software.
    >

    When I do it in my computer, I can go back to the original if I don't like the result. If the camera does it, I can't go back.
    >
    > "FoulDragon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>I noticed a few of the 3MP P&S cameras I've seen offer a "6MP interpolated"
    >>mode.
    >>
    >>What's the possible merit of this? If you wanted to interpolate a 6MP
    >>image
    >>from a 3MP sensor, wouldn't it be better done on the computer, rather than
    >>making a larger file on the storage card?
    >>--
    >>Marada Shra'drakaii

    >
    >
    >
     
    Marvin, Jan 22, 2005
    #17
    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. phobos

    Re: Interpolation on a lowres camera

    phobos, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    467
    John H. Guillory
    Jul 29, 2003
  2. John Wilson

    Interpolation / Resizing / Quality

    John Wilson, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    318
    Jim Townsend
    Sep 30, 2003
  3. Click

    Use camera interpolation for C-750

    Click, Oct 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    429
  4. gerald seibert

    Lanczos interpolation

    gerald seibert, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    7,316
    Guido Vollbeding
    Nov 26, 2003
  5. John DeGroof

    in-camera interpolation - how good?

    John DeGroof, Jul 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    463
    Ron Hunter
    Jul 21, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page