Effective Pixels?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kimball K Kinnison, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. I have a Fuji S5000 Zoom

    It takes pictures at 3.1 megapixels, but has an 'effective 6 megapixels'
    what does this mean. I presume that in some way the camera is digitally
    increasing its size and I would imagine you loose some definition.

    For ordinary snapshots should you leave the camera at 3.1 or change it to
    the 6. I print the odd picture out but mainly leave them on the computer.

    Many thanx
     
    Kimball K Kinnison, Apr 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kimball K Kinnison

    Matalog Guest

    It has 6 million Recorded Pixels. It takes The 3.1 million pixels ( which
    are effective ) and interpolates the image ( takes the pixels it has and
    assumes the pixels between them ) - so creating a 6 mega pixel image. The
    definition is not lowered ( I use a s602zoom - but i would say it would be
    the same) if you zoom in it may not look as defined. The technology Fuji
    uses with their new CCD cameras is actually better than other 3 megapixel
    cameras but not as good as 5 or 6 mega pixel cameras.
     
    Matalog, Apr 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Many thanx for the quick reply - very helpful
     
    Kimball K Kinnison, Apr 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Kimball K Kinnison

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Apr 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Kimball K Kinnison

    Matalog Guest

    No its not a lie. They simply say that 3.1 megapixels are effective and the
    camera has a recorded output of 6 megapixels. Not hard to understand and
    certainly is true. Its better than if it was a 3 megapixel photo.
     
    Matalog, Apr 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Actually, it _is_ a lie. Prior to the Fuji rotated sensor*, "effective
    pixels" were the number of pixels that were actually active on the sensor
    (the total number of pixels includes the pixels used for imaging, a ring of
    active pixels used for determining black levels, and a ring of inactive
    pixels). Mfrs used to list the total pixel count including the inactive
    ones. Allowing them to quote "effective pixels" was a compromise between
    consumer advocacy concerns and greedy mfrs wanting to list bigger numbers.
    In that context "recording pixels was _intended_ to be the number of pixels
    that provided data to the camera's processing block.

    So Fuji's use of "recording pixels" to mean "interpolated pixels" is sleazy
    marketing.

    *: Rotating the sensor 45 degrees increases resolution. Not. Gimme a break.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Kimball K Kinnison

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Note: top-posting is the mark of a defective intellect. I've fixed
    the damage, but don't count on this in the future.
    Why limit themselves to 6? Why not output _60_ megapixels? Just smash
    the competition flat!
    It is true they call them "effective" and "recorded" pixels. But what
    the hell do these monikers really mean? Who would record an
    ineffective pixel? Why would you not record all of the effective
    pixels?

    If you don't ask (pretty obvious) questions like these of the camera
    maker, then you deserve exactly what you get when you buy their wares.
    You got it bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
     
    eawckyegcy, Apr 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Because 6 megapixels is the smallest output file that can carry all the
    resolution captured by the sensor. More than that would be empty
    magnification, but less would be discarding some detail.
    It records all of the effective pixels, plus the smallest number of
    additional pixels needed to convert between the sensor's rotated sample
    grid and the conventional row/column grid of the output file.

    The camera *could* record just the raw data, but then the additional
    processing would have to happen on your computer. Conventional JPEG
    compressors and decompressors, and normal image display programs, simply
    cannot handle the rotated sample grid that the Fuji sensor produces,
    so the rotation/interpolation has to be done somewhere. Fuji does it in
    the camera.
    And it appears that you simply don't understand what the Fuji camera
    does. It is certainly true that a 6 MP recorded image from this camera
    is higher quality than a 3 MP recorded image, because the 3 MP image
    must discard some of the horizontal and vertical resolution captured by
    the sensor.

    If you compare to other 3 MP cameras with conventional sensors, the
    issue is murkier. The Fuji camera's 6 MP output has higher resolution
    for horizontal/vertical features than any 3 MP conventional sensor can
    have, but at the same time it has lower resolution for diagonal features
    than a 3 MP conventional sensor. This can be better for urban scenes
    that have a lot of horizontal and vertical lines.

    So, since the 6 MP output has more real resolution (for certain
    orientations of detail) than other 3 MP cameras, Fuji isn't making empty
    claims. Whether the improvement is worth the extra cost in file size is
    another question.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Apr 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Kimball K Kinnison

    hfs2 Guest

    I see a marketing future for you.

     
    hfs2, Apr 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Kimball K Kinnison

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    It IS a three magapixel photo.Calling 3 megs 6 megs is the kind of lie
    that advertisers always pull -- remember when the same amplifier could be
    anywhere from 10 watts up to about 500 according to which phony method of
    rating used? Eventually the industry decided everything but RMS power was a
    LIE. Calling anything other than the physical number of pixels in the image
    the "effective" number of pixels or whatever weasel words you wish does not
    change the facts -- the sucker is a three meg camera. It is not a six meg
    camera any more than that pathetic Sigma is a 12 meg camera. A pixel is a
    pixel - a lie is a lie.
    --
    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 my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
     
    Tony Spadaro, Apr 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Kimball K Kinnison

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Apr 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Kimball K Kinnison

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Apr 24, 2004
    #12
  13. No, I don't and have never owned a Fuji digital camera. I decided that
    the cost of the extra pixels wasn't worth the rather small improvement
    in apparent resolution for some subjects. I think that, when all of our
    viewing devices use row/column raster, it makes the most sense for the
    camera sensor to be organized the same way.

    But I do understand how the Fuji gets that extra resolution, and why the
    output file needs to be 6 MP to retain that resolution. The sensor is 3
    MP, as Fuji says, but it also needs to write 6 MP files to avoid
    discarding the information captured by the sensor. Those are the simple
    facts - how would you describe the situation if you were Fuji?

    Never mind; I doubt if you bothered to learn anything about the Fuji
    before pronouncing them liars and me a sucker. But you were wrong about
    me, and you're wrong about Fuji. It is *not* the same as other 3 MP
    cameras.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Apr 24, 2004
    #13
  14. []
    Dave,

    I don't follow you - if there are only 3MP, that's all that's been
    captured, so all that needs to be saved to file. 3MP not 6MP. Any
    interpolation can be done afterwards, off camera.

    If the in-camera saving process is lossy (e.g. JPEG), then I can see
    benefit to interpolating _before_ JPEG compression, but that applies
    equally to any digital camera not just Fuji.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 24, 2004
    #14
  15. Kimball K Kinnison

    Matalog Guest

    Well. I suppose those who know, know and those who don't, will argue all day
    just to look like they know something.
    Dave's right. Tony's wrong.

    See what you've started kimball
     
    Matalog, Apr 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Kimball K Kinnison

    jriegle Guest

    Top and bottom posting each have their advantages. I prefer top because I
    don't have to scroll down to see responses. That is especially annoying in
    long replies or deep threads.
    John
     
    jriegle, Apr 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Kimball K Kinnison

    JPS Guest

    In message <O%pic.652$>,
    No; you can't convey all the detail captured in 3MP like this:

    O O O O O O O
    O O O O O O
    O O O O O O O
    O O O O O O
    O O O O O O O
    O O O O O O

    in 3 MP like this:

    OOOOOOOOOOOOO
    OOOOOOOOOOOOO
    OOOOOOOOOOOOO
    OOOOOOOOOOOOO
    OOOOOOOOOOOOO
    OOOOOOOOOOOOO


    You throw away detail, doing so.

    It must be output at 6MP; it will have less detail per pixel than
    capturing 6MP in a square grid, but more detail than interpolating to a
    3MP square grid.
    --
     
    JPS, Apr 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Kimball K Kinnison

    jriegle Guest

    Dpreview's review of the Sigma SD10 in its place. While the 3MP files do
    compare to the 6MP files out of the 10D it was compared with, The 10Ds
    images producted less aliasing and retained color fidelity at higher speeds.
    For best price/performance, Bayer can't be beat for now.
    John
     
    jriegle, Apr 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Kimball K Kinnison

    Andrew Guest

    Which of the three messages you quoted were you responding to?
     
    Andrew, Apr 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Kimball K Kinnison

    JPS Guest

    In message <lisic.32754$>,
    Posting a single reply at the top *OR* bottom of an entire quoted post
    that is not trimmed to only what is relevant are both equally stupid.
    The logical way is to reply to key statements in the quoted material,
    with extraneous material deleted, and the logical order is to reply
    *after* what is being replied *to*.
    Nonsense. A post may have replies at the very top *AND* comments
    interspersed in the text. If you read only what is at the top, you may
    be missing some of the replies.

    The only time you have to scroll down pages to see the first reply is
    when an idiot quotes an entire long post or thread, often "complete"
    with .sigs. This has nothing to do with top-posting or bottom-posting
    per se.
    I just can't believe the lame logic of top-posters.

    Pay attention:

    THERE IS NEVER ANY REASON TO QUOTE A POST IN ITS ENTIRETY WHEN REPLYING,
    WHETHER YOU ARE TOP-POSTING, *OR* BOTTOM-POSTING!

    THERE IS SUCH A THING AS *CONTEXTUAL* POSTING, AND THE LOGICAL ORDER OF
    CONVERSATION IS THAT THE REPLY COMES *AFTER* WHAT IS BEING REPLIED *TO*.

    How would you like to read a play where the last spoken lines are the
    first paragraph?
    --
     
    JPS, Apr 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.