Reading mode: Light Dark

SD14 JPEG interpolation

Go to last post
B

BarrytheB

Senior Member
Messages
3,645
Reaction score
427
Location
TX, US
Has any of our gifted group done the math to calculate how the JPEG Super High is produced?

Is this an upsized in camera file similar to what we do in SPP when we output double size photos? Or is this an actual JPEG produced by similar interpolation as in Bayer cameras?

Super High JPEG
4608 x 3072=14,155,776
RAW
2652 x 1768 x 3=14,066,208

It will be very interesting to see how Phil's review compares both the RAW and JPEG Super High pics to the competition.

--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
 
BarrytheB said:
Has any of our gifted group done the math to calculate how the JPEG
Super High is produced?
Is this an upsized in camera file similar to what we do in SPP when
we output double size photos? Or is this an actual JPEG produced by
similar interpolation as in Bayer cameras?
Click to expand...
I think the first is the more accurate. It will be less than the "double" on SPP 2.1.

I don't know if SPP 3.0 will maintain the "double" setting or even the "half" or will use 14MP total instead of 18MP = 2652x1768x4.

In the end it will not matter much. My only fear is that JPEGs might be based on the AUTO setting of SPP which I never used because was always very unhappy with the results. Anyway I shall only shoot RAW as usual and never use AUTO as usual!
--
Paulo Ferreira
(equipment in profile)
http://www.pauloferreira.co.uk
http://www.azuzarte.com
http://www.pbase.com/pauloferreira
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/paulo_ferreira
 
You can't do bayer interpolation on normal files to make larger files. That doesn't make any sense.

It will be a resize operation the same as any other resize operation duing something like a bicubic expansion.

It is sized to give it 14MP as it is being advertised as a 14MP camera. But this is a waste of space mode with no real purpose other than marketing.
 
Peter G said:
You can't do bayer interpolation on normal files to make larger
files. That doesn't make any sense.

It will be a resize operation the same as any other resize
operation duing something like a bicubic expansion.

It is sized to give it 14MP as it is being advertised as a 14MP
camera. But this is a waste of space mode with no real purpose
other than marketing.
Click to expand...
I wonder what interpolation method will be used.

--
http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/showgallery.php?ppuser=235&cat=500
http://www.pbase.com/lmc54/sd10
 
Why not happy?

Tomorrow I will start a long travel, but when back I want to discuss about this, sending you a picture , preparing it on your tate and send me the settings to compare with Auto.

Renato
Paulo Ferreira said:
In the end it will not matter much. My only fear is that JPEGs
might be based on the AUTO setting of SPP which I never used
because was always very unhappy with the results. Anyway I shall
only shoot RAW as usual and never use AUTO as usual!
--
Paulo Ferreira
(equipment in profile)
http://www.pauloferreira.co.uk
http://www.azuzarte.com
http://www.pbase.com/pauloferreira
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/paulo_ferreira
Click to expand...
 
from the sensor and a JPEG is rendered from that how is that upsizing?

What difference does it make if the data is collected as in Bayer from horizontally arranged photosites on a larger sensor or from a smaller sensor with stacked photosites?
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
 
LMC54 said:
I wonder what interpolation method will be used.
Click to expand...
I would suspect as far as results go they will want something conservative in effect like Bicubic or Lanczos. Rather than some edge enhance s-spline techniques.

Other than that they will want something that isn't to computationally intensive.

Why does it matter? Do you really think they are going to have some super expansion method so it will be worthwhile to do it on camera, since you won't easily duplicated off camera??

This is nothing more than a marketing move to have a mode that lines up output pixel count with advertised pixel count.
 
Peter G said:
You can't do bayer interpolation on normal files to make larger
files. That doesn't make any sense.

It will be a resize operation the same as any other resize
operation duing something like a bicubic expansion.

It is sized to give it 14MP as it is being advertised as a 14MP
camera. But this is a waste of space mode with no real purpose
other than marketing.
Click to expand...
Right on all points.

I think it is a marketing mistake though. I really think they should have come up with a CFA equivalency rating . You run a little study with multiple participants using prints of different subjects and ask people to compare and associate them to prints taken with other (unnamed ) CFA cameras. Then you use that equivalency rating in your marketing so that people can have an approximate expectation of what the camera should be compared to. This is similar to what AMD did some time ago with their Athlon processors.

Of course you continue to explain that there is no true equivalency because the X3 sensor has unique characteristics. The equivalency number is just an approximation.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
BarrytheB said:
Has any of our gifted group done the math to calculate how the JPEG
Super High is produced?
Click to expand...
As the X3 sensor outputs 4.66 M color tripples, where all three samples are in the same spatial location - then it can only be ordinary upscaling. No extra spatial information exists to increase the resolution.

That Sigma/Foveon have chosen to add the 14 Mpixel JPEG mode is totally unneccessary for the photographer. Its just there to confuse the discussions whether it is a 14 Mpixel camera or not IMHO.

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
 
BarrytheB said:
from the sensor and a JPEG is rendered from that how is that upsizing?
What difference does it make if the data is collected as in Bayer
from horizontally arranged photosites on a larger sensor or from a
smaller sensor with stacked photosites?
Click to expand...
It matters a lot. You don't get more resolution by expanding the file. There will be no advantage to saving in 14mp, it will just take up more space. You would essentially just be an idiot for using this mode, when you can resize off camera and save space.
 
Roland Karlsson said:
That Sigma/Foveon have chosen to add the 14 Mpixel JPEG mode is
totally unneccessary for the photographer. Its just there to
confuse the discussions whether it is a 14 Mpixel camera or not
IMHO.
Click to expand...
Right. They are creating a situation where they can "argue" that they are essentially doing what everyone else is doing.

I think it is a marketing error.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
BarrytheB said:
from the sensor and a JPEG is rendered from that how is that upsizing?
What difference does it make if the data is collected as in Bayer
from horizontally arranged photosites on a larger sensor or from a
smaller sensor with stacked photosites?
Click to expand...
It is an essential difference. To be able to (potentially) extract more spatial information then the color sensors must be in different positions. If they are in the same position, then upscaling is simply .... upscaling .. no information is added ... it just takes more space.

So if you ...

(1) ... put the three color detectors in the same position, you get more accurate color information.

(2) ... put them at different positions, you can extract more spatial luminace resolution.

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
 
Jay Turberville said:
I think it is a marketing mistake though. I really think they
should have come up with a CFA equivalency rating . You run a
little study with multiple participants using prints of different
subjects and ask people to compare and associate them to prints
taken with other (unnamed ) CFA cameras. Then you use that
equivalency rating in your marketing so that people can have an
approximate expectation of what the camera should be compared to.
This is similar to what AMD did some time ago with their Athlon
processors.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't think it is for the better. Because the mode really serves no actual practical purpose. And if they get compared to a 14MP bayer camera, it may not be favorably.

I don't think there will ever be a satisfactory solution for comparison.

The real answer is this is a True 4.6MP camera. In all situations it will always deliver its full 4.6MP resolution, regardless of color combinations, it will never have its resolution or accuracy degraded due to sampling irregularities.

It is bayer that is the over representation. A 10MP bayer camera will typically be equivalent to 5MP in they eyes of human users, but under certain conditions could fall as low as 2.5MP (but this conditions are mostly artificial). How they heck do you accurately represent that in a number. I use Bayer divided by two as a general case.
 
Jay Turberville said:
I think it is a marketing error.
Click to expand...
... that he fully agrees.

The first mistake was to change the marketing strategy to an emphasis on Megapixels instead of better pixels. This was made some years ago.

The second misstake was to keep to that strategy when it was not well recieved.

And now - the third misstake was to take it up again now for this camera and even do such childish things as adding a 14 Mpixel JPEG mode to "prove" it.

This is my firm belief: If you have a method that gives BETTER pixels, as the X3 does, but cannot produce a chip with equal or more pixels - then it is a VERY good idea to concentrate all efforts on talking about picture quality. On the other hand - then it is a VERY bad idea to concentrate any marketing effort at all on emphasis on Megapixels.

This is also my firm belief: If you shall succeed with a rather expensive camera without the latest and greates new feauters (needed or not) and the message is that it focus on quality instead of those features - then it is essential that the picture quality from the new cameras is breathtakingly better. That is then more important than anything else.

My guess is that a crop 1.3, 8x3 Mpixelx Foveon camera blows the competition out to sea. It might not cost $1600 but rather $2500 - but it would not matter. It would be a success.

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
 
Peter G said:
I don't think there will ever be a satisfactory solution for
comparison.
Click to expand...
I think it is rather simple. Every serious comparison I have seen have hinted at that a Bayer sensor loses approx. half area resolution. Thats a reasonable rule of thumb.

So why not call the SD14 a 10 MP equivilent camera just as you do with the focal length multiplication crop whtever thingie. (Should really be 9 - but who cares - it is a computed estimate in any case).

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/
 
Roland Karlsson said:
I think it is rather simple. Every serious comparison I have seen
have hinted at that a Bayer sensor loses approx. half area
resolution. Thats a reasonable rule of thumb.

So why not call the SD14 a 10 MP equivilent camera just as you do
with the focal length multiplication crop whtever thingie. (Should
really be 9 - but who cares - it is a computed estimate in any
case).
Click to expand...
I always think of Bayer as performing at about half the rated count. When I say we will never get a satisfactory solution, I mean one that everyone can agree on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top