With all the official informtion put out by Fuji about the cameras specifications, is it resonable to consider this to be a 6MP camera. Looks to me like the sensor does in fact have 12.3 discreet pixels to take in light information. Not interpolated to create a 12.3 MP image. Why are some still dismissing it off as a 6MP? Or am I just gettting my little hopes up thinking perhaps it is in fact a 12MP effective sensor. But 19"X28" photo quality (as I've seen advertised) print sizes and 24 MB Raw files? Could a 6MP sensor accomplish anything near that? thoughts... ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
S3 6MP ? ? doubts... thoughts... ? (hmmmm...)
- Thread starter Jefrey
- Start date
Guillermo M.P.
Well-known member
We have been talking a lot about that.
is a true 6 M , but the only one that act like a layer in PS with lights.
thats all.
is a true 6 M , but the only one that act like a layer in PS with lights.
thats all.
Paul W. Walters
Senior Member
Just like the S2, the S3 is a 6MP effective pixel camera. The two layers of pixels are treated as one set with different light sensitivity. HOWEVER, in analyzing the output from this camera, I think that the extra pixels may have increased the accuracy of the 12MP output mode. I personally feel that the S3 shows a small amount of extra detail over the S2 in 12MP mode. STILL, it is not a 12MP camera (even though it has 6MP + 6MP).
Paul
http://www.okpablo.com
Paul
--
http://www.okpablo.com
(hmmm... still a little hard to swallow)
thanks for the input though. I suppose the math isn't adding up...
If Fuji is right (gonna give them the benefit ofthe doubt) regarding their claims to 19"X28" photo quality prints ... how could an effective 6MP camera deliver THOSE kind of goods? Baffling my mind...
And 24MB Raw files? From my understanding, doesn't the Raw files contain the actual information garnered from the exposure? With the sensor design in mind, does it add up?
(all these varying takes on the new sensor design and effective pixels, from different sources + info on the size of the Raw files, Print Sizes, etc. - is hard to digest)
J/ L
thanks for the input though. I suppose the math isn't adding up...
If Fuji is right (gonna give them the benefit ofthe doubt) regarding their claims to 19"X28" photo quality prints ... how could an effective 6MP camera deliver THOSE kind of goods? Baffling my mind...
And 24MB Raw files? From my understanding, doesn't the Raw files contain the actual information garnered from the exposure? With the sensor design in mind, does it add up?
(all these varying takes on the new sensor design and effective pixels, from different sources + info on the size of the Raw files, Print Sizes, etc. - is hard to digest)
J/ L
GodSpeaks
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 15,148
- Solutions
- 13
- Reaction score
- 7,195
Do the words 'Marketing BS' have any meaning to you? In other words, don't read too much into it.If Fuji is right (gonna give them the benefit ofthe doubt)
regarding their claims to 19"X28" photo quality prints ... how
could an effective 6MP camera deliver THOSE kind of goods? Baffling
my mind...
The S2 with 6MP (agreed? Right?) yields about 12MB raw files. The S3 with 2 sets of 6MP sensors = 12MB + 12MB = 24MB raw files. Understand? The math is really very simple.
The second set of 6MP sensors act, as someone mentioned, sort of like a photoshop layer over the primary pixels.
Also do a search on this forum, Phil weighed in at one point, after his S3 preview, that the S3 was indeed a 6MP camera.
However, the real proof will be in the pudding. Once the camera gets into the hands of reviewers, like Phil, and real professionals, not overly enthusiastic amateurs, then we will see what the camera is really capable of.
Declan
--
One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
I can feel an angel sliding up to me
Thanks God,
that clarifies a lot!
so much contraditory information floating out there - hard to get a handle on it all.
makes sense. thanks!
guess we'll have to wait....
damn those tricky marketers for messing with my Head!
will dig around for those post...
J/ L
that clarifies a lot!
so much contraditory information floating out there - hard to get a handle on it all.
makes sense. thanks!
guess we'll have to wait....
damn those tricky marketers for messing with my Head!
will dig around for those post...
J/ L
Do the words 'Marketing BS' have any meaning to you? In otherIf Fuji is right (gonna give them the benefit ofthe doubt)
regarding their claims to 19"X28" photo quality prints ... how
could an effective 6MP camera deliver THOSE kind of goods? Baffling
my mind...
words, don't read too much into it.
The S2 with 6MP (agreed? Right?) yields about 12MB raw files. The
S3 with 2 sets of 6MP sensors = 12MB + 12MB = 24MB raw files.
Understand? The math is really very simple.
The second set of 6MP sensors act, as someone mentioned, sort of
like a photoshop layer over the primary pixels.
Also do a search on this forum, Phil weighed in at one point, after
his S3 preview, that the S3 was indeed a 6MP camera.
However, the real proof will be in the pudding. Once the camera
gets into the hands of reviewers, like Phil, and real
professionals, not overly enthusiastic amateurs, then we will see
what the camera is really capable of.
Declan
--
One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
I can feel an angel sliding up to me
BTW - really concerned about that now.
I'm a fine art photographer - (recently sold my MF Gear, and was putting all my eggs - so to speak in the S3 basket) & I print large.
crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.
I'm a fine art photographer - (recently sold my MF Gear, and was putting all my eggs - so to speak in the S3 basket) & I print large.
crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.
Do the words 'Marketing BS' have any meaning to you? In otherIf Fuji is right (gonna give them the benefit ofthe doubt)
regarding their claims to 19"X28" photo quality prints ... how
could an effective 6MP camera deliver THOSE kind of goods? Baffling
my mind...
words, don't read too much into it.
The S2 with 6MP (agreed? Right?) yields about 12MB raw files. The
S3 with 2 sets of 6MP sensors = 12MB + 12MB = 24MB raw files.
Understand? The math is really very simple.
The second set of 6MP sensors act, as someone mentioned, sort of
like a photoshop layer over the primary pixels.
Also do a search on this forum, Phil weighed in at one point, after
his S3 preview, that the S3 was indeed a 6MP camera.
However, the real proof will be in the pudding. Once the camera
gets into the hands of reviewers, like Phil, and real
professionals, not overly enthusiastic amateurs, then we will see
what the camera is really capable of.
Declan
--
One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
I can feel an angel sliding up to me
Peter King
Active member
From my understanding, Fuji have always claimed with their Super CCD sensors, that the diagonal array of 6 M photosites can be interpolated up to 12 MP, with better results than simply doing this in Photoshop. So, the S2Pro is a 6 MP camera, but the resolution is somewhere between 6 and 12 MP in practice. Interestingly, when comparing the test shots in the DPReview Canon 20D (8MP) and Fuji S2Pro @ 12 MP, the Fuji definitely has the more fine detail. From just this one comparison, it would seem that Fuji's claims have some basis
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
Jeff, the extra 6 megs is used to gather highlight information with the same resolution of the first 6 megs. This gives the S3 a broader dynamic range - another 2 stops under the very BEST of situations. Sadly it adds no additional resolution over the S2. The resolution will not be close to the Canon 1Ds with 11 megs or the new D2x with 12 megs. It will however, have excellent DR.
Until someone like Phil tests the camera this is mostly speculation except some of us have actually downloaded comparison shots and examined them carefully - and come to this conclusion. Believe me, there is nothing more in a camera that I need than a S3 with a real 12 megs of resolution. Fuji ignored our requests and didn't give it to us.
Fuji is once again putting out a lot of confusion. Advertising BS.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Until someone like Phil tests the camera this is mostly speculation except some of us have actually downloaded comparison shots and examined them carefully - and come to this conclusion. Believe me, there is nothing more in a camera that I need than a S3 with a real 12 megs of resolution. Fuji ignored our requests and didn't give it to us.
Fuji is once again putting out a lot of confusion. Advertising BS.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
"when comparing the test shots in the DPReview Canon 20D (8MP) and Fuji S2Pro @ 12 MP, the Fuji definitely has the more fine detail."
Look at the rez charts. These two cameras are very near identical. The S2 does NOT "definitely show more fine detail". Wish it did as I routinely make 2' x 3' prints and need every bit I can get and the S2 is my baby - until my new D2x gets here.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Look at the rez charts. These two cameras are very near identical. The S2 does NOT "definitely show more fine detail". Wish it did as I routinely make 2' x 3' prints and need every bit I can get and the S2 is my baby - until my new D2x gets here.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Hi Steve,
That's good to hear : that you print that large. I've veered away from going digital only because of image quality concerns at larger print sizes (20"X30"-ish). My work requires museum quality fine art printing. But the price/time of processing/PP of 10 shots of 120 film (when in reality only 2-3 are keepers) versus the efficiency of shooting digital drew me in. I was hoping that the S3 was what Fuji is touting it to be - but just turns out to be clever marketing. Unfortunate. But considering what you say, is a bit encouraging. S3 (or the 20D) is just in my price point.
sorry for the redundancy in the post, know there's been a lot of this going back and forth. But there's no going back for me. (to film) and just wanted to make an informed decision. (an expensive one at that!)
J/ L
That's good to hear : that you print that large. I've veered away from going digital only because of image quality concerns at larger print sizes (20"X30"-ish). My work requires museum quality fine art printing. But the price/time of processing/PP of 10 shots of 120 film (when in reality only 2-3 are keepers) versus the efficiency of shooting digital drew me in. I was hoping that the S3 was what Fuji is touting it to be - but just turns out to be clever marketing. Unfortunate. But considering what you say, is a bit encouraging. S3 (or the 20D) is just in my price point.
sorry for the redundancy in the post, know there's been a lot of this going back and forth. But there's no going back for me. (to film) and just wanted to make an informed decision. (an expensive one at that!)
J/ L
R
Rinus Borgsteede
Guest
If the S3 has the same output quality when converted in the EX converter to 12 MP, the image should go to 30 x 45" without a problem. I have seen 40 x 60 on posters and it looks real good. remember that pictures that big are not being viewed at the same close distance as an 8x10.
I am sure that the actual quality of the S3 will be better than the S2 but file size may not be different.
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna
I am sure that the actual quality of the S3 will be better than the S2 but file size may not be different.
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna
FlossTycoon
Senior Member
There are certainly 12.3 discreet photosensor locations on the chip so by definition it is a 12.3 mpix camera. On the earlier Fuji Super CCD used on the S20 there were two sensors at each site so you could argue either way but still there were still twice the inputs as a camera with only one sensor at each site. I think Fuji can legally and ethically claim the S3 Pro is a 12.3 mpix camera.
The output file size would indicate there is data from 12 million pixels for the software to process. What Fuji has decided to do with the data is the key. Each of the smaller pixels is bounded by 4 of the regular pixels. What does the processing software do with the data from the smaller pixel? Is it
tied to only one adjacent pixel or is it averaged with the four surrounding pixels? The fact the RAW file is twice the size of the 6 mpix RAW files would indicate that there are 12 mpix of data at that point. I wonder what the .jpeg and tiff files are compared to the S2. If indeed they are twice as large in the S3 as the S2 then a head to head evaluation with the 12 mpix D2x is in order. Of course the D2x costs twice as much as the S3 and the Canon 1Ds costs three times as much. If the S3 comes anywhere close to either of these cameras it will be a bargain albiet in an amateur body.
There seems to be agreement that the S2 with the 6 hexagonal mpix gave the image quality as an 8 mpix camera with square pixels. Hopefully the S3 will give at least the image quality of a 10mpix camera. I wonder if there is any visible difference between 10 mpix and 12 mpix. Phil's review of the Canon 20D (8 mpix) and the 10D (6 mpix) for a 33% increase in pixels states there is a slight visible improvement in image quality but not enough for him to recommend the increase in pixels as justification for an upgrade. The improvement between 10 mpix and 12 mpix is only a 20% improvement. I wonder if that will be noticeable? The Nikon D2h users report great images of 20"x30" with 4 mpix. Lets hope the Fuji pixels are quality pixels and they write the software to make them shine.
Alan, in Montana.
The output file size would indicate there is data from 12 million pixels for the software to process. What Fuji has decided to do with the data is the key. Each of the smaller pixels is bounded by 4 of the regular pixels. What does the processing software do with the data from the smaller pixel? Is it
tied to only one adjacent pixel or is it averaged with the four surrounding pixels? The fact the RAW file is twice the size of the 6 mpix RAW files would indicate that there are 12 mpix of data at that point. I wonder what the .jpeg and tiff files are compared to the S2. If indeed they are twice as large in the S3 as the S2 then a head to head evaluation with the 12 mpix D2x is in order. Of course the D2x costs twice as much as the S3 and the Canon 1Ds costs three times as much. If the S3 comes anywhere close to either of these cameras it will be a bargain albiet in an amateur body.
There seems to be agreement that the S2 with the 6 hexagonal mpix gave the image quality as an 8 mpix camera with square pixels. Hopefully the S3 will give at least the image quality of a 10mpix camera. I wonder if there is any visible difference between 10 mpix and 12 mpix. Phil's review of the Canon 20D (8 mpix) and the 10D (6 mpix) for a 33% increase in pixels states there is a slight visible improvement in image quality but not enough for him to recommend the increase in pixels as justification for an upgrade. The improvement between 10 mpix and 12 mpix is only a 20% improvement. I wonder if that will be noticeable? The Nikon D2h users report great images of 20"x30" with 4 mpix. Lets hope the Fuji pixels are quality pixels and they write the software to make them shine.
Alan, in Montana.
Peter King
Active member
Steve, you are absolutely right! I have downloaded the rez charts for both the S2Pro and the 20D, and to make a direct comparison, resized the 20D chart in Photoshop up to the S2Pro dimensions. On close examination, I can now find no difference between them. This suggests that the S2Pro has a resolution equivalent to the 8 MP of the 20D. However, when I downloaded the standard studio shot for both of them, I find the 20D actually resolves more detail. Take a look at the watch face: on the 20D the maker's name is clearly legible, but on the S2Pro, it is not. Also the print is legible on the batteries on the 20D but fuzzy on the S2Pro. However, this is all rather achademic, since we are no longer interested in comparisons with the S2Pro. We need to see the tests from the S3Pro. If it is going to sell, it will need to have outstanding image quality to offset the objections to the limitations of the camera functions, which fall far short of the excellentyly specified 20. I am sorely tempted to jump ship, sell my Nidkon lenses, and go for the 20D.
Einteresting.... Very Einteresting, Indeed.
thanks for the insider scoop on the S2 & 20D's resolution, I wouldn't have known that the S2's interpolated images were closer to 8/9MP camera res wise. (good to know)
I suppose then for an artist bent on large print out image quality (and a camera under 3K) - the S3 (review & real performance forthcoming) would be a better bet than the 20D.
Let's just hope....
You guys have been a great help ... sorting out all this digi-stuff.
appreciate it
jefrey lacson
thanks for the insider scoop on the S2 & 20D's resolution, I wouldn't have known that the S2's interpolated images were closer to 8/9MP camera res wise. (good to know)
I suppose then for an artist bent on large print out image quality (and a camera under 3K) - the S3 (review & real performance forthcoming) would be a better bet than the 20D.
Let's just hope....
You guys have been a great help ... sorting out all this digi-stuff.
appreciate it
jefrey lacson
D
David Martin
Guest
I'm not sure that it follows that the S2 when interpolated to a larger size is equivalent to the 20D.
I am a fan of the Fuji's images, and accept that there is little to choose between those and the 20D's 8MP.
I stand to be corrected by those with more knowledge here, but my understanding is that the S2 images are not quite so robust as a 'proper' 8Mp camera when interpolated to very large sizes, and are somewhat subject to artifacting that is not, of course, to say that the S2's images are in any way bad!
Of course , we don't yet know how the S3 will do, so perhaps on that score it is best just to wait.
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
I am a fan of the Fuji's images, and accept that there is little to choose between those and the 20D's 8MP.
I stand to be corrected by those with more knowledge here, but my understanding is that the S2 images are not quite so robust as a 'proper' 8Mp camera when interpolated to very large sizes, and are somewhat subject to artifacting that is not, of course, to say that the S2's images are in any way bad!
Of course , we don't yet know how the S3 will do, so perhaps on that score it is best just to wait.
--thanks for the insider scoop on the S2 & 20D's resolution, I
wouldn't have known that the S2's interpolated images were closer
to 8/9MP camera res wise. (good to know)
I suppose then for an artist bent on large print out image quality
(and a camera under 3K) - the S3 (review & real performance
forthcoming) would be a better bet than the 20D.
Let's just hope....
You guys have been a great help ... sorting out all this digi-stuff.
appreciate it
jefrey lacson
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
Dave Roberts #63766
Leading Member
As David Martin said,
" Of course , we don't yet know how the S3 will do, so perhaps on
that score it is best just to wait."
Dave Roberts
" Of course , we don't yet know how the S3 will do, so perhaps on
that score it is best just to wait."
Dave Roberts
R
Rinus Borgsteede
Guest
Hi Jefrey,
Though it has a very good file size and beautiful color, it may be difficult at times to get every branch visible when shooting landscapes. This can be said for all digital files no matter what the resolution. If long distance scenics with a lot of fine detail are your main hobby, a larger file size may be easier to get a clean image. Those with the S2 have learned to get the most from their camera and it is pretty darn good. I suggest you read some more in this forum under the heading of "large prints".
I can get details similar to Velvia film but a well exposed frame does a lot for keeping noise and color grain down.
Have fun exploring.
--
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna
Though it has a very good file size and beautiful color, it may be difficult at times to get every branch visible when shooting landscapes. This can be said for all digital files no matter what the resolution. If long distance scenics with a lot of fine detail are your main hobby, a larger file size may be easier to get a clean image. Those with the S2 have learned to get the most from their camera and it is pretty darn good. I suggest you read some more in this forum under the heading of "large prints".
I can get details similar to Velvia film but a well exposed frame does a lot for keeping noise and color grain down.
Have fun exploring.
--
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum