S2 smart zoom?

"

FYI .. if you switch to the center 2 Mpx for this "magnification" then that is exactly what your camera is doing, cropping the center part and giving you the illusion you shot it at 16x .. not very difficult to understand .. and I also believe that the Photoshop algorithm that does the same thing might be much better mathematically just because of the computing power available in a PC/Mac .. "

you dont seem to be following-

how is photoshop going to go back to where you filmed the eagle and properly focus and frame the photo of the eagle at 16x?



also we are talking about smart zoom here. It reduces resolultion and crops from the outer edges, not the middle. This is not digitally zooming at 5 mp, but zooming at 2mp and 3mp (or what have you) to maintain image quality.

I think the point is Montana that you won't get better focusing. (This is hearsay from earlier in the thread, please excuse me if i am wrong)

Also getting the eagle in the right place in your 2 MP smart zoom photo is not an advantage, as you can play with the crop function for hours afterwards and get the perfect compostition with the 5 MP photo.

roelof

Isn't this smart zoom basically the same idea as the supermacro? Bring the subject in that much closer but drop the resolution.

I love the supermacro, but I rarely want to print out an ant at 13x17. An eagle on the other hand would be a great subject for 13x17 so I don't think I'd be quite as happy with the smart zoom as I am with the supermacro. It's not going to look as good as using a 16x optical zoom no matter what.

I'm definitely one who wants as much zoom as possible (I dream of 800mm zoom lenses), but I don't want to sacrifice to get it. Until a digicam can give me the quality to go along with the zoom, I'll stick with 4x-12x optical and not mess with the inexpensive tricks of digital zoom and smart zoom. Otherwise I'll buy a DSLR and get my 800mm tele lens.

"I think the point is Montana that you won't get better focusing. (This is hearsay from earlier in the thread, please excuse me if i am wrong)

Also getting the eagle in the right place in your 2 MP smart zoom photo is not an advantage, as you can play with the crop function for hours afterwards and get the perfect compostition with the 5 MP photo."

I can't believe this at all. Are you saying you can get a better shot from a static, flat sample than while being in the field at 16x?

Come on.

Montana,

With the smart zoom, you're NOT getting 16x zoom. You're getting 12x zoom with an additional 1.3x digital zoom at a lower resolution. That's not any better than using your 12x and cropping it.

You're probably better off using the full resolution with your 12x optical plus a bit of your digital zoom. 1.3x digital isn't going to be that noisy and you'll be at full resolution without cropping.

Smart zoom is just a cheap way to convince folks that they're getting more for their money.

that is obviously your opinion, but it does not make it a fact. Plenty of facts have been described in this thread as to why there is no difference, only opinions as to why there is.

Montana500 said:

But it doesn't work as good, mainly for focus and framing reasons.
Much better to crop while taking the actual photo.

Click to expand...

""Montana,

With the smart zoom, you're NOT getting 16x zoom. You're getting 12x zoom with an additional 1.3x digital zoom at a lower resolution. That's not any better than using your 12x and cropping it.

You're probably better off using the full resolution with your 12x optical plus a bit of your digital zoom. 1.3x digital isn't going to be that noisy and you'll be at full resolution without cropping.

Smart zoom is just a cheap way to convince folks that they're getting more for their money.""

With smart zoom, you are getting 16x zoom, just at a lower megapixel. You can still focus and frame the shot.

And no way would I ever use any digital zoom that did not maintain image quality. With the 16x you can focus and frame your photo better than you could at 12x in photoshop. There is no comparison.

Montana500 said:

With smart zoom, you are getting 16x zoom, just at a lower
megapixel. You can still focus and frame the shot.

And no way would I ever use any digital zoom that did not maintain
image quality. With the 16x you can focus and frame your photo
better than you could at 12x in photoshop. There is no comparison.

Click to expand...

If you really believe that you are getting 16x zoom from a camera that reduces the megapixel to do it, then there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise.

The lens is not a 16x zoom lens - it's a 12x zoom lens - period. Anything the camera does to bring in the subject is digital. There may be 15 million ways to do it but you're still digital zooming.

Maybe you guys should just agree to disagree.

Montana (and others who would like to comment), what if you take an S2 5mp pic at 16x and then use photoshop to RESIZE the picture to 1600x1200 (2mp). How will that compare to the Fuji's 16x @ 2mp using "smart zoom"?

Toedtoes said:

Montana500 said:

With smart zoom, you are getting 16x zoom, just at a lower
megapixel. You can still focus and frame the shot.

And no way would I ever use any digital zoom that did not maintain
image quality. With the 16x you can focus and frame your photo
better than you could at 12x in photoshop. There is no comparison.

Click to expand...

If you really believe that you are getting 16x zoom from a camera
that reduces the megapixel to do it, then there's nothing anyone
can say to convince you otherwise.

The lens is not a 16x zoom lens - it's a 12x zoom lens - period.
Anything the camera does to bring in the subject is digital. There
may be 15 million ways to do it but you're still digital zooming.

Click to expand...

--
Jeremy

Montana500 said:

"

FYI .. if you switch to the center 2 Mpx for this "magnification"
then that is exactly what your camera is doing, cropping the center
part and giving you the illusion you shot it at 16x .. not very
difficult to understand .. and I also believe that the Photoshop
algorithm that does the same thing might be much better
mathematically just because of the computing power available in a
PC/Mac .. "

you dont seem to be following-

how is photoshop going to go back to where you filmed the eagle and
properly focus and frame the photo of the eagle at 16x?

Click to expand...

turn it any way you like .. a 12x optical system is not going to deliver a 16x magnification, period ! your supplementary 4x is in camera hocus-pocus ..

--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !

This thread begs for some side by side examples to see if there is any real difference.

You're overlooking the fact that with the "superzoom" you're getting a "2MP" image from a 5MP quality sensor. The pixels are going to be much smaller and thus not as high quality as a full-size 2MP sensor. You're moving in the direction of sticking a telephoto lens on a webcam.

You're correct in that there are benefits in zooming an image before JPEG compression. The benefit only exists when the the zoom quality is comparable to the quality you can get in post-processing though. By dropping your input resolution, you're just making your picture grainier before compressing it. While this might not be too bad for a 5MP-> 3.75MP drop (which I think would be the translation from 12x-> 16x zoom), I wouldn't want to push it any further than that.

Personally, I think I'd stick with the highest res. image at 12x with IS and leave it to more powerful post-processing to enlarge anything I needed after that.

No difference, as I would have to switch the H1 to 3mp first, and the camera would simply discard the outer 2mp. Same as cropping a 5mp image to 3mp (without resampling).

Maxx

Montana500 said:

"Sorry, you are wrong. "

A Golden Eagle is in 16x range at a national park.

Maxx here has a Sony H1. He chooses to stop at 12x, and then crop
in photoshop to get the eagle.

Or, Maxx could of switched to 16x at no quality loss, focused, and
properly framed the eagle.

Which method is going to be better?

Click to expand...

RESIZE is different. It resamples down (or up) to a new number of pixels, similar to how a traditional digital zoom works. It does not simply crop like smart zoom.

Maxx

Jeremy said:

Maybe you guys should just agree to disagree.

Montana (and others who would like to comment), what if you take an
S2 5mp pic at 16x and then use photoshop to RESIZE the picture to
1600x1200 (2mp). How will that compare to the Fuji's 16x @ 2mp
using "smart zoom"?

Click to expand...

scarr said:

You're overlooking the fact that with the "superzoom" you're
getting a "2MP" image from a 5MP quality sensor. The pixels are
going to be much smaller and thus not as high quality as a
full-size 2MP sensor. You're moving in the direction of sticking a
telephoto lens on a webcam.

You're correct in that there are benefits in zooming an image
before JPEG compression.

Click to expand...

Why would it be any different quality wise? The jpeg encoding for the inner 3mp would be different than if it was a complete 3mp image? I think not. Remember that it is just cropping, so there is no resampling going on (before or after compression). Sensor pixels are still the same size, so there is no noise or dynamic range advantage either.

Maxx

The benefit only exists when the the zoom

scarr said:

quality is comparable to the quality you can get in post-processing
though. By dropping your input resolution, you're just making your
picture grainier before compressing it. While this might not be
too bad for a 5MP-> 3.75MP drop (which I think would be the
translation from 12x-> 16x zoom), I wouldn't want to push it any
further than that.

Personally, I think I'd stick with the highest res. image at 12x
with IS and leave it to more powerful post-processing to enlarge
anything I needed after that.

Click to expand...

maxx2 said:

Why would it be any different quality wise? The jpeg encoding for
the inner 3mp would be different than if it was a complete 3mp
image? I think not. Remember that it is just cropping, so there is
no resampling going on (before or after compression). Sensor pixels
are still the same size, so there is no noise or dynamic range
advantage either.

Maxx

Click to expand...

My interpretation (of the first post) was that it uses a subsample of the CCD's output to create a "full size" image. This would imply that it's still upsampling the pixels (i.e. a digital zoom). My comments were based on the fact that the smaller pixels in the higher-resolution CCD will end up giving you more noise and lower dynamic range than an actual lower-resolution CCD of the same size.

After reading this and rereading the original post, I might've misinterpreted what this feature did. Are you saying that it simply crops the normal 5MP image to a smaller size (thus outputting smaller images)? I'm not sure how that qualifies as a "zoom," nor how that would provide any benefit to anyone besides some minor space-saving on a memory card. Of course, maybe that's what everyone else has been arguing all along. ;-)

picture speaks a thousand words. so post the photo you take at 16x smart-zoom vs pic you take at 10x & cropped to 16x by s/ware, then let our eyes see 'em

Montana500 said:

The Sony H1 , Fuji s5100 and Oly C770 all have what is termed as
"smart zoom". Does the S2 have this feature?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the "Digital Zoom" of the S2 is similar to the "Smart Zoom' of other cameras. In both cases, the image is reduced in resolution. It seems that the image corresponds to the central part of the sensor, without interpolation.

Some other cameras, I was told, interpolate the image back to full resolution, and this reduces the quality. This is not what the S1 does, nor the S2 I believe.

I understand that with "Smart zoom" you have to explicitly reduce the resolution of the image to be able to use "Smart zoom". This way you are aware of the loss of resolution. In the S1/S2, "Digital zoom" reduces the resolution automatically, which I like better.

On the debate of whether in the S1/S2, Digital zoom allows a more precise light metering and focus. I have tested the light exposure used for an image with a strong variation in lighting. Digital zoom does use a different light exposure than just optical zzom. This test is easy to do.

It is as if, for Digital zoom, the camera switchs to some sort of "Center metering". It does seem that the cameras uses only the central part of the sensor to do the light metering.

For the autofocus, I could not do a test as conclusive. It seems to me that I get a better autofocus with Digital zooming. But this test is hard to do reliably.

I do not know how 'Contrast based' autofocusing works. I thought it was based on analysing the image on the sensor, not just optically, as some suggest. This is why it is easy to select the area for autofocusing.

If the autofocus uses the image on the sensor, then it would make sense that, with Digital zooming, the camera uses only the central part of the image for autofocusing as it does for light metering.

On the issue of wheter the camera or Photoshop do a better cropping. Just the cropping, no interpolation to other sizes. Cropping is just selecting pixels, without signal processing. On raw images, I would expect that cropping in camara or in Photoshop, would be strictly identical in quality.

With JPEG compression, it is slightly better to crop before the JPEG in camera than after in Photoshop. However, with low loss JPEG, the difference must be minimal. I sure cannot see any difference in quality. Photoshop has the advantage that you can better select what to crop.

Contrary to what one gentelmen said, without Digital zooming, you have a better chance of capturing your subject in the frame. So in terms of cropping and subject selection, it is better not to use Digital zooming.

One final advantage of Digital zooming, is that it helps see the camera shake and press the shutter at a quieter instant.

Frank

I have a HP 945 and can tell you the smart zoom works well. The HP in the view finder tells you the amount of pixels as it zooms down a really great feature and it gives you a good clear picture down to 2mps. You can go less.

It would be great if the S2 does this . Anyone know for sure.?

I would say that the smart zoom on the HI would give you usable extra zoom power VS regular ditigal zoom .Something to consider.

snags said:

I have a HP 945 and can tell you the smart zoom works well. The HP
in the view finder tells you the amount of pixels as it zooms down
a really great feature and it gives you a good clear picture down
to 2mps. You can go less.

Click to expand...

yeah I've seen it in action on my friend's HP945 ..

Big deal !! You end up with a 1Mpx picture out of an initial 5Mpx sensor ! .. what's the point ? the summit of digital snake oil !

snags said:

I would say that the smart zoom on the HI would give you usable
extra zoom power VS regular ditigal zoom .Something to consider.

Click to expand...

sorry, nothing to consider .. it doesn't give you anything except center cropping + in the worst case extremely lossy extrapolation ..

--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !