i hate digital zoom

Rodger Carter · Sep 25, 2002

tk106609 said:
an eagle can spot a green grasshopper sitting on a green leaf
from 25 m

Yes, but rather mediocre compared to seeing fine blonde hairs on a blonde person at 50m!

Did you take a look at Lisa Young's owl photo - adding 2X digital onto 5X optical - and it still looks better than many full wide angle photos taken with many other digicams. In fact, it looks better than many 35mm film shots I've seen at full lwide angle!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=3421498

Rodger

hls811 · Sep 25, 2002

I dont have a Sony anymore, (I'm a DiMage 7i owner) but I'm very interested in this topic cause I've often wondered which is better, to use 2x digital or just crop and resize later..

Th biggest concern I have now, after reading these postings is that Rodger never showed us samples of the Blondes in Bikini's that he mentioned.

I think that data may be valid for some of us to make a final decision.

Rodger Carter said:
Rodger Carter said:

an eagle can spot a green grasshopper sitting on a green leaf
from 25 m

Click to expand...

Yes, but rather mediocre compared to seeing fine blonde hairs on a
blonde person at 50m!

Did you take a look at Lisa Young's owl photo - adding 2X digital
onto 5X optical - and it still looks better than many full wide
angle photos taken with many other digicams. In fact, it looks
better than many 35mm film shots I've seen at full lwide angle!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=3421498

Rodger

Rodger Carter · Sep 25, 2002

I knew you would be. I'm considering writing a short article on the subject and putting it on my web site with photos. I think this business about needing to use long FL lenses rather than a good zoom becaue of loss of image qualtiy, and even worse, adding digital zoom to it, is overdone considering today's lenses and cameras. Especially so if huge enlargements are not being made. Actually, if a person normally looks at their images on a PC with an album program such as PhotoImpact, how could they tell the difference between a wide angle 20MP image and a 10X digital 5MP image? Photo size on screen would be the same, and resoluiton would depend on the monitor.

Go to digicamhistory.com and the macro article on the first page. There are a number of photos there where the 20X zoom of the CD1000, along with close-up lenses, was used for macro images. Check the coin and ruler images about 1/3 the way through the article with 20X and 7 diopters of close-up lenses attached (three) - 10X optical, 2X digital, and three additional lenses attached, but the coin images still look pretty good (And remember, the CD1000 has only 2MP!).

Rodger

David Barker91965 · Sep 25, 2002

Rodger Carter said:
Maybe yes, maybe no. The Sony system digitally enlarges the image
before it is made into a compressed JPEG. Your PC opens a JPEG
which has already been compressed and which has already lost a
certain amount of data. Once it does its thing it recompresses the
image and looses even more data. In theory at least, the Sony
system should have better results and it seems to. Some reviewers
stated as much when Sony first introduced their system. Do other
cameras work that way - I don't know, but maybe not.
Rodger

I had always assumed that digital zoom was the same thing as cropping out the central part of the frame in an image editor, and have switched off the digital zoom on my F707 for this reason.

I admit that I hadn't considered the factor of the pre-compression image being resampled, thereby theoretically exceeding the quality of the post-compression resampled image.

This is why I decided to do a little test comparison. I took 2 photos, one at full optical and digital, one at full optical only. This second image I cropped to the central portion, half width and half height. I then interpolated back to full image size (2560 x 1920) using Lanczos 8 x 8, the 'best' quality of interpolation on my editor (Picture Window Pro). This methodology would be the way I would choose in a 'real-life' situation. Both original images were saved in camera as JPEG 'Standard', as opposed to 'Fine'.

The samples posted below are crops from the two comparable full-sized images.

The first sample is the full optical and digital version.

The second is the cropped and resized optical zoom only sample.

I'm not really convinced that the optical zoom is doing much more than enabling Sony to print the logo '10 x precision digital zoom' on the side of my camera. What do you think?

--
David Barker

David Barker91965 · Sep 25, 2002

Rodger Carter said:
Proof again that Sony's in-camera digital zoom is quite excellent.

But Rodger, it doesn't prove anything - what would those shots be like if cropped from a full optical only shot, and resampled up to an equivalent number of pixels? We don't know - so there's no 'proof'!

--
David Barker

David Barker91965 · Sep 25, 2002

skamaraju said:
skamaraju said:

what i do to make an image larger is
shoot at 2560x1920
and then use the playback zoom
and resize the photo to the actual size
means-if it was 2560x1920 and i zoomed it x2
i'll resize it to 1280x960.
only way i know .

Click to expand...

--
I think you should do a test and see if your method gives better
quality image or image obtained straight with the digital zoom. My
feeling is that the later should be better (from all the discussion
about Sony Digital zoom technique) as with your method, you are
only cropping a JPEG image and interpolating it to higher
resoution, like a Photoshop or Genuine Fractals does. I am Novice
forgive me if there is something wrong in my interpretation.
Sushil

Hi Sushil,

If you're interested, I have done a similar test, with the results shown in a message further up this thread.

--
David Barker

David Barker91965 · Sep 25, 2002

Howard Salinger said:
I dont have a Sony anymore, (I'm a DiMage 7i owner) but I'm very
interested in this topic cause I've often wondered which is better,
to use 2x digital or just crop and resize later..

See my test comparison higher up this thread. Think about it - if the digital zoom is doubling the apparent image in height and width, it's quadrupling the number of pixels recorded as an image - there's a lot of interpolation going on.

hls811 said:
The biggest concern I have now, after reading these postings is that
Rodger never showed us samples of the Blondes in Bikini's that he
mentioned. I think that data may be valid for some of us to
make a final decision.

Nice one - what about it Rodger, now you've got us all interested. For scientific purposes only of course ;-)

hls811 said:
Rodger Carter said:

hls811 said:

an eagle can spot a green grasshopper sitting on a green leaf
from 25 m

Click to expand...

Yes, but rather mediocre compared to seeing fine blonde hairs on a
blonde person at 50m!

Did you take a look at Lisa Young's owl photo - adding 2X digital
onto 5X optical - and it still looks better than many full wide
angle photos taken with many other digicams. In fact, it looks
better than many 35mm film shots I've seen at full wide angle!

Click to expand...

--
David Barker

Mark J · Sep 25, 2002

Nice shot Yves.... I wonder / would like to ask, if you've tried printing this image out on photo paper and, how it looked as printed matter ?

Also: I am curious if you've used the digital zoom in a scene that has a subject of great detail.... where maybe the digital zoom might be more obvious ?

My own experience with this is that if can be useful..... in the right situation but, unfortunately not every situaltion. I have the same feeling about the digizoom as I do about cropping in camera.

Have a nice day,
Mark J

Yves P. said:
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=320954

mitzu said:

i do

Click to expand...

--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) EX--Owner of DSC-F707,
Future owner of ....... I don't know yet
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Steve Deutsch · Sep 25, 2002

mitzu said:
tk106609 said:

I think you should do a test and see if your method gives better
quality image or image obtained straight with the digital zoom. My
feeling is that the later should be better (from all the discussion
about Sony Digital zoom technique) as with your method, you are
only cropping a JPEG image and interpolating it to higher
resoution, like a Photoshop or Genuine Fractals does. I am Novice
forgive me if there is something wrong in my interpretation.
Sushil

Click to expand...

no no no
i'm not touching the image size at all
u'm only taking the 50% of the image thet is "interesting"
thats livevs me with 1280x960 high qulity image
which is more then enough for viweing it on screen
or 13x18 cm prints.

Steve Deutsch · Sep 25, 2002

To me, this shows that shooting at 10X is every bit as good (maybe better) as trying to blow it up later in an editing tool.

David Barker91965 · Sep 25, 2002

sdeutsch said:
To me, this shows that shooting at 10X is every bit as good (maybe
better) as trying to blow it up later in an editing tool.

I can't really agree here. If I shoot at full optical, I get maximum flexibility on later cropping - even possibly getting more than one useable composition from the one image. With digital zoom you've made your cropping decision in the field, and lost three quarters of the potential frame area, irretrievably.

How is that every bit as good?

--
David Barker

David Barker91965 · Sep 25, 2002

Mark J said:
... I have
the same feeling about the digizoom as I do about cropping in
camera.

...which is ...?

--
David Barker

Steve Deutsch · Sep 25, 2002

The issue at hand is comparing image quality of shooting at 10X to what can be done in an editor tool. I think you've shown that the 707 is just as good - possibly better. Pop goes the myth.

This has nothing to do with if it the best solution for any given situation.

BTW, OT:

Which quality would be better?

20X = 10X * 2, or
20X = 5X * 4

Yves P. · Sep 25, 2002

It loks decent on an 8X10 but I don't think I youd go for any bigger. THis shot was not cropped either. What you see is what you get. I didn't even think of croping this one. I liked it the way it was. I guess it is a matter of taste at that point.

I still don't know if I will go DSLR, the expense is stopping me a bit ...

Call me a fool, I think I will go with a 717 for another year ...
I just loved my 707 ...

Mark J said:
Also: I am curious if you've used the digital zoom in a scene that
has a subject of great detail.... where maybe the digital zoom
might be more obvious ?

My own experience with this is that if can be useful..... in the
right situation but, unfortunately not every situaltion. I have
the same feeling about the digizoom as I do about cropping in
camera.

Have a nice day,
Mark J

Yves P. said:

http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=320954

mitzu said:

i do

Click to expand...

--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) EX--Owner of DSC-F707,
Future owner of ....... I don't know yet
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Click to expand...

--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

tk106609 · Sep 25, 2002

frst time i agree
you can't get more details/information/compositin
by using the digital zoom-and the camera works slower with it.

David Barker said:
I can't really agree here. If I shoot at full optical, I get
maximum flexibility on later cropping - even possibly getting more
than one useable composition from the one image. With digital zoom
you've made your cropping decision in the field, and lost three
quarters of the potential frame area, irretrievably.

How is that every bit as good?

David Barker91965 · Sep 25, 2002

sdeutsch said:
The issue at hand is comparing image quality of shooting at 10X to
what can be done in an editor tool. I think you've shown that the
707 is just as good - possibly better. Pop goes the myth.

What myth are you talking about? I've just pointed out to you that you are discarding three quarters of each image if you use digital zoom and you claim that it's just as good as using an editor! I cannot agree with you.

My experiment has shown me what I already suspected - the digital zoom facility is little more than marketing hype, at best, and as I have already said, a quick way to discard 75% of each image before saving to MS.

Steve Deutsch said:
This has nothing to do with if it the best solution for any given
situation.

This has everything to do with what is the best solution. The best solution is to zoom to maximum telephoto (optical only), take the image home, and then decide how best to crop as necessary.

Steve Deutsch said:
BTW, OT:

Which quality would be better?

20X = 10X * 2, or
20X = 5X * 4

That would be comparing two completely different lens systems. If I had to make a general guess I would say the 10 x 2 option, but it's an almost completely meaningless guess.

--
David Barker

Mark J · Sep 25, 2002

Which is I don't think very highly of it.

Cropping in camera is merely enlarging the center of the image... the same thing you could very well do in photo edit software but, with less negative result.

DIgital zoom is effectively the same theory as cropping in cameara.... for the most part.

David Barker said:
Mark J said:

... I have
the same feeling about the digizoom as I do about cropping in
camera.

Click to expand...

...which is ...?

--
David Barker

Mark J · Sep 25, 2002

I'm right there with you Yves..... I'm flip flopping on a daily basis as to if I should sell the DA, pick up a F717 and nurse it for a year or two when all these new cameras find their place.... and their price !! Buying these DSLR's brand new on the market is akin to buying a CDR drive when they first came out. Now look how the prices have dropped dramatically !!

Good luck, I'm sure you'll make an informed decision.

Regards,
Mark J

Yves P. said:
I still don't know if I will go DSLR, the expense is stopping me a
bit ...

Call me a fool, I think I will go with a 717 for another year ...
I just loved my 707 ...

Mark J said:

Also: I am curious if you've used the digital zoom in a scene that
has a subject of great detail.... where maybe the digital zoom
might be more obvious ?

My own experience with this is that if can be useful..... in the
right situation but, unfortunately not every situaltion. I have
the same feeling about the digizoom as I do about cropping in
camera.

Have a nice day,
Mark J

Yves P. said:

http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=320954

mitzu said:

i do

Click to expand...

--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) EX--Owner of DSC-F707,
Future owner of ....... I don't know yet
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle

Loren Charif · Sep 25, 2002

I think we're going to need to see some samples to properly judge this...(SMIRK)

Loren

Rodger Carter said:
Can't match either Lisa's or mizu's photos in quality, but on a
recent trip to Scandinavia I did capture some photos of their
famous blondes in bikinis at a distance of half the length of a
football field. Used a Sony CD1000 at 20X. Photos clearly show
the fine blonde hairs on subject's legs. Don't think an eagle
could do any better than that.

Rodger

--
http://www.pbase.com/lorenbc/
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=4994

Lisa Young74699 · Sep 25, 2002

Maybe next time I shoot some elk I will try both ways and see what comes out. So used to liking what I got with digital zoom even with my Sony MVC FD-95 that doesn't have the CZ lens that I never tried drastic cropping on a wildlife shot.

Shot taken with the FD-95 at full 20x zoom, 10x optical and 2x digital, at 2.1 mp. Printed great in 8x10 on my HP 952C. Never printed bigger except a 16x20 canvas shot of my first big photo winner ever and except for that wouldn't print bigger than 8x10 with the FD-95 digital zoom or not, 2.1 mp really can't print that well above 8x10.

Lisa

David Barker said:
Rodger Carter said:

Proof again that Sony's in-camera digital zoom is quite excellent.

Click to expand...

But Rodger, it doesn't prove anything - what would those shots be
like if cropped from a full optical only shot, and resampled up to
an equivalent number of pixels? We don't know - so there's no
'proof'!

--
David Barker

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

i hate digital zoom

Leading Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts