I think marketing always introduces inaccuracies, and
simplifications that turn out oversimplifications when one looks
closer. Theoretically the octogonal sensor shape is the less
effective: you can cover a surface ideally with squares, but you
cannot do it with octogons- little squares beteween them always
remain. But for some reason which i do not know the fuji design do
not need a "control signal path", thus its space can be used. If
density is definied as total photodiode area/sensor area, given a
fixed amount of pixels, than it becomes very unclear for non
professionals to find outactually where the trade-offs are in the
manufacturing process. a conventonal photodiode occupy ~ 30% of the
pixel area , but I found no data on fuji %, on the drawing it looks
larger, but who knows...
Fuji has to somehow advertise its products, so they use arguments
like similarity to the "human perception" (Eye movements? retina?)
that may sound good if one don't care too much about details (and
also theremay be some truth in it). Mathematics, engineering
arguments, anything that sounds too much scientific has to be
avoided, if they want to sell the product (note that their sell
much less S2-s than cnsumer cameras ...). I dont like it and they
should provide more scientific information, but on the other hands
complex math frightens most people.
Although i m a biologist I dont think that the similarity with any
retina pattern is a real argument, i think the cause lies in the
spectral analysis i described in the previous mesages, becouse the
advantages- costs are clearly visible there. But how many customers
will know what a Fourier analysis is?
I totally agree with that. I understand the forces these companies
are under to sell products to the masses. But there is a line to
be drawn when a "simplification" becomes an intentional distortion.
I think one example was the original attempt to pass off the S602
as a 6MP camera. Its not a lie, really, but its clearly not
truthful either when it only has 3M sensors. People caught on and
Fuji changed their tune. Now, actual sensor count is made pretty
clear when you read most Fuji ads and reviews.
Now with the emergence of SuperCCD4, I fear we may have entered a
new low in intentional distortion. In the context of their first
gaff, there can be no excuse whatsoever for calling the same 3MP
sensor a 6/12MP sensor.
I am just guessing; connecting (a disturbing amount of) dots. I
hope I'm wrong and they've actually wedged all those funny little
mini-octagons in between all those other octagons making the whole
thing a chocolate mess. A mess that is geometrically unrelated to
their initial geometry-dependent efficiency claims, unless you are
ready to call a conventional CCD X/Y pattern, two interlocking
diagonal patterns. That would still be better than the
alternative scenario, the implications of which I won't even go
into right now, until there is more proof one way or the other.
