602 questions

[shii]

I sneered at the Fuji marketing hype before but now, after following numerous discussions on this site, I am looking at the Super CCD with a lot of interest. Not that I am accepting the argument that one could generate 6 mp worth of information from a 3 mp sensor, but I am interested in the argument that the Super CCD can get more out of a 3 mp sensor than the conventional CCD can. Of course, I understand that the hexagonal layout allows bigger sensor area and hence better dynamic range and lower noise, etc. I am looking at other possible benefits of a hexagonal layout. At the risk of offending some Fuji fans here, I wonder if I could look at the hexagonal layout, inconjunction with the proprietary software, as a clever way of doing image resampling. In other words, this is a hardware/software combination to image resampling rather than just a software approach such as Bicubic and GF. I further understand that the 6900 can generate both 3 mp and 6 mp files. Could somebody post, or point me to a link, 3 mp and 6 mp files of the same scene so I can "play" with them?

Thanks,

Shii

I do not think that anybody here is arguing the point that 3 mp is
3 mp. I think we all agree on that.

The argument is wether or not the SuperCCD is superior in it's
method of capturing and reproducing that quantity of pixels.

The question remains........Should there be an additonal spec added
to the overhyped megapixel rating? Is the process of determining
of that number flawed? I think Fuji has proven that there is more
to simply a count of sensors.

I know my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ chip only runs at a 1.66 ghz clock
cycle but it outperforms the Pentium 4 2.0 ghz chip from Intel.
Not smoke and mirrors.......hard core tested. Many other elements
of the design attribute to that superiority.

As Ian put it.....the issue here is that Fuji seems to be giving us
a hell of alot more information from their 3.1 mp spec than the
competition's 3.1 mp spec.

So MY OPINION gives credence to this. I feel the 3.1 mp spec from
most other manufacturers is flawed at best and inferior to the spec
level of information given to me by the SuperCCD.

We can argue all we want.

The fact remains that many reviewers feel it performs as a 4 - 5 mp
camera. Cnet considers it a true Prosumer model.

The funniest part of this whole argument is this:

We all see the many posts by forum members comparing the 6900's
shots to the Sony 707, Nikon 5000, Canon G2, etc.

Why ? Somebody tell me why we are comparing a 3.1 ccd to 4 and 5
mp units?

I paid 699 USD for my 6900 and can not touch a 707 or 5000 for less
than 999 USD here. Pretty impresive there Fuji!!! Your in a class
all by yourself as proven by the many comparisons of your inferior
3.1 mp chip to the latest 4 and 5 mp offerings. (And your colors
remain superior all along)

Come on!

 

[RJNedimyer]

I wonder if what is confusing the issue here is what exactly is
everyone talking about with regard to the information collected and
output by the CCD sensor. You are absolutley correct in stating a
3MP CCD cannot gather more than 3MP of data. But, in the algorithm
that process and output the 6MP file, isn't the final data file
generated composed of 6MP of information, but about half of that is
processed information....information not gathered by the CCD itself
but generated by the camera's processing software

Data that is produced by the interpolation process is not
"information" in the scientific sense of the word - and that's
exactly the definition that matters to us if we're going to talk
about resolution. The file produced by the Fuji contains 6mp of
data that represents the same 3mp worth of information that was
gathered by the CCD in the first place. The transformation that
takes place in the camera's LSI chip reformats the information into
a usable image format, but it does not - and cannot - add
information.

I HAVE REFRAINED FROM GETTING INTO THIS DISCUSSION BUT IT HAS GONE ON TOO LONG AND HAS BEEN REPEATED TOO OFTEN. IT IS BECOMING IRRITATING AND IS DISCOURAGING GOOD AND INTELLIGENT, KNOWLEDGABLE PEOPLE FROM ASSISTING OTHERS AT PHOTOGRAPHY FROM CONCEPTION TO COMPLETION. SO LETS END IT.

Jim,

I find it very interesting that you do not own a digital camera and yet are THE EXPERT on these topics. Making statements so strongly worded that make those of us with thousands of photos using digital camera and decades of expirience in professional level photography can not make. You emphatically state that everything Fuji's scientest and independent labs with a high level or expertise and indipendent testers state is false.

To simplify this discussion Let's go to the humand eyes and let me ask this question if interpolation doesn't work then how is it that for about 2 decades my Unaided right eye consistantly tested at 20/15, my Unaided left eye at about 20/100 BUT together my unaided (no glasses or contacts) vision was 20/10 to 20/8? Simple reason was the brain was able to "Interpolate" the 2 together. Just and interesting aside my brain was able to generate more accuracy of my vison when both eyes were used but could only generate an extremely vague depth perception. ie I stank at basketball but was an excellent batter in baseball with extremely poor fielding abilities. BTW Currently, with contacts my depth perception is better than average.

Now back to Digital Cameras Your main mistake is you feel that the ultimate resolution is from the number of pixels alone [or so it would appear from your posts] if this is your arguement then you are, simply stated NOT SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE ie you can not see the picture due to the pixels. Resolution is compromised of (amoung other things) pixels, lens sharpness, contrast , accuracy of the CCD (or film or CMOS or whatever), the software, additional hardware used, The monitor used, the printer and printer paper and so on, and so on.

A few additional thoughts that many have disbelieved that are true:
The Earth is round;
Mankind has invented and used heavier than air flying machine;
A few Men have walked on th Moon;

Last thoughts and suggestions;

Please cease and desist from attemting to prove how smart you are [we al know and agree you are very intelligent].

Your beliefs on this subject are well known and doccumented although somewhat 1 directional.

Your comments may have discouraged some from purchasing the Best Prosumer Class Digicam and/or it's successor without due cause.

For that canon, nikon and olympus thank you and by now realize it is better to discredit the inovator [with or without truth and facts but by questioning their accuracy, honesty and son on] than to build a better mouse trap or in this case digitral camera.

THUS IT IS POSSIBLE to have results from a 3.3MP CCD comparable 4.5 to 5.0 megapixel resolution Camera. This is possible by having and using an excellent lens, a higher level interpolation (or whatever you call it), a higher level CCd, additional hardware, and/or software. This is true with out any consideration to your or my personal beliefs and or prejustice.

I sincerely hope this ends this!--RayRJNedimyer

 

[Mofongo]

Aaron_6900 wrote:
I do not think that anybody here is arguing the point that 3 mp is
3 mp. I think we all agree on that.

The argument is wether or not the SuperCCD is superior in it's
method of capturing and reproducing that quantity of pixels.

Exactly. That's what we're saying. A 3mp Super CCD is superior in quality to a standard 3mp CCD. Although it is 3mp, it has more detail than a standard 3mp CCD.

As Ian put it.....the issue here is that Fuji seems to be giving us
a hell of alot more information from their 3.1 mp spec than the
competition's 3.1 mp spec.

So MY OPINION gives credence to this. I feel the 3.1 mp spec from
most other manufacturers is flawed at best and inferior to the spec
level of information given to me by the SuperCCD.

There's is inferior because of it's design. If they used a Super CCD like Fujis, theirs would have more detail than than what they have now.

The fact remains that many reviewers feel it performs as a 4 - 5 mp
camera. Cnet considers it a true Prosumer model.

I've read the 4-5 mp comparisons also. (compared to a standard CCD)

We all see the many posts by forum members comparing the 6900's
shots to the Sony 707, Nikon 5000, Canon G2, etc.

Why ? Somebody tell me why we are comparing a 3.1 ccd to 4 and 5
mp units?

Because it's not a standard CCD. The results in large prints (the reason we buy higher mp cameras) are equal to those higher (standard) mp cameras.

I don't really see why there is any argument in the first place by some. It's only logical that an imroved design such as the Super CCD should yield better results than a standard CCD with equal number of pixels.

Bob
--www.pbase.com/mofongo'The most beautiful sunsets are made by cloudy skies.'

 

[Thomas L]

You can find some comparison shots between 3 and 6 mp on: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=fa782151 (very slow site!!).

The shots are beta samples from the F601 with the new super CCD. I know that the optics are better on the 6900, but the difference between 3 and 6 mp is evident. Below are two cropped samples, that I also posted last week, of a 3 mp picture interpolated to 6 mp compared with a native 6 mp.



3 to 6 mp



native 6 mp

I sneered at the Fuji marketing hype before but now, after
following numerous discussions on this site, I am looking at the
Super CCD with a lot of interest. Not that I am accepting the
argument that one could generate 6 mp worth of information from a 3
mp sensor, but I am interested in the argument that the Super CCD
can get more out of a 3 mp sensor than the conventional CCD can. Of
course, I understand that the hexagonal layout allows bigger sensor
area and hence better dynamic range and lower noise, etc. I am
looking at other possible benefits of a hexagonal layout. At the
risk of offending some Fuji fans here, I wonder if I could look at
the hexagonal layout, inconjunction with the proprietary software,
as a clever way of doing image resampling. In other words, this is
a hardware/software combination to image resampling rather than
just a software approach such as Bicubic and GF. I further
understand that the 6900 can generate both 3 mp and 6 mp files.
Could somebody post, or point me to a link, 3 mp and 6 mp files of
the same scene so I can "play" with them?

Thanks,

Shii

--Thomas http://www.pbase.com/thla/finepix2800z

 

[Peter G]

Personal opinions don't become facts simply by calling them that.

I do not think that anybody here is arguing the point that 3 mp is
3 mp. I think we all agree on that.

The fact remains that many reviewers feel it performs as a 4 - 5 mp
camera. Cnet considers it a true Prosumer model.

Many? Show me one that says it in any way Compares to 5mp. I think Steves dropped an offhand remark comparing it to 4mp. But I trust Phils observations more, and he said time and time again that it compares to 3mp ONLY. Not only that but I looked at the images out of the camera myself and tried some interpolation experiments to come to my own conclusions.

The funniest part of this whole argument is this:

We all see the many posts by forum members comparing the 6900's
shots to the Sony 707, Nikon 5000, Canon G2, etc.

Why ? Somebody tell me why we are comparing a 3.1 ccd to 4 and 5
mp units?

Ok I will tell you. Because you and others keep making claims that the camera is the equal of 4mp and 5mp cameras, like you just did above. So we show pictures that clearly illustrate that it doesn't. Then you ignore the comparisons, because they don't favour your opinions.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=2160163

The 4mp and 5mp images are better than the Fuji "6mp" image. The 3mp is just about equal.

Peter

 

[Peter G]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fuji6900z/

Read Phils excellent and unbiased review from beginning to end and then go to his samples page where he has many full size 6mp images.

The 602 seems to be better in many ways(notably in lower noise), but time will tell.

Peter

Thanks,

Shii

I do not think that anybody here is arguing the point that 3 mp is
3 mp. I think we all agree on that.

The argument is wether or not the SuperCCD is superior in it's
method of capturing and reproducing that quantity of pixels.

The question remains........Should there be an additonal spec added
to the overhyped megapixel rating? Is the process of determining
of that number flawed? I think Fuji has proven that there is more
to simply a count of sensors.

I know my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ chip only runs at a 1.66 ghz clock
cycle but it outperforms the Pentium 4 2.0 ghz chip from Intel.
Not smoke and mirrors.......hard core tested. Many other elements
of the design attribute to that superiority.

As Ian put it.....the issue here is that Fuji seems to be giving us
a hell of alot more information from their 3.1 mp spec than the
competition's 3.1 mp spec.

So MY OPINION gives credence to this. I feel the 3.1 mp spec from
most other manufacturers is flawed at best and inferior to the spec
level of information given to me by the SuperCCD.

We can argue all we want.

The fact remains that many reviewers feel it performs as a 4 - 5 mp
camera. Cnet considers it a true Prosumer model.

The funniest part of this whole argument is this:

We all see the many posts by forum members comparing the 6900's
shots to the Sony 707, Nikon 5000, Canon G2, etc.

Why ? Somebody tell me why we are comparing a 3.1 ccd to 4 and 5
mp units?

I paid 699 USD for my 6900 and can not touch a 707 or 5000 for less
than 999 USD here. Pretty impresive there Fuji!!! Your in a class
all by yourself as proven by the many comparisons of your inferior
3.1 mp chip to the latest 4 and 5 mp offerings. (And your colors
remain superior all along)

Come on!

 

[Peter G]

I don't really see why there is any argument in the first place by
some. It's only logical that an imroved design such as the Super
CCD should yield better results than a standard CCD with equal
number of pixels.

There is argument, because many are putting forth marketing hyperbole as fact. Which it is not.

I have read all the Fuji material (that I could find) and thier claim is that they trade off diagonal resolution to gain more horizontal resolution. This only makes it different, not necessarily better.

A trade off means that in certain situations the Fuji Design will be better and in others the conventional design will be better.

My take after reading the fuji material is that the slight increase in horizontal and vertical density (along with the reduction in diagonal density) is very minor and the greatest advanatage of the design is producing a better specific interpolation method, which is mandatory to get the information back to a displayable format. It gives them some marketing uniqueness.

My Opinion is that it puts them at the head of the 3mp class and better than some inferior 4mp cameras (like the Optio 430), but they don't Catch the better 4MP cameras like the Sony s85 or the Canon G2.

But just because it is less than 3mp doesn't make it bad. I am looking forward to the 602, becuase the noise seems to be improved and Fuji has just about the best colours going and the lens is nice, the inclusion of CF and microdrive is great, and the price is starting to look competitive.

It could be the best 3mp camera on the planet! But that just doesn't seem to be enough for some in the Fuji forum.

Peter

 

[Ben C Davis]

I do not think that anybody here is arguing the point that 3 mp is
3 mp. I think we all agree on that.
...
I know my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ chip only runs at a 1.66 ghz clock
cycle but it outperforms the Pentium 4 2.0 ghz chip from Intel.
Not smoke and mirrors.......hard core tested. Many other elements
of the design attribute to that superiority.
...

Good'en Aaron.

Hmmm, The Wife of 40 years and I have a VW TDI [Diesel] that
with ONLY 90hp, will cruse at 100mph and if kept at a mere 70mph
will allow a driving range of 50 miles per gallon of Bio-diesel fuel.

So, to the engineer/professor/sermonizer types, I like to think of
the Supper CCD as a Diesel. An economical conveyance, not a
love stone.

Ben 8)

 

[Peter G]

Jim,
I find it very interesting that you do not own a digital camera and
yet are THE EXPERT on these topics. Making statements so strongly
worded that make those of us with thousands of photos using digital
camera and decades of expirience in professional level photography
can not make. You emphatically state that everything Fuji's
scientest and independent labs with a high level or expertise and
indipendent testers state is false.

Please cite, the indepenent lab studies. I would really like to read those, I am always interested in increasing my knowledge. As far as Fuji's Scientists are concerned, there must always be a level of skepticsm associated with claims that our technology is better than thiers statements, and when that statement is correct, more examination of how much they are exaggerating the benefit must also be examined. Humans are very easily biased. Jim is actually a better unbiased subject since he doesn't own the camera, and presumably has no vested interest in Fuji Sales, but is interested in purchasing the camera.

Now back to Digital Cameras Your main mistake is you feel that the
ultimate resolution is from the number of pixels alone [or so it
would appear from your posts] if this is your arguement then you
are, simply stated NOT SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE ie you can not see
the picture due to the pixels. Resolution is compromised of
(amoung other things) pixels, lens sharpness, contrast , accuracy
of the CCD (or film or CMOS or whatever), the software, additional
hardware used, The monitor used, the printer and printer paper and
so on, and so on.

How do you know he is not seeing the whole picture? The great thing about digital cameras is we have DPREVIEW and similar resources, so we can examine the images and tests ourselves in detail, wihout having to rely on potentially biased OPINIONS of owners and company rhetoric.

A few additional thoughts that many have disbelieved that are true:
The Earth is round;
Mankind has invented and used heavier than air flying machine;
A few Men have walked on th Moon;
Last thoughts and suggestions;
Please cease and desist from attemting to prove how smart you are
[we al know and agree you are very intelligent].
Your beliefs on this subject are well known and doccumented
although somewhat 1 directional.

You have this backwards. It is the skeptics that have always rooted out the truth in these matters, not those who claim the truth is known and investigation should be stopped.

I suggest reading Carl Sagans: "Demon Haunted World". Science as a candle in the darkness. I can't speak for Jim, but I will not cease to investigate, nor cease to question those who put forth opinion as fact.

Your comments may have discouraged some from purchasing the Best
Prosumer Class Digicam and/or it's successor without due cause.

Oh my, you wouldn't have your ego wrapped up in owning "THE BEST" camera would you? That wouldn't engage you in any rationalizing to protect said ego?

I have nothing against this camera (602), and am awaiting actual evidence of its performance, while deciding whether to purchase it. It seems you would have me dismiss object reality in favor of subjective opinion in determining the camera that is right for me, but that will not happen.

THUS IT IS POSSIBLE to have results from a 3.3MP CCD comparable 4.5
to 5.0 megapixel resolution Camera.

No it is not possible without using vaseline on the lens of the 5.0mp camera. Anything can be designed so poorly as to not live up to expectations but there are upper theoretical limits on how much data can be captured with how many sensors. Fuji makes no claims about violating Nyquist theory.

I sincerely hope this ends this!

I sincerely doubt it (It deep winter here in Canada and I don't like cold

Peter

 

[Ben C Davis]

...

So, what DC do You have?
Where can we savor the pudding?

Ben 8)

 

[Peter G]

I had a Nikon cp950 (sold it several months ago) and I am deciding what to buy next. The 602 is on my short list, but I am waiting for PMA to see what other interesting models emerge.

You are mistaken if you think I have something against this camera, I think it is a very nice package. I do have something against exaggerated marketing claims put forth as scientific fact.

Peter

...

So, what DC do You have?
Where can we savor the pudding?

Ben 8)

 

[E'Mahn]

Here's a simple thought experiment to consider.

I have two cameras, but I don't tell you what they are. I take pictures of the same subject under exacting conditions and present you with my pictures. In fact, I take a lot of pictures and vary those conditions, still fairly and objectively, just to be sure that I am not unwittingly giving one camera an advantage. I share with you the condiitions under which they were taken and you agree that the comparison is "fair." You look at the pictures and agree that camera X is always superior to camera Y.

Of what significance is there at this point in comparing the mp of the cameras?

 

[Anand67599]

SuperCCD or Conventioanls BOTH have filling factor of 70% after microlenses and to make one color pixel both uses 4 of them.

(A common fact in simple sense)

Lets Define the problem again:

Can we Nail Fuji Claim such as:

Picture quality is not determined by the number of pixels alone. However, our test results have shown that a Super CCD with 2.16 million effective pixels delivers almost the same resolution as a conventional CCD with 1.6 times higher the number of effective pixels (2.16 million pixels x 1.6 = approx.3.5 million pixels). This figure may be more or less depending on subject.

http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/sccd/faq.html

....And these independent reviewers:

..In addition, the horizontal and vertical resolutions improved by 1.4 times and to increase the numbers of pixels after signal processing by 2 times.

-Abstract; Leading Professors(Stanford,UCSC,UCS,Dartmouth) 'white paper' review.
http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/sccd/review.html

Lets start with some defintions:

Resolution is the amount of object detail reproduced by the imaging system.

Two CCD camera pixels are needed for each line-pair of resolution.

Reproducing object contrast is as important as reproducing object resolution.

Not even a perfectly designed and manufactured lens can accurately reproduce an object’s detail and contrast.
For CCD camera resolution=2*pixel size.

(Source: http://www.edmundoptics.com/TechSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=288#2.2 )

At given SNR the 'information' depend on the density of sampling.

(loosely put information theory)

Now, notice two things, As edmunds says, contrast is equally important and we know S/R for Sccd is higher.( despite same filling factor it has 2.3 times* bigger and circularly symmetric area. resolution itself would have been 2.3 times had there were no microlenses see the formula.

Now, 'density' asssume uniformity. a rectangular grid is favorite among theoriticians for straight calculation, however, life is not simple.

On the other hand engineers can gain by tweaking the uniformity i.e. changing the sampling space.

A circularly symmetric function requires 13.4% fewer hexagonal sample than rectangular samples.Alternatively, for the same sampling rate, less aliasing is obtained.

-R.M.Mersereau, Proc. IEEE(July 1979):930-949

If image does not contain high spatial frequency in H/V simultaneously a rotation of 45degree/or interlacing increses Nyquist sampling inteval 1.414 times hence density is reduced by 1/2.

-A standard text book on digital imaging.

SuperCCD claim to reduce its sampling interval itself.

And since it is biological fact that Human eyes are more sensitive towards H/V spatial frequencies. This simple change enable fuji to get more 'detailed looking' pics.

Nothing can produce information more than 3mp from 3mp chip. but given the amount of interpolation all cam. do, fuji seems to doing the smartest thing. ofcourse on the flip side the format is 6mp for storage space. But it Does get a better reproduction and resolution that a 3.1 mp camera can possibly get.

Engineers on other cam. are not fool. Sony is producing details which can rival; D1x! from the same chip Dimage7(another popular camera) is using (to produce same h/v line pair 6900 is producing). On the flip side sony has to contend with heavely processed electric look in color plus flatness of image (in which due to hexagonal sampling fuji wins)

 

[Peter G]

..In addition, the horizontal and vertical resolutions improved by 1.4 times and to increase the numbers of pixels after signal processing by 2 times.

-Abstract; Leading Professors(Stanford,UCSC,UCS,Dartmouth) 'white
paper' review.
http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/sccd/review.html

The independent reviewers did not state that. The quote above is Fuji's claim. The comments from all the professors Fuji trotted out, were very non specific. Essentially they all said it was very nice, very pleasing images, etc...

Reproducing object contrast is as important as reproducing object resolution.

Not even a perfectly designed and manufactured lens can accurately reproduce an object’s detail and contrast.
For CCD camera resolution=2*pixel size.

(Source: http://www.edmundoptics.com/TechSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=288#2.2 )

Very nice link, thanks. Contrast is definitely a factor in capturing and displaying higher resolution.

On the other hand engineers can gain by tweaking the uniformity
i.e. changing the sampling space.

If you have a known pattern of data you can tweak you sampling, but on generic data, you have to keep your sampling uniform.

A circularly symmetric function requires 13.4% fewer hexagonal sample than rectangular samples.Alternatively, for the same sampling rate, less aliasing is obtained.

-R.M.Mersereau, Proc. IEEE(July 1979):930-949

Please put some more context around this as I can't see what he is saying here at all. Do you have a link that has more detail on this?

If image does not contain high spatial frequency in H/V simultaneously a rotation of 45degree/or interlacing increses Nyquist sampling inteval 1.414 times hence density is reduced by 1/2.

-A standard text book on digital imaging.

Which standard book? This still does not map to fuji claims. Since it claims that it applies when there is not simultaneous H/V high res. Ie this is a case of targeting your sensor to known conditions. Fuji claims to apply this when there IS simultaneous H/V high spatial frequencies.

SuperCCD claim to reduce its sampling interval itself.
And since it is biological fact that Human eyes are more sensitive
towards H/V spatial frequencies. This simple change enable fuji to
get more 'detailed looking' pics.

Psycho-perceptual claims are easy to make since they are difficult to test. But this claim ignores the generation of artifacts, which are jarring to the view and tend to reduce image enjoyment more than the "more detailed looking" pics improve it.

Nothing can produce information more than 3mp from 3mp chip. but
given the amount of interpolation all cam. do, fuji seems to doing
the smartest thing. ofcourse on the flip side the format is 6mp for
storage space. But it Does get a better reproduction and
resolution that a 3.1 mp camera can possibly get.

I will agree that they have an advantage quality over similarly sized 3mp sensors, but that is where it ends. I only got into this argument because the fans of this technique were saying it was comparable to 5mp cameras.

Engineers on other cam. are not fool. Sony is producing details
which can rival; D1x! from the same chip Dimage7(another popular
camera) is using (to produce same h/v line pair 6900 is producing).
On the flip side sony has to contend with heavely processed
electric look in color plus flatness of image (in which due to
hexagonal sampling fuji wins)

Sony has know issue with colour balance, but there is no connection with the shape of sensor and color balance. Nikon and Canon produce accurate colour with the same sensor.

I won't argue that Fuji has some interesting tradeoffs that give is some advantage over other 3mp cameras.

My only claim is that it does not equal 4MP cameras, let alone 5MP as some claim. I have yet to read evidence to the contrary or see photos that show it. On the contrary, 4mp images look better to my eyes:

The 6900 at 6MP:



The Sony s85 4MP:

 

[Anand67599]

My only claim is that it does not equal 4MP cameras, let alone 5MP
as some claim. I have yet to read evidence to the contrary or see
photos that show it. On the contrary, 4mp images look better to my
eyes:

Sorry for being cryptic and/or not putting the pieces in its place. Actually it requires to bring all relevant facts into perspective each time i state a fact. Its time consuming Also thats why we donot see all the market driven by superccd. that there is more to it than simple factors and numbers.

I am not sure if you are consistent about your claims. You seems to refute/reject any observation based on your present perception(and that what you seemingly trying to change). If many a places you donot seem to see the connection and you are eager, i would suggest to dig at those points.

Sorry, at this point I could not be of more help(not that i claim i can for sure) maybe later when i get more time to afford to get cought up.

 

[Perry44574]

I won't argue that Fuji has some interesting tradeoffs that give is
some advantage over other 3mp cameras.

Peter,

When will you ever learn? I'm not as knowledgable as you guys, but this is PURE BASIC digital photography101, if you have a hard time understanding this theory, I don't think you should even get into the arguement of Super CCD at all.

My only claim is that it does not equal 4MP cameras, let alone 5MP
as some claim. I have yet to read evidence to the contrary or see
photos that show it. On the contrary, 4mp images look better to my
eyes:

The 6900 at 6MP:

This image is 240 X 180 with 12328 bytes of info,

The Sony s85 4MP:

This image is also 240 X 180 with 14470 bytes ( 17% more ) of info.

Why is that? Let me explain it in simple analog terms:

You cut out a 2" x 3" from a poster of say 20" x 30 ",
then you cut another 2" x 3" from a smaller poster of 15" x 22".

When you look at them side by side, they are both 2" x 3" in size but the first one covers a smaller content of the original poster while the second one covers a larger content, and you will also notice that the second one will be a lot more sharper because there are more info packed into the 2" x 3" grid.

So please don't confuse everybody by comparing these two images anynore.

cheers
Perry

 

[Peter G]

Actually, I really wonder why Fuji has yet to secure a single design win when practically the whole market uses Sony CCDs. It may be possible that they don't wan't to sell sensors?

As long as people claim the 3mp claim as fact that the sensor is equal to 4mp to 5mp sensor, I will be there to dispute it.

I would suggest the unitiated read Phils 6900 review, rather than listen to biased camera owners rationalizing their purchases.

Peter

My only claim is that it does not equal 4MP cameras, let alone 5MP
as some claim. I have yet to read evidence to the contrary or see
photos that show it. On the contrary, 4mp images look better to my
eyes:

Sorry for being cryptic and/or not putting the pieces in its place.
Actually it requires to bring all relevant facts into perspective
each time i state a fact. Its time consuming Also thats why we
donot see all the market driven by superccd. that there is more to
it than simple factors and numbers.

I am not sure if you are consistent about your claims. You seems to
refute/reject any observation based on your present perception(and
that what you seemingly trying to change). If many a places you
donot seem to see the connection and you are eager, i would suggest
to dig at those points.
Sorry, at this point I could not be of more help(not that i claim i
can for sure) maybe later when i get more time to afford to get
cought up.

 

[Ben C Davis]

I have two cameras, but I don't tell you what they are. I take
pictures of the same subject under exacting conditions and present
you with my pictures. In fact, I take a lot of pictures and vary
those conditions, still fairly and objectively, just to be sure
that I am not unwittingly giving one camera an advantage. I share
with you the condiitions under which they were taken and you agree
that the comparison is "fair." You look at the pictures and agree
that camera X is always superior to camera Y.

Of what significance is there at this point in comparing the mp of
the cameras?

You beat me to it.
Friend Peter did not take the wolf, errr, shill/troll bait.
There are some here who should try the news groups.
One soon learns not to respond to the spin doctors.

Ben 8)

"I lay all this while, as the reader may believe, in great uneasiness:
at length struggling to get loose, I had the fortune to break the
strings,..." typed Gulliver.

 

[Peter G]

When will you ever learn? I'm not as knowledgable as you guys, but
this is PURE BASIC digital photography101, if you have a hard time
understanding this theory, I don't think you should even get into
the arguement of Super CCD at all.

Other than insulting me, what information does this paragraph say?

My only claim is that it does not equal 4MP cameras, let alone 5MP
as some claim. I have yet to read evidence to the contrary or see
photos that show it. On the contrary, 4mp images look better to my
eyes:

The 6900 at 6MP:

This image is 240 X 180 with 12328 bytes of info,

The Sony s85 4MP:

This image is also 240 X 180 with 14470 bytes ( 17% more ) of info.

Why is that? Let me explain it in simple analog terms:

Simple variations in JPG compression are more likely. The Sony 3mp, 4mp and 5mp clip are all around 14k. The G2 clip is 16k. Does it have more detail? No, it just uses less Jpeg compression.

You cut out a 2" x 3" from a poster of say 20" x 30 ",
then you cut another 2" x 3" from a smaller poster of 15" x 22".

When you look at them side by side, they are both 2" x 3" in size
but the first one covers a smaller content of the original poster
while the second one covers a larger content, and you will also
notice that the second one will be a lot more sharper because there
are more info packed into the 2" x 3" grid.

You know full well I didn't cut these images. These are the standard clips from Phils reviews. I also downloaded the full size shots and compared them. The last time I posted this you claimed Phil was biased against Fuji.

Essentially What you are suggesting is that I should resize the image to equal size to compare them. But this is an erroneous assumption. The Sony image a 5mp and not resized clearly has more than the 4mp image clip, just as the 4mp has more than the 3mp image. No resize is necessary to see that.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=2160163

The thing that clearly stands out is that the Fuji is clearly an interpolated image and doesn't stand comparision with native 4mp or 5mp cameras. I have photoshop and the originals from Phils reviews. What size size would you have me resample the Fuji image to for a comparison? What do you believe to be the Native Fuji resolution to be? Because it is clearly breaking down at 6mp.

So please don't confuse everybody by comparing these two images
anynore.

These shots demonstrate clearly why the 4-5MP fuji claims are ridiculous and I will continue to use them as I see fit. Again what resolution should I scale the Fuji to, so its 1 to 1 pixels will show detail and little or no artifacts.

Peter

 

[Ulysses]

Hey there, Peter.

I'm following this thread and this camera with interest.

The 602 seems to be better in many ways(notably in lower noise),
but time will tell.

I'm familiar with Phil's review. But how do you figure at this point in time that the 602 is lower in noise? I may be misunderstanding your comment here.

It's just that we have nothing to go on by the way of pics. Or did I miss some?-- Ulysses