S3 real pixels (recorded)

[Masterdeath]

I have seen some Sigma shots... The resolution is much closer to a 10D or D100, the S2 is sharper at 6mp, but then again the S2 is sharper at 6mp then the 10D and D100 from every test I have seen..

I think if the sigma was 4.5-5MP it would be sharper then the S2... If the nest sigma is 18MP, meaning TRUE 6mp RGB it will kill everything out their except the 14N and 1ds

I find all of the postureing by Sigma, Fuji and anyone else for
that matter, just confuses and confounds the issue. This is
especially true for newbies, who may not understand (and may not
want to) the nuances of different sensors.

What I would like to see is that ALL cameras are rated by the file
size they generate. The Sigma would be 3MP, and the Fuji S2 would
be...what? 6MP or 12MP? Technically it should be 6, as that is
what the raw file is.

I know someone will now argue that the Fuji S2 should be 12, but
lets face it folks, we all KNOW it's 6.

Unfortunately, there is probably about as much of a chance of
manufacturers agreeing on something like this, as there is of them
agreeing on a single universal RAW format.

As I said, my 2 cents worth.

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

 

[smithim]

The S2 raw file is 12 meg (from 6 meg of pixels). The S3 raw file
is 12 meg (from 6 meg of pixels - layered).

Not according to Fujis PDF... the S2 will only store 20 RAW images on a 512Mb card (40 on a 1Gb), so each image will be approx 24-25Mb...

ATB,

Ian

 

[smithim]

"whole industry is crying out for some terminology / specification
standardisation"

precisely because there is no standard measure that is meaningful.

The output size is perfectly meaningful, as a measure of size...

It's not an indicator of quality, which is what causes the confusion amongst those who want a simplistic measure...

ATB,

Ian

 

[Manta Ray Arts]

The output size is perfectly meaningful, as a measure of size...

It's not an indicator of quality, which is what causes the
confusion amongst those who want a simplistic measure...

If the measure of size is not a meaningful predictor of the ability to make large prints (which it isn't because we've discussed that previously interpolated pixels don't interpolate further as well as "native" pixels), and it isn't a meaningful measure of quality of the image to those who aren't being simplistic, then when does "size" become meaningful? Merely the ability/speed of processing data? (e.g. the S3's 24MB file for 6MP "native" detail resolution and the attendant issues with buffer management and work flow?)

ahem...er...I meant size in a photographic sense....

Cheers

--
http://www.mantarayarts.com

 

[Peter Kowaleszyn]

I shoot raw all the time, and on my 1GB card I get 76 images in RAW format.

The S2 raw file is 12 meg (from 6 meg of pixels). The S3 raw file
is 12 meg (from 6 meg of pixels - layered).

Not according to Fujis PDF... the S2 will only store 20 RAW images
on a 512Mb card (40 on a 1Gb), so each image will be approx
24-25Mb...

ATB,

Ian

 

[smithim]

I shoot raw all the time, and on my 1GB card I get 76 images in RAW
format.

the S2 will only store 20 RAW images..

Sorry... S2 should have read S3...

ATB,

Ian

 

[smithim]

... then when does
"size" become meaningful?

Surely, in itself, it isn't that meaningful... It only tells you the size of the output, not the quality...

ahem...er...I meant size in a photographic sense....

ATB,

Ian

 

[Sean Keegan]

No the S3 has 24mb RAW files... look it up. Double the file size of the S2. It is in the specs and makes sense as there are 12 million sensors worth of data to store... not 6 million.

Regards,
Sean

The S2 raw file is 12 meg (from 6 meg of pixels). The S3 raw file
is 12 meg (from 6 meg of pixels - layered).

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

 

[Sean Keegan]

6 yes! Resolves like 9! So who cares.

Does that mean a 10D/D100 becomes a 9mp camera too when the
photographer holds it at an angle? The whole diagonal pattern
thing as far as resolution is concerned is a marketting joke,
designed to cheat on the resolution chart if testing is done at
perfect level. The 5% incline test shows clearly the S2 holds no
resolution advantage over other 6mp cameras. What the S2 sensor
does bring to the table is potentially dynamic range advantage due
to the Octagonal sensor cell potentially having larger area
utilization than regular square/rectangular cells.

Wrong... the S2 clearly resolves more on the diagonal too...see here:



See how even the diagonals have more resolution than the D60? THe S2 is much closer to the 1DS than the D60 in terms of resolution...which fits with 9mp of actual resolution.

One can definitely not match the S2 resolution with the D100 or 10D just by holding those cameras at an angle... it is more complex than that.... If it were just the S2 sensor being rotated you would think that Adobe could do better than this in getting the same resolutiuon from a S2 RAW file! There is some complex stuff going on in the Fuji EX converter... something Fuji is really keeping secret.







Regards,
Sean

 

[Sean Keegan]

Regards,
Sean

I don't know what you have been reading, but the Sigma CLEARLY does
NOT have resolution equal to the S2. Check the resolution tests on
THIS site! It is a LONG way off.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com