Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hurry: see the Home Shopping Network fuji finepix commerci..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 12:47:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

see it now...unbelievable......
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 12:59:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> see it now...unbelievable......

They were advertising a Fuji FinePix 6.3 MP digital camera
for $349.95, but here is what they are saying:

records over 12 Million Pixels!
25x zoom.
They are showing supposedly small crops that are blown up to about
2x3 feet showing incredible detail.
night shots that are incredibly smooth.
"better than 35mm film."
It's better because the pixels are not round like other cameras, but
like an octagon.
Professional photographers are using only two brands of equipment,
and this is one of them!

I guess I should give up my 8 megapixel 1D Mark II camera.

(I was channel surfing and came across this incredible commercial.)

So how does fuji record 12 megapixels from 6.3? New Math?

Roger
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:26:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in news:42A7ADA8.4060203@qwest.net:

> see it now...unbelievable......
>

Missed it. What was so unbelievable about it?

--

Bill
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 7:55:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>> see it now...unbelievable......
>
>
> They were advertising a Fuji FinePix 6.3 MP digital camera
> for $349.95, but here is what they are saying:
>
> records over 12 Million Pixels!
> 25x zoom.
> They are showing supposedly small crops that are blown up to about
> 2x3 feet showing incredible detail.
> night shots that are incredibly smooth.
> "better than 35mm film."
> It's better because the pixels are not round like other cameras, but
> like an octagon.
> Professional photographers are using only two brands of equipment,
> and this is one of them!
>
> I guess I should give up my 8 megapixel 1D Mark II camera.
>
> (I was channel surfing and came across this incredible commercial.)
>
> So how does fuji record 12 megapixels from 6.3? New Math?
>
> Roger

I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they are in diagonal
rows basically, which according to them results more detail in your photos, but
they have to be saved at double the resolution for you to be able to see it.

That said, one review I saw said that there was no discernible difference in
detail between the 12mp saved image and the 6mp saved image.

Ben
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 7:55:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas wrote:

> I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they are in
> diagonal rows basically, which according to them results more detail in
> your photos, but they have to be saved at double the resolution for you
> to be able to see it.
>
> That said, one review I saw said that there was no discernible
> difference in detail between the 12mp saved image and the 6mp saved image.
>
> Ben

Yeah, when I rotate my digital camera 45 degrees, the resolution
does not change! ;-) Same with my film camera.

Roger
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:56:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:59:08 -0600, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re:
Hurry: see the Home Shopping Network fuji finepix commercial on now
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote:

>> see it now...unbelievable......
>
>They were advertising a Fuji FinePix 6.3 MP digital camera
>for $349.95, but here is what they are saying:
>
>records over 12 Million Pixels!
>25x zoom.

>So how does fuji record 12 megapixels from 6.3? New Math?

I'm more interested in the 25x (optical??) zoom. How do they do that?
Which specific model was this?

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
June 9, 2005 1:19:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Vic Dura wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:59:08 -0600, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re:
> Hurry: see the Home Shopping Network fuji finepix commercial on now
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> see it now...unbelievable......
SNIP
>
> I'm more interested in the 25x (optical??) zoom. How do they do that?
> Which specific model was this?
>

If you're actually interested in a Fuji digicam, I'd skip the E550 and
look at the Finepix F-10. DPReviews gave it a decent rating - Fuji's
apparently dropped the marketing hype, the camera gives good 6 Mpixel
images (no interpolation even available), and it's *very* fast - almost
no shutter lag. Still has purple fringing problems, like all of the
"SuperCCD" cameras seem to, but oh well.

ECM
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:42:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
> Ben Thomas wrote:

>> I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they
>> are in diagonal rows basically, which according to them results
>> more detail in your photos, but they have to be saved at double the
>> resolution for you to be able to see it.

> Yeah, when I rotate my digital camera 45 degrees, the resolution
> does not change! ;-)

True. But if you use software to rotate it /back/ to keep the
horizon level, you would lose detail if you kept the pixel count.

By interpolating while rotating the matrix (JPEGs and TIFF have
a square matrix), Fuji avoid this loss of detail, at the expense
of a larger file size.

Don't misunderstand: There is absolutely no merit in their claim
that having diagonal pixels results in /higher/ resolution - but given
the weird layout of their sensor, it still makes sense to double the
pixel count.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:42:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>
>>Ben Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they
>>>are in diagonal rows basically, which according to them results
>>>more detail in your photos, but they have to be saved at double the
>>>resolution for you to be able to see it.
>
>
>>Yeah, when I rotate my digital camera 45 degrees, the resolution
>>does not change! ;-)
>
>
> True. But if you use software to rotate it /back/ to keep the
> horizon level, you would lose detail if you kept the pixel count.
>
> By interpolating while rotating the matrix (JPEGs and TIFF have
> a square matrix), Fuji avoid this loss of detail, at the expense
> of a larger file size.
>
> Don't misunderstand: There is absolutely no merit in their claim
> that having diagonal pixels results in /higher/ resolution - but given
> the weird layout of their sensor, it still makes sense to double the
> pixel count.

Marketing hype and fuzzy math aside, does it result in a better image?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 2:34:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 05:56:19 -0500, Vic Dura wrote:

> I'm more interested in the 25x (optical??) zoom. How do they do that?
> Which specific model was this?

The Finepix E550 has a 4x optical and 6.3x digital zoom.
Combined, that's a total of 25.2x. It's also one of the Fuji
cameras that has their odd Super CCD 6mp/12mp sensor. I believe
that HSN's selling price is approximately the same as what you'd pay
most other dealers for an E550.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 3:54:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:42A7B07C.5070902@qwest.net...
SNIP
> (I was channel surfing and came across this incredible commercial.)
>
> So how does fuji record 12 megapixels from 6.3? New Math?

Just leave it to the marketoids to undermine credibility.

Bart
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:31:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>> "Roger N. Clark writes:
>>> Ben Thomas wrote:

>>>> I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they
>>>> are in diagonal rows basically, which according to them results
>>>> more detail in your photos, but they have to be saved at double
>>>> the resolution for you to be able to see it.

>>> Yeah, when I rotate my digital camera 45 degrees, the resolution
>>> does not change! ;-)

>> True. But if you use software to rotate it /back/ to keep the
>> horizon level, you would lose detail if you kept the pixel count.
>> By interpolating while rotating the matrix (JPEGs and TIFF have
>> a square matrix), Fuji avoid this loss of detail, at the expense
>> of a larger file size.
>>
>> Don't misunderstand: There is absolutely no merit in their claim
>> that having diagonal pixels results in /higher/ resolution - but
>> given the weird layout of their sensor, it still makes sense to
>> double the pixel count.

> Marketing hype and fuzzy math aside, does it result in a better
> image?

You get a higher resolution of detail than you would get with the
/same camera/ if you rotated the matrix without interpolating.

But you do not get a higher resolution of detail than you would if you
instead used a camera with a square sensel matrix (everything else
being equal). I.e. a camera that didn't need to to rotate the matrix
from the RAW file to make a TIFF or JPEG.

But note that the resolution of detail would be /different/. Fuji's
SuperCCD diagonal matrix gives you slightly higher resolution in the
vertical and horizontal dimensions, and slightly lower resolution
diagonally. A square matrix is the other way round - slightly higher
resolution diagonally and lower vertically and horizontally.

The above statement is based upon math (which, btw., is not fuzzy)
and not marketing hype.

Does it result in a better image?
Well, some claim that human vision care more about perpendicular
resolution than diagonals - and some claim that this is just
marketing hype.

Me - I haven't the foggiest - and I don't care. I don't use this
camera. Frankly, the idea of having to double the pixel count just
to get the theoretical best TIFF or JPEG from it puts me off,

I just wanted to point out that there is a legitimate reason to
interpolate when a camera uses this peculiar sensor layout.

Other manufacturers (Sigma, Megxon, SVP) interpolate only to inflate
the pixel count. Fuji's marketing hype abuse the inflated pixel
count of the interpolated files in a similar disgraceful way, but
their engineering decision to use interpolation to avoid loss of
detail when rotating is legitimate.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q54qc7q0sy.fsf@kuusi.ifi.uio.no...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> > Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> >> "Roger N. Clark writes:
> >>> Ben Thomas wrote:
>
> >>>> I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they
> >>>> are in diagonal rows basically, which according to them results
> >>>> more detail in your photos, but they have to be saved at double
> >>>> the resolution for you to be able to see it.
>
> >>> Yeah, when I rotate my digital camera 45 degrees, the resolution
> >>> does not change! ;-)
>
> >> True. But if you use software to rotate it /back/ to keep the
> >> horizon level, you would lose detail if you kept the pixel count.
> >> By interpolating while rotating the matrix (JPEGs and TIFF have
> >> a square matrix), Fuji avoid this loss of detail, at the expense
> >> of a larger file size.
> >>
> >> Don't misunderstand: There is absolutely no merit in their claim
> >> that having diagonal pixels results in /higher/ resolution - but
> >> given the weird layout of their sensor, it still makes sense to
> >> double the pixel count.
>
> > Marketing hype and fuzzy math aside, does it result in a better
> > image?
>
> You get a higher resolution of detail than you would get with the
> /same camera/ if you rotated the matrix without interpolating.
>
> But you do not get a higher resolution of detail than you would if you
> instead used a camera with a square sensel matrix (everything else
> being equal). I.e. a camera that didn't need to to rotate the matrix
> from the RAW file to make a TIFF or JPEG.
>
> But note that the resolution of detail would be /different/. Fuji's
> SuperCCD diagonal matrix gives you slightly higher resolution in the
> vertical and horizontal dimensions, and slightly lower resolution
> diagonally. A square matrix is the other way round - slightly higher
> resolution diagonally and lower vertically and horizontally.
>
> The above statement is based upon math (which, btw., is not fuzzy)
> and not marketing hype.
>
> Does it result in a better image?
> Well, some claim that human vision care more about perpendicular
> resolution than diagonals - and some claim that this is just
> marketing hype.
>
> Me - I haven't the foggiest - and I don't care. I don't use this
> camera. Frankly, the idea of having to double the pixel count just
> to get the theoretical best TIFF or JPEG from it puts me off,
>
> I just wanted to point out that there is a legitimate reason to
> interpolate when a camera uses this peculiar sensor layout.
>
> Other manufacturers (Sigma, Megxon, SVP) interpolate only to inflate
> the pixel count. Fuji's marketing hype abuse the inflated pixel
> count of the interpolated files in a similar disgraceful way, but
> their engineering decision to use interpolation to avoid loss of
> detail when rotating is legitimate.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

One must be weary of Fuji marketing hype (and the home shopping network).
Dpreview and others have shown that doubling the effective MP count by
enlarging with good software yields nearly the same result. The diagonal
layout with octagonal sensor cells have not shown to be any great resolution
advantage when compared to other brands. Fuji's HR sensor, believe it is
called, has a small and large sensor in pixel area on the sensor. This is
supposed to give much improved dynamic range. Well, folks, tests have shown
there was no advantage when compared to other brands.

Don't get me wrong, I own a Fuji camera, but it does not claim to have the
above features and it does well. I noticed that Fuji seems to be pulling
away from some of the hyped up claims on some new models. This is good
because they make some of the better compacts and shouldn't need to BS them.
-S
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q54qc7q0sy.fsf@kuusi.ifi.uio.no...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> > Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> >> "Roger N. Clark writes:
> >>> Ben Thomas wrote:
>
> >>>> I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they
> >>>> are in diagonal rows basically, which according to them results
> >>>> more detail in your photos, but they have to be saved at double
> >>>> the resolution for you to be able to see it.
>
> >>> Yeah, when I rotate my digital camera 45 degrees, the resolution
> >>> does not change! ;-)
>
> >> True. But if you use software to rotate it /back/ to keep the
> >> horizon level, you would lose detail if you kept the pixel count.
> >> By interpolating while rotating the matrix (JPEGs and TIFF have
> >> a square matrix), Fuji avoid this loss of detail, at the expense
> >> of a larger file size.
> >>
> >> Don't misunderstand: There is absolutely no merit in their claim
> >> that having diagonal pixels results in /higher/ resolution - but
> >> given the weird layout of their sensor, it still makes sense to
> >> double the pixel count.
>
> > Marketing hype and fuzzy math aside, does it result in a better
> > image?
>
> You get a higher resolution of detail than you would get with the
> /same camera/ if you rotated the matrix without interpolating.
>
> But you do not get a higher resolution of detail than you would if you
> instead used a camera with a square sensel matrix (everything else
> being equal). I.e. a camera that didn't need to to rotate the matrix
> from the RAW file to make a TIFF or JPEG.
>
> But note that the resolution of detail would be /different/. Fuji's
> SuperCCD diagonal matrix gives you slightly higher resolution in the
> vertical and horizontal dimensions, and slightly lower resolution
> diagonally. A square matrix is the other way round - slightly higher
> resolution diagonally and lower vertically and horizontally.
>
> The above statement is based upon math (which, btw., is not fuzzy)
> and not marketing hype.
>
> Does it result in a better image?
> Well, some claim that human vision care more about perpendicular
> resolution than diagonals - and some claim that this is just
> marketing hype.
>
> Me - I haven't the foggiest - and I don't care. I don't use this
> camera. Frankly, the idea of having to double the pixel count just
> to get the theoretical best TIFF or JPEG from it puts me off,
>
> I just wanted to point out that there is a legitimate reason to
> interpolate when a camera uses this peculiar sensor layout.
>
> Other manufacturers (Sigma, Megxon, SVP) interpolate only to inflate
> the pixel count. Fuji's marketing hype abuse the inflated pixel
> count of the interpolated files in a similar disgraceful way, but
> their engineering decision to use interpolation to avoid loss of
> detail when rotating is legitimate.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

One must be weary of Fuji marketing hype (and the home shopping network).
Dpreview and others have shown that doubling the effective MP count by
enlarging with good software yields nearly the same result. The diagonal
layout with octagonal sensor cells have not shown to be any great resolution
advantage when compared to other brands. Fuji's HR sensor, believe it is
called, has a small and large sensor in pixel area on the sensor. This is
supposed to give much improved dynamic range. Well, folks, tests have shown
there was no advantage when compared to other brands.

Don't get me wrong, I own a Fuji camera, but it does not claim to have the
above features and it does well. I noticed that Fuji seems to be pulling
away from some of the hyped up claims on some new models. This is good
because they make some of the better compacts and shouldn't need to BS them.
-S
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q54qc7q0sy.fsf@kuusi.ifi.uio.no...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
> > Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> >> "Roger N. Clark writes:
> >>> Ben Thomas wrote:
>
> >>>> I think the pixels are rotated 45 degress on the sensor, so they
> >>>> are in diagonal rows basically, which according to them results
> >>>> more detail in your photos, but they have to be saved at double
> >>>> the resolution for you to be able to see it.
>
> >>> Yeah, when I rotate my digital camera 45 degrees, the resolution
> >>> does not change! ;-)
>
> >> True. But if you use software to rotate it /back/ to keep the
> >> horizon level, you would lose detail if you kept the pixel count.
> >> By interpolating while rotating the matrix (JPEGs and TIFF have
> >> a square matrix), Fuji avoid this loss of detail, at the expense
> >> of a larger file size.
> >>
> >> Don't misunderstand: There is absolutely no merit in their claim
> >> that having diagonal pixels results in /higher/ resolution - but
> >> given the weird layout of their sensor, it still makes sense to
> >> double the pixel count.
>
> > Marketing hype and fuzzy math aside, does it result in a better
> > image?
>
> You get a higher resolution of detail than you would get with the
> /same camera/ if you rotated the matrix without interpolating.
>
> But you do not get a higher resolution of detail than you would if you
> instead used a camera with a square sensel matrix (everything else
> being equal). I.e. a camera that didn't need to to rotate the matrix
> from the RAW file to make a TIFF or JPEG.
>
> But note that the resolution of detail would be /different/. Fuji's
> SuperCCD diagonal matrix gives you slightly higher resolution in the
> vertical and horizontal dimensions, and slightly lower resolution
> diagonally. A square matrix is the other way round - slightly higher
> resolution diagonally and lower vertically and horizontally.
>
> The above statement is based upon math (which, btw., is not fuzzy)
> and not marketing hype.
>
> Does it result in a better image?
> Well, some claim that human vision care more about perpendicular
> resolution than diagonals - and some claim that this is just
> marketing hype.
>
> Me - I haven't the foggiest - and I don't care. I don't use this
> camera. Frankly, the idea of having to double the pixel count just
> to get the theoretical best TIFF or JPEG from it puts me off,
>
> I just wanted to point out that there is a legitimate reason to
> interpolate when a camera uses this peculiar sensor layout.
>
> Other manufacturers (Sigma, Megxon, SVP) interpolate only to inflate
> the pixel count. Fuji's marketing hype abuse the inflated pixel
> count of the interpolated files in a similar disgraceful way, but
> their engineering decision to use interpolation to avoid loss of
> detail when rotating is legitimate.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

One must be weary of Fuji marketing hype (and the home shopping network).
Dpreview and others have shown that doubling the effective MP count by
enlarging with good software yields nearly the same result. The diagonal
layout with octagonal sensor cells have not shown to be any great resolution
advantage when compared to other brands. Fuji's HR sensor, believe it is
called, has a small and large sensor in pixel area on the sensor. This is
supposed to give much improved dynamic range. Well, folks, tests have shown
there was no advantage when compared to other brands.

Don't get me wrong, I own a Fuji camera, but it does not claim to have the
above features and it does well. I noticed that Fuji seems to be pulling
away from some of the hyped up claims on some new models. This is good
because they make some of the better compacts and shouldn't need to BS them.
-S
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:50:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 9 Jun 2005 09:19:12 -0700, ecm wrote:

>> I'm more interested in the 25x (optical??) zoom. How do they do that?
>> Which specific model was this?
>>
>
> If you're actually interested in a Fuji digicam, I'd skip the E550 and
> look at the Finepix F-10. DPReviews gave it a decent rating - Fuji's
> apparently dropped the marketing hype, the camera gives good 6 Mpixel
> images (no interpolation even available), and it's *very* fast - almost
> no shutter lag. Still has purple fringing problems, like all of the
> "SuperCCD" cameras seem to, but oh well.

Vic didn't say anything indicating a specific interest in Fuji
cameras, just an interest (I think) in whether a consumer oriented
camera might have a 25x optical zoom. The F10 is an interesting
camera and probably would make a fine choice as a second "carry
everywhere" camera. But for most people the E550 would be much more
practical (fixed pitch font helps here):

E550 F10
Battery 2 AA Proprietary Lithium
Viewfinder Yes No (must use LCD display)
LCD Display Large 2" Very Large 2.5" (but not hi-res)
Zoom Lens 4x 3x
Full Manual Yes No
Exposure Controls
Low Light OK Excellent. Usable up to ISO 1600
Performance
Flash Popup Built in camera body. Longer range,
but probably produces more redeye.
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 2:36:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message >
> So how does fuji record 12 megapixels from 6.3? New Math?
>

Preddy is surely the expert you should be asking about such technology.
H.
!