Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Number of pixels- Explanation

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 1, 2005 9:28:21 AM

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

I am a member of the Fuji Group and this article highlights the subject of
the number of pixels.
I know it is advertising their product but it contains interesting
information
Blair


Dear MyFuji member,

If the idea of a camera with 17 million pixels appeals to you,
then visit http://www.17million.co.uk for something that will
surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you...

With regards,

The MyFuji Team
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:28:22 AM

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

>visit (spamlink deleted) for something that will
>surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you.

Those words are a bit of a giveaway, but I looked anyway - silly me..

Mr 'MyFuji', just because the F10 is a good camera, does not make this
anything more than annoying SPAM. The '17 million' tag HAS NO
RELEVANCE whatsoever to any-bloody-thing. This sort of thing on a
newsgroup does not help your cause.

The information is not 'interesting', unless you have a morbid
fascination for long-winded flash animations. It is simply stating the
absolutely bleeding obvious - we KNOW that pixels are not the only
thing that determines picture quality........
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:22:59 AM

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

Blair,
NASA had a very good explanation on their site some time ago.
Their point was the following, if I remember correctly:
1-the important thing is the sensor. It has to be large enough as well as
its pixels. In their case, the camera was only _one million pixels_.
2- the lens. Their lens was specially made and was of very great quality.
Cheer,
Marcel



"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
news:D a2gp5$1n2$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I am a member of the Fuji Group and this article highlights the subject of
> the number of pixels.
> I know it is advertising their product but it contains interesting
> information
> Blair
>
>
> Dear MyFuji member,
>
> If the idea of a camera with 17 million pixels appeals to you,
> then visit http://www.17million.co.uk for something that will
> surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you...
>
> With regards,
>
> The MyFuji Team
>
>
>
Related resources
July 1, 2005 1:37:41 PM

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

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1120201643.054420.283130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >visit (spamlink deleted) for something that will
> >surprise you, entertain you and possibly tempt you.
>
> Those words are a bit of a giveaway, but I looked anyway - silly me..
>
> Mr 'MyFuji', just because the F10 is a good camera, does not make this
> anything more than annoying SPAM. The '17 million' tag HAS NO
> RELEVANCE whatsoever to any-bloody-thing. This sort of thing on a
> newsgroup does not help your cause.
>
> The information is not 'interesting', unless you have a morbid
> fascination for long-winded flash animations. It is simply stating the
> absolutely bleeding obvious - we KNOW that pixels are not the only
> thing that determines picture quality.

I know that it was a sales pitch and I said that.
What I find among people in general is that most of them are ignorant of the
technical aspects of digital camera and all seem to be transfixed by the
number of pixels assuming that this means better quality and all I was
trying to do was inform the non technical people.
Someone may have learnt
Blair
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 5:46:34 PM

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

Celcius wrote:
> Blair,
> NASA had a very good explanation on their site some time ago.
> Their point was the following, if I remember correctly:
> 1-the important thing is the sensor. It has to be large enough as well as
> its pixels. In their case, the camera was only _one million pixels_.
> 2- the lens. Their lens was specially made and was of very great quality.
> Cheer,
> Marcel
>

It sounds like the camera on the mars rover, 1024 x 1024 pixels. The
camera takes a large number of photos that are then stitched together,
it only needs a small field of view because of this. This makes the
lens design very easy and in fact is just a triplet, They run it at f22
and it is pretty much diffraction limited.

The CCD uses 12 micron pixels

It uses a 12 bit A/D and it would appear that the noise is less then
one level on the A/D, so its dynamic range would be 12 stops.

A very limited camera but great for what it was called on to do.

Scott
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 7:22:39 PM

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

Tony wrote:
> Thank you MNr Spammer, for publishing this wonderful link to more of Fuji's
> lies and bullshite. We all really believe that Fuji cameras have a lot more
> pixels than there appear to be in the photos. We also believe in Pixies -
> who put all the extra pixels in Fuji cameras.
>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
> news:D a2gp5$1n2$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

I am not sure how I feel about links to ad on the new group, a link to
the review of the camera might have been better. But much of what they
(Fuji) said is right on. The number of pixels is not the same as the
resolution of the camera, any more then scanning film at 8000 dpi will
give you that resolution. The resolution is can be limited by the
pixel count but it can be and normally is much lower then the pixel
count. People will often get upset if someone says that thier pixel are
better then the pixels in your camera, but this is often the case. I
have two 8 MP cameras, the Sony F828 and the Canon 20D, the 20D is
clearly sharper then the Sony, which is about as sharp as a 6 MP DSLR.

I have looked at the test photos from this camera and they are pretty
amazing, as is the noise performance. The camera has some real
problems however, no optical view finder, I can't see myself ever
going back to a camera with no optical view finder. The lens is pretty
fast at wide angle but no so much when zoomed in. For available light
photography in doors it should be very good indeed, it can run low
noise at ISO 800 and shoot at f 2.5, not bad for a cheap point and
shoot.

Scott
July 2, 2005 12:44:02 AM

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

Thank you MNr Spammer, for publishing this wonderful link to more of Fuji's
lies and bullshite. We all really believe that Fuji cameras have a lot more
pixels than there appear to be in the photos. We also believe in Pixies -
who put all the extra pixels in Fuji cameras.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
news:D a2gp5$1n2$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:48:07 AM

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

frederick wrote:
> Test shots are taken in artifical conditions. In ideal circumstances,
> the 8mp from a P&S can be just as good as the 8mp from a dslr. The
> problem only comes when the real world doesn't consist only of ideal
> conditions.
Yes a P&S can be just as sharp as a DSLR, but they normally are not.
They are getting better however and the F10 is a pretty impressive
example of this.

If you look at these photos I think you will clearly see that not all
P&S digitals are the same.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/page7.a...

This is part of what they said about the camera

"It may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution,
and is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
and low noise. I cannot emphasize enough the value of usable high ISO
settings in a compact camera - from reducing camera shake to more
natural low light portraits (without flash) to extended flash range and
all the other advantages DSLR users take for granted and most compact
users - stuck to ISO 200 (or 400 at a push) can only dream of. "

Scott
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 8:55:35 AM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you look at these photos I think you will clearly see that not all
> > P&S digitals are the same.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/page7.a...
> >
> > This is part of what they said about the camera
> >
> > "It may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution,
> > and is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
> > potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
> > and low noise. I cannot emphasize enough the value of usable high ISO
> > settings in a compact camera - from reducing camera shake to more
> > natural low light portraits (without flash) to extended flash range and
> > all the other advantages DSLR users take for granted and most compact
> > users - stuck to ISO 200 (or 400 at a push) can only dream of. "
>
> Yes, but he didn't do any serious testing at ISO 1600. There are only two
> ISO 1600 shots in the gallery, and both are really poor in terms of
> sharpness. Here are two 300D (50/1.4 at f/8) images; ISO 100 vs. ISO 1600
> (no sharpening and no noise reduction: RSE does a lovely job of cleaning up
> the noise with almost no loss of detail, so it was hard to force myself to
> turn it off<g>.)
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594130/large
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594198/large
>
> (Hit "original" to see the (Photoshop quality 9, roughly 1 MB) full image.)
>
> Sure, ISO 1600 is somewhat softer. But not a lot. A tad of noise reduction
> and sharpening, and one gets seriously usable images.
>

Consider the F10 to be all that useable at ISO 1600, but it looks
pretty clean at ISO 800. At lot of the small P&S cameras don't even
go that high.

It does not do well against my 20D, but then the 20D has a huge sensor
compared to the F10.

The sharpness of the photos from the F10 are much closer to DSLR then a
P&S camera.

We own a compact digital camera that we use for time when the 20D and
the F828 are just way to big, the CasioQV-R1. It is pretty typical of
small inexpensive digital cameras, whereas it claims to have close to 5
MP it would not even come close to the resolution of a 300D, it also
has a max ISO setting of 400, and you really don't want to use this.
The point is that many of the small digital cameras with the high pixel
count are misleading as to what there image quality will be like,
simply put one pixel is not necessarily as good as another. There
are people who have a hard time when Fuji points this out, that their
pixels are better then other compact cameras.

Scott
July 2, 2005 9:26:14 PM

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

Scott W wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
>>Thank you MNr Spammer, for publishing this wonderful link to more of Fuji's
>>lies and bullshite. We all really believe that Fuji cameras have a lot more
>>pixels than there appear to be in the photos. We also believe in Pixies -
>>who put all the extra pixels in Fuji cameras.
>>
>>--
>>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
>> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>> The Improved Links Pages are at
>> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
>> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
>>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>>
>>"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
>>news:D a2gp5$1n2$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> I am not sure how I feel about links to ad on the new group, a link to
> the review of the camera might have been better. But much of what they
> (Fuji) said is right on. The number of pixels is not the same as the
> resolution of the camera, any more then scanning film at 8000 dpi will
> give you that resolution. The resolution is can be limited by the
> pixel count but it can be and normally is much lower then the pixel
> count. People will often get upset if someone says that thier pixel are
> better then the pixels in your camera, but this is often the case. I
> have two 8 MP cameras, the Sony F828 and the Canon 20D, the 20D is
> clearly sharper then the Sony, which is about as sharp as a 6 MP DSLR.
>
Definition to the pixel level is (or should be) normal for a good dslr .
Good glass, technique - including being aware of the diffraction
limits, and as low as possible iso shooting to avoid noise or the need
to over-soften makes the difference:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/pixels.jpg
That's just a normal photo I took today - detail in the eye well
resolved down to individual pixel level. I don't know if a 350d/20d can
do that. With the only one I ever used (350d with 18-55), it did not
appear even remotely possible. I'm not sure if that was because of
glass, over-strong anti-aliasing or both.

> I have looked at the test photos from this camera and they are pretty
> amazing, as is the noise performance. The camera has some real
> problems however, no optical view finder, I can't see myself ever
> going back to a camera with no optical view finder. The lens is pretty
> fast at wide angle but no so much when zoomed in. For available light
> photography in doors it should be very good indeed, it can run low
> noise at ISO 800 and shoot at f 2.5, not bad for a cheap point and
> shoot.
>
> Scott
>
Test shots are taken in artifical conditions. In ideal circumstances,
the 8mp from a P&S can be just as good as the 8mp from a dslr. The
problem only comes when the real world doesn't consist only of ideal
conditions.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:07:51 PM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you look at these photos I think you will clearly see that not all
> P&S digitals are the same.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/page7.a...
>
> This is part of what they said about the camera
>
> "It may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution,
> and is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
> potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
> and low noise. I cannot emphasize enough the value of usable high ISO
> settings in a compact camera - from reducing camera shake to more
> natural low light portraits (without flash) to extended flash range and
> all the other advantages DSLR users take for granted and most compact
> users - stuck to ISO 200 (or 400 at a push) can only dream of. "

Yes, but he didn't do any serious testing at ISO 1600. There are only two
ISO 1600 shots in the gallery, and both are really poor in terms of
sharpness. Here are two 300D (50/1.4 at f/8) images; ISO 100 vs. ISO 1600
(no sharpening and no noise reduction: RSE does a lovely job of cleaning up
the noise with almost no loss of detail, so it was hard to force myself to
turn it off<g>.)

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594130/large
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/45594198/large

(Hit "original" to see the (Photoshop quality 9, roughly 1 MB) full image.)

Sure, ISO 1600 is somewhat softer. But not a lot. A tad of noise reduction
and sharpening, and one gets seriously usable images.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!