Re: Be careful what you wish for!

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Chris <nimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I just bought a Fuji 610 pocket digital camera with 6 Mpx which interpolates
> to 12 Mpx because of the way Fuji does its overlapping pixels.  Almost as
> good as 12 real Mpx.  After all the eye does the same as its primary
> processing, so does our skin.

I don't think I've ever met anybody before who thinks it's "almost as
good as 12 real Mpx".  Certainly the resolution tests don't support
any such theory.  

(I say this as the owner of a Fuji S2; it takes great pictures, but
they're great *6 megapixel* pictures.)

> So I'm expecting to make some good 12"x16" images or even 20"x16".  (?)

Quite probably.  16x20 works surprisingly well from any first-rate 6
megapixel image. 

Digital images enlarge differently from film image.  Film images start
to break up into grain clumps fairly early; digital images, except at
high ISOs, don't (noise rather than grain, but a remarkably similar
problem).  So an "over-enlarged" digital image looks much better than
an over-enlarged film image.  The eye doesn't notice the gradual loss
of fine detail, and good use of sharpening leaves what detail there is
looking sharp. 

> And it fits in my pocket.

You've got me there. 

> Actually it should be as good at a 100 ISO 35 mm film, I saw a
> calculation somewhere that appeared to show that a 400 ISO 35mm film
> was matched by the old 1 Mpx digital so a 100 ISO would be matched
> by a 4 Mpx film, so a 12 Mpx camera has 3 times as many image points
> as a 100 ISO 35mm film. 100 ISO 35mm will print up to 12"x16" so
> 12Mpx should be ok up to 20"x16" (sqroot 3 x 12).

All these equivalencies are very rough, and very controversial. 

> It can also be set to monochrome, but what that does to the pixels,
> I don't know.

R=G=B.  Doesn't reduce the file size much at all, which I find
seriously frustrating; I'd like to save space when I cut in three the
amount of data I'm recording!

> Does a digital image photographic capture device have to look like a
> camera?  Mine looks like a large cigarette box....

No.  See also the Nikon Coolpix 900-950-990.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>


[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux