Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

OK, I don't even understand the definition of interpolation. Here's what I
need to understand. The Fuji S5000 is a 3.1m camera, and has settings for
6m/3.1m/2m/1m. What do I gain or lose in quality by only using the 6m
(interpolated) setting?

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

"Duffer" wrote in message
.com...
OK, I don't even understand the definition of interpolation. Here's what
I
need to understand. The Fuji S5000 is a 3.1m camera, and has settings for
6m/3.1m/2m/1m. What do I gain or lose in quality by only using the 6m
(interpolated) setting?

You gain *nothing* from using the interpolated setting. You *lose* storage
space on your memory card and your PC.

All interpolation does is blows a small picture up to a large one and stores
it as a large one. You get small picture quality in a giant size. Try this
experiment: take a 640x480 image and expand it using your favourite
photo-editing package to 2048 x 1536 (near enough 3mp) and you'll get a
flavour of just how ghastly interpolation is! It's a confidence trick that
Fuji employs.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

"Zebedee" wrote in message
...

"Duffer" wrote in message
.com...
OK, I don't even understand the definition of interpolation. Here's what
I
need to understand. The Fuji S5000 is a 3.1m camera, and has settings
for
6m/3.1m/2m/1m. What do I gain or lose in quality by only using the 6m
(interpolated) setting?

You gain *nothing* from using the interpolated setting. You *lose* storage
space on your memory card and your PC.

All interpolation does is blows a small picture up to a large one and
stores
it as a large one. You get small picture quality in a giant size. Try this
experiment: take a 640x480 image and expand it using your favourite
photo-editing package to 2048 x 1536 (near enough 3mp) and you'll get a
flavour of just how ghastly interpolation is! It's a confidence trick that
Fuji employs.

--
Yours

Zebedee

The reason I asked is because I am now using the Kodak6490 10x optical with
4mp. The Fuji has a very good review and has 10x optical. The Kodak takes
great pictures up to 10x optical, but if I go beyond into the digital zoom
there is a lot of distortion. To the point that I would be ashamed to
display the photo. The Fuji would get me a bit beyond the Kodak optical
zoom and now sells at a better price than the Kodak. The camera shop owner
says there shouldn't be that much distortion and the Kodak is probably
defective at that point. I don't know if he is misleading me, since he
sells the Kodak about $70 more than the Fuji. And I have no way of testing
before I buy. I only have the reviews to goy by (Steve's Digicam reviews)

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

"Zebedee" wrote in
:

You gain *nothing* from using the interpolated setting. You *lose*
storage space on your memory card and your PC.

Unfortunately - this is not correct.

Fuiji has choosen to make and use strange detectors where the
sensor array is tilted 45 degrees. The theory behind this is
that a square array resolves more along the diagonals and that
humans are most sensible for unsharpness along the horizontal
and vertical directions. So - tilting the sensor 45 degree
should increase the apperent resolution.

Unfortunately - normal formats (like TIFF and JPEG and all
the formats your photo editors and printers use) are not tilted
45 degrees. So - in order to save the picture and manipulate it
Fuji has to tilt it - you guessed it - 45 degrees.

Now - to get the tilted picture to align when doing the interpolation
you have to increase the picture size with sqrt(2), i.e. a total
of twice as much area (and pixels).

Thats why a 3 Msensel Fuji thingie best is interpolated to 6 Mpixels.

Fuiji claims it increases apperent picture quality, but ---
it costs twice as much in storage space. Is it worth it?
Fuji claims so. I am sceptic.


/Roland

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

I disagree with Zebedee's comments

I think it shows how dangerous a little information may be

A house may be built with wood and stones but not everyone can build a good
house

It is the same with interpolation - how Fuji does it I do not know

Does it work well = you betcha!

Artie


"Zebedee" wrote in message
...

"Duffer" wrote in message
.com...
OK, I don't even understand the definition of interpolation. Here's
what
I
need to understand. The Fuji S5000 is a 3.1m camera, and has settings
for
6m/3.1m/2m/1m. What do I gain or lose in quality by only using the 6m
(interpolated) setting?

You gain *nothing* from using the interpolated setting. You *lose* storage
space on your memory card and your PC.

All interpolation does is blows a small picture up to a large one and
stores
it as a large one. You get small picture quality in a giant size. Try this
experiment: take a 640x480 image and expand it using your favourite
photo-editing package to 2048 x 1536 (near enough 3mp) and you'll get a
flavour of just how ghastly interpolation is! It's a confidence trick that
Fuji employs.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

"Arte Phacting" wrote in message
...
I disagree with Zebedee's comments

I think it shows how dangerous a little information may be


Fact: image information that's not there cannot be magically obtained.

A picture of a newspaper from 20 yards will be a picture of a greyish white
square. Interpolation cannot add information enabling you to read so much as
the headline. Interpolation is useless.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:01:51 GMT, "Duffer"
wrote:

OK, I don't even understand the definition of interpolation. Here's what I
need to understand. The Fuji S5000 is a 3.1m camera, and has settings for
6m/3.1m/2m/1m. What do I gain or lose in quality by only using the 6m
(interpolated) setting?

A decent starting point:
http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Note that most definitions use the word "estimate". Interpolation
can't add detail that isn't in the original image file (despite TV &
the movies :-) ).

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

Fuji

You see. I really really like Fuji. I have GA645 medium format and the rare
Fuji Silvi f2.8 black, so when i considered a digital camera, the s7000 was the
one I considered. But the reviews regarding its image quality were negative,
even at 6mp non-interpolated. That's what put me off it. So instead i went for
the fujinon-lensed HP 945, as its image quality was highly praised. An
admittedly less featured camera, except for the 8x optical zoom, though 6x or
8x is neither here or there.

I am still wondering if i should've gone for the Fuji.

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

Fuji

Okay i made the right choice. I just looked it up again. The fuji s7000 images
display an unacceptable level of noise, both at 12mp and at 6mp. Files at 6mp
are "aggressively compressed", with lots of compression artifacts, and it does
not allow you to choose level of compression, whereas at the 12mp interpolated
it does allow you to choose normal or fine.. etc but then it's interpolated
with all the problems that has, and no reviewers have not been impressed with
the interpolated results.

Overall, the HP 945 in-camera processing has been highly praised and
award-winning, whereas the Fuji s7000 has been widely criticized.

Interpolated 3.1m to 6m
 

Did w just meet several seconds ago on another thread?

Another important point just to make things even more complicated :-)

Fuji sensors are a little bit more robust at resisting highlight washout

I mention it here because there are a heck of a lot of things happening
inside sensors and supporting architecture.

And not every sensel is created equal.

Some sensels have one photosite recording one value R or G or B
other sensels have 2 detectors at one site recording R or G or B and are
more robust in relative luminosity
yet other sensels have 3 detectors recording R and G and D at one site

Then there are large or small detectors, CCD or CMOS, and (IMHO possibly the
worst combo?) the is the CMY filter instead of the RGB one

See, it does get complicated.

So, you may ask, how does this help a consumer and in particular the
original posting?

I will try to answer it so: so much depends upon perception that you should
really insist that you see for yourself what the image output quality is
like. If your photoshop does not oblige, thank em nicely and move on to one
that will. You will find that most of the sales people will share your
enthusiasm too.

Once you settle on a camera (even the 'feel' of a camera is enough to
convince people which is the better option) go for it.

Go forth, hang loose and have fun :-)

the differences between similarly priced bits of kit are not too ginormous

Artie


"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
"Zebedee" wrote in
:

You gain *nothing* from using the interpolated setting. You *lose*
storage space on your memory card and your PC.

Unfortunately - this is not correct.

Fuiji has choosen to make and use strange detectors where the
sensor array is tilted 45 degrees. The theory behind this is
that a square array resolves more along the diagonals and that
humans are most sensible for unsharpness along the horizontal
and vertical directions. So - tilting the sensor 45 degree
should increase the apperent resolution.

Unfortunately - normal formats (like TIFF and JPEG and all
the formats your photo editors and printers use) are not tilted
45 degrees. So - in order to save the picture and manipulate it
Fuji has to tilt it - you guessed it - 45 degrees.

Now - to get the tilted picture to align when doing the interpolation
you have to increase the picture size with sqrt(2), i.e. a total
of twice as much area (and pixels).

Thats why a 3 Msensel Fuji thingie best is interpolated to 6 Mpixels.

Fuiji claims it increases apperent picture quality, but ---
it costs twice as much in storage space. Is it worth it?
Fuji claims so. I am sceptic.


/Roland