# Fuji claims.

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Bill, Nov 26, 2003.

1. ### Bart van der WolfGuest

SNIP
There is, but converging lines are not the best tool for discrete sampling
systems. The sharp edges will cause artifacts you won't see in normal
situations.

That's why the ISO uses a standard based on a different method, and the
result is an (kind of) MTF curve. The measurement is based on a slanted
edge, and involves Fourier analysis (on the Edge Spread function of the
edge).

That will demonstrate that the 6MP file version resolves finer detail.

Bart

Bart van der Wolf, Nov 28, 2003

2. ### andrew29Guest

Hmm. Are you saying that it's impossible to make a bijective mapping
between grids at 45 degrees to each other? Surely it is possible, at
the expense of adding a small amount of false diagonal detail.

Andrew.

andrew29, Nov 28, 2003

3. ### LeonardGuest

Probably the best way would be to take the picture with the
camera at 45 degrees.

Or to get a camera with a sane design.

- Len

Leonard, Nov 28, 2003
4. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

Well, you don't want to add any false detail, so you end up losing
detail.

This is easy to see if you're familiar with the Fourier transform.
A square sampling grid in the spatial domain captures a certain range
of image frequencies. If you look at the Fourier transform, the range
of non-aliased frequencies occupies a square. This square goes from
-0.5 to +0.5 cycles/pixel in both the horizontal and vertical
directions. But the corners of this square represent a frequency of
0.71 cycles/pixel - that's the higher limit for un-aliased diagonal
resolution.

Now, if you rotate an image captured on a square grid, its Fourier
transform rotates as well in the same direction. So the input image
has a diamond-shaped (rotated square) frequency spectrum that no longer
fits within the un-rotated square of an output image with the same pixel
spacing. You have to filter away that excess detail (which is what
happens if you select a 3 MP output file), or you need to decrease the
pixel pitch in the output file to 71% of the input file in order to
expand the frequency-domain limits to 141% of what they were in the
input image in order to retain the extra detail. 1.41 times the
number of pixels in X and Y means 2 times the total pixels, thus a 6 MP
output image.

On the other hand, if you limit the input image to 0.5 cycles/pixel in
*all* directions, you can rotate it by any amount you want without
losing information. But the whole advantage of the Fuji sensor is based
on making the best use of that "extra" diagonal resolution capability of
a square sampling grid.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Nov 28, 2003
5. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

I remember reading that too, though I can't reconstruct where.

So there are probably two related effects at work:

- images shot in developed areas have more horizontal/vertical edges
than diagonal ones

- people who grow up in developed areas develop visual systems that
have slightly better horizontal/vertical resolution

So if you have lived in the wild all your life, and continue to do so,
there's probably no advantage to the Fuji sensor. But then, you're
probably not shopping for a digital camera.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Nov 28, 2003
6. ### Jack YeazelGuest

Well put!

I looked long and hard at competing cameras on Steve's Digicams, Phil Askey and
Dave's Imaging Resources reviews... I was surprised that the Fuji S602
generally showed better resolution than the 4 and 5MP cameras where one could
compare photos of the same object or test target...

The price of the 602 was no higher, and sometimes lower, plus most of the other
cameras didn't have a 6x zoom, which has saved me a lot of lens changing...

(Not living in the wild!), I'm curious as to what kind of resolution readings
the 7000 will have... -So far, Dave hasn't measured it...

Jack Yeazel, Nov 28, 2003
7. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

I looked at the Fuji test results, figured out *why* what they were
doing worked, and ultimately decided against the cameras. I ended up
Ultimately, I decided that the Fuji's benefits weren't worth the cost.
It takes up twice the amount of memory for not that much extra detail
(maybe not double size JPEG files, but twice as much in editing).
If I choose to select 3 MP output instead of 6 MP, I get *less*
resolution than other 3 MP cameras. The horizontal/vertical resolution
is limited by the 3 MP output format, while the diagonal resolution is
limited by the rotated sensor.

The Fuji is a clever method, and does have measurable benefits; I just
decided they weren't worth the cost for me.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Nov 29, 2003
8. ### Andre DenisGuest

I have been following this thread for a while now, mainly because I have a
Fuji S5000 on order and I am trying to get as much info as I can before it
gets here. I'm new to digital photography so this may be a no brainer
answer for you guys. Regarding the comment about the Fuji system taking
twice as much memory for a little extra detail... Why is memory such a
concern to you? Is it a disk space issue on the memory card? (can't get as
many shots on a XD card) Is it a recovery speed issue? (more time needed
inbetween shots) Or is it the fact that the files are larger when you
store them on a CD?

Thanks Andre

Andre Denis, Nov 29, 2003
9. ### pjpGuest

It's all been about symantics and the
benfits/detriments/implications/repurcussions of Fuji's super ccd design.

Can't see anyone complaining about the speed a pic is saved at, the memory
capacity of the camera or size of files archived to cd.

The bottom line is the camera (in my case S602Z) takes damn fine pics that
look stunning at 1800x1400 on my 19" monitor and look just as good printed
as 8x10's even from my cheap Epson printer. It's "extremes" (e.g. super
macro mode < 0.5", 1/10,000 shutter speed, 1600 ISO, no "set" video length,
etc.) all work very well, exceeding my initial expectations. I have no doubt
that when "THE" picture comes along, it'd be worth it to pay a professional
shop for a significantly larger print.

My only initial reservation with the camera was it's difficulty in focusing
in low light conditions. Something I came to accept given it seems to be a
common limitation across brands and models. I little laser pointer solved
that problem (focus' on dot), working just as well as a little "spotlight"
and not nearly as intrusive on the scene.

pjp, Nov 29, 2003
10. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

All of the above. Suppose that in 6 MP mode the images are twice as
large (they won't be; you'll get more compression at 6 MP than at 3 MP
because there isn't really that much extra detail). Then you need to
spend twice as much money for memory cards for the same number of
images, or spend the same amount and have only space for half the
images. It takes twice the disk space until I dump them to CD, and I
get only half as many per CD. And I can have half as many of them open
in Photoshop before it gets sluggish, unless I add memory to my
computer.

Now, I'd gladly pay the extra cost in memory if I had a true 6 MP camera
like a 10D. The images from that are significantly better than what you
get from any 3 MP camera, including the Fuji 3 MP, so it's worth the
extra cost. But I judged the Fuji images to be only slightly better
than other 3 MP cameras.

So, if you look at initial purchase price, the 3 MP Fuji is a camera
that costs the same as other 3 MP camera but can sometimes give you 6 MP
images that are slightly better than other 3 MP cameras, but you may not
want to leave it in 6 MP mode all the time because you're incurring
extra cost for little benefit.

On the other hand, if you ignore the cost of the camera and look at the
cost and time of storing and handling images, you can see the Fuji 3 MP
camera as either:

- A 3 MP camera that produces slightly worse images than other 3 MP
cameras (worse diagonal resolution, same horizontal/vertical)

- A 6 MP camera that produces considerably worse images than other 6 MP
cameras (because it has only 3 MP sensors, horizontal/vertical
resolution is slightly worse, and diagonal is a factor of 2 worse)

Basically, it seemed a poor tradeoff for me unless you are going to
leave the camera set to 6 MP all the time and ignore the image size
cost.

The story would be different if the camera wrote out a special 3 MP
JPEG image with a rotated raster, without interpolating to 6 MP, and
there were common image-viewing and image-editing tools that convert to
a conventional square raster only for viewing and printing. This would
avoid interpolation in the camera and the file size penalty. But there
aren't.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Nov 29, 2003
11. ### pjpGuest

Ask the folks who own them if they're happy with their purchase. In my case,
1 yr later and I'm still very happy with the camera with no intentions of
replacing it with anything else.

In the end, that's all that counts.

I will add that I've never bought anything that if I kept looking after my
purchase, of course, eventually something will come along that seems a
better option. Mind you, take that view and one would never buy any
electronic anything as there's always something coming down the pipe.

pjp, Nov 29, 2003
12. ### Andre DenisGuest

What you say seems to make sense to me. So it seems Fuji has designed and
built a camera with some compromises. Pictures can appear to be a little
better to the eye if you shoot in the 6mg interpolation mode, yet the price
you pay is in the number of shots per xd card. The camera is priced lower
than most true 5mp cameras and the image is not quite up to 5mp quality,
yet better than 3mp. (unless you use the 3mp mode)

Cost of CDRs is not an issue for me. I just bought 100 CDRs at SAM's Club
for \$33.95. Thirty four cents CDN for 800mb of space x 100 It would take
me years to use up that much memory on images.

XD cards could be a bit of a cost problem though. SAM's also has the
Olympus XD cards for \$132.95 for 256mb. The packet states that you can get
about 213 images on one of these cards at 3mp settings. So roughly 100
images at the 6mp interpolation mode? Does that seem right? In any case,
if this is so, I would probably want at least a couple of 256 cards to
interchange. That is quite costly.

The cost of the NIMH batteries and charger would have to be considered as
well. (no big deal though)

Does the camera have a descent recovery time at the maximum file size
setting? I shouldn't think so considering that there are settings for
multiple shots and movies.

Anyway I think the camera will hold my interest for a while due to it being
my first digital. My added bonus is that I am getting it through Visa
Rewards points. So, it's kind of like no cash outlay for me.

Thanks
Andre

Andre Denis, Nov 29, 2003
13. ### Andre DenisGuest

Snipped

Cost of CDRs is not an issue for me. I just bought 100 CDRs at SAM's Club
for \$33.95. Thirty four cents CDN for 800mb of space x 100 It would take
me years to use up that much memory on images.

XD cards could be a bit of a cost problem though. SAM's also has the
Olympus XD cards for \$132.95 for 256mb. The packet states that you can get
about 213 images on one of these cards at 3mp settings. So roughly 100
images at the 6mp interpolation mode? Does that seem right? In any case,
if this is so, I would probably want at least a couple of 256 cards to
interchange. That is quite costly.

The cost of the NIMH batteries and charger would have to be considered as
well. (no big deal though)

Does the camera have a descent recovery time at the maximum file size
setting? I shouldn't think so considering that there are settings for
multiple shots and movies.

Anyway I think the camera will hold my interest for a while due to it being
my first digital. My added bonus is that I am getting it through Visa
Rewards points. So, it's kind of like no cash outlay for me.

Thanks
Andre

Andre Denis, Nov 29, 2003
14. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

That's good advice. I eventually bought a Canon G2, and haven't
regretted that.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Nov 30, 2003
15. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

That's actually a considerable cost advantage in the long run. NiMH
batteries are *far* cheaper than proprietary LiIon batteries for the
same amount of electrical energy.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Nov 30, 2003
16. ### Mike LatondresseGuest

(Dave Martindale) wrote in
Yeah but Dave an extra LIon battery pack for my 10D cost me \$37.00 at
Kerrisdale Camera so arn't we talking small change here?

Mike Latondresse, Nov 30, 2003
17. ### Don CoonGuest

Or 2 for \$25 or less shipped on Ebay. And yes, I have bought 2 BP-511s and 2
EN-EL1s that way and they perform as well as the Canon/Nikon branded
batteries and \$37 varieties.

Don Coon, Nov 30, 2003
18. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

I recently bought an A80, and the battery cost was zero - because I
already have plenty of NiMH AA cells (and a couple of fast chargers)
for powering various other electronic devices and flashlights.

But if I did need to buy more NiMH cells for the camera, I can get
at least 2 sets of 4 for that \$37. Each set of 4 has more energy than
one BP-511 LiIon pack, and charges faster. So I can cheaply carry
several sets, and rapidly recharge them when home. My G2 takes the same
batteries as your 10D, but I either have to charge them in camera (one at
a time, several hours each) or buy a very expensive external charger.

I do understand the advantage of LiIon batteries (lighter weight, low
self-discharge compared to NiMH), but for me NiMH is preferable.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Nov 30, 2003
19. ### andrew29Guest

Ah well, that's another matter. The D1x does the trick of turning
4028 x 1324 raw pixels into a 3008 x 1960 pixel image; the loss of
horizontal information is used to add detail to the vertical. Yes,
it's false detail, but it does work. I'm sure you could do the same
with the Fuji.
Yes, obviously. That gets you the correct interpolated image, no
argument there. The resulting fourier transform is missing high
frequency detail that's been filtered out in the rotation. But
there's nothing to stop you adding that detail back.

Andrew.

andrew29, Dec 2, 2003
20. ### Dave MartindaleGuest

Huh? If you select 6 MP output, there was nothing lost in the rotation.
If you select 3 MP output, you *did* lose information in the rotation,
because the output format doesn't have the pixel density to retain the
information. You can't "add it back" while remaining at 3 MP.

You could select 3 MP output, then later resize the image to 6 MP, which
would give you the room to store the lost information. But how would
you reconstruct it? Once it's gone, it's gone, and there's no reliable
method of calculating new detail that will look correct.

Dave

Dave Martindale, Dec 2, 2003