Fuji S3 announced !!!

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by -=Plane Mad=-, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. -=Plane Mad=-

    B.o.w.s.e.r Guest

    The Kodak 14n is going for under $3K on B&H, and that's the upgraded
    version. It's wonderful up to ISO 160, and usable up to 400, but the damned
    form factor is horrible. Still, it isn't nearly as bad as when first
    introduced, and capable of producing excellent images.

    Maybe I'll wait another year.
     
    B.o.w.s.e.r, Feb 6, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. You are clueless.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 7, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. SNIP
    You are not making sense again. Time for your medication?

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 7, 2004
    #43
  4. SNIP
    You are clueless.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 7, 2004
    #44
  5. Try paying attention, the issue was light fall-off with ultra-wide lenses.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 7, 2004
    #45
  6. Again, a nice crop of an original post from GP, but to answer the
    question by reusing the analogy from the original post: Because if
    you are close enough to the Caravaggio to see the gondolier, then you
    are too close to the painting to see Venice and appreciate the
    aesthetics.

    The bit about the example being recon was important since the
    implication was that you would only be looking at part of the image at
    a time, kind of like looking at a high MP image on a ~2MP screen, only
    much more so with recon images. The point was that if I have a pair
    of cameras, equal in every respect except that one is 4MP and one is
    8MP, and I want a poster size print, then yes, I want the 8MP. On the
    otherhand, if all I want to do is view the entire image on my 2MP
    screen, then the 8MP image offers little advantage over the 4MP.

    It's subtle, and not the same as saying 4MP is as good as 8MP or
    anything like that (I'd take the 8MP any day), but it clearly does
    *not* matter "all the time" since I have to throw away that extra
    detail to appreciate the overall aesthetics in the screen example.
    It's a shame, but sometimes you just can't viably have both at the
    same time - I shudder to think of the size of the printout required to
    show all the detail on that gigapixel image that was produced a while
    ago. That's an interesting example in itself, since it takes the
    other extreme; there is physically too *much* detail for the human eye
    to take in at once as there just are not enough rods and cones in
    there to do so.

    The accuracy of the sensor at recording photon intensity and frequency
    on the otherhand effects every picture you take, regardless of the
    resolution you are shooting at.

    Andy
     
    Andy Blanchard, Feb 7, 2004
    #46
  7. -=Plane Mad=-

    Crownfield Guest

    george did not read the release.

    it actually has more sensels, 6+6 mp.
     
    Crownfield, Feb 7, 2004
    #47
  8. I read all about SuperCCD4 back when it was released eons ago, there is no
    attempt to increase output pixels or resolution with SCCD4 vs SCCD3. Best
    case, there is a small increase in DR and a small increase in noise. When
    the F700 came out, there was a comparision posted all over that compared
    it's dynamic range to a D100, the D100 had loads more dynamic range.

    So here we have Fuji claiming 3MP Bayer output is really 6MP Bayer output,
    solely because it has worse dynamic range than 6MP Bayer output from another
    manufacturer.

    More interesting Fuji marketing.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 7, 2004
    #48
  9. Again, why not have more detail if it doesn't adversely affect aesthetics?
    Same question...
     
    George Preddy, Feb 7, 2004
    #49
  10. You've spammed this group enough, killed you and reported your behavior to
    your ISP. They agreed to monitor your posting activity here.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 7, 2004
    #50
  11. Again, you miss the point, never mind the fact that it's at a tangent
    to the original comment about whether a physically larger sensor size
    is more accurate than a smaller one for a given resolution.

    So, one step at a time:

    Having accuracy in each individual sensor is *always* relevent to the
    final image. Surely you don't dispute that?

    Next:

    Having extra detail in an image is not a problem, all other things
    being equal more MP is better every time. Still with me?

    Finally, in response to your comment about "sensor count is what
    really matters" from 6th Feb:

    You do not *always* need the extra detail. If I need an image to be
    printed in a magazine at 2"x3" ~200dpi I do not *need* an ultra high
    MP camera to acquire it, because the additional detail will be absent
    in the recorded image. "Need" is not the same as "want". I might
    only need a 1MP camera for that shot, but if I take the shot of my
    life, then I sure as hell will want as many MP as possible for that
    huge print to hang on the wall.

    And so we are back to my original point - that the sensor accuracy is
    always important and sensor resolution, while desirable, is not. An
    exception to this, as I pointed out, is when you don't especially care
    about aesthetics of the entire image and want to prioritize the
    detail, such as recon photography. So, while I agree that detail is
    important, I just don't think that something that only applies to a
    subset of my images is quite as important as something that applies to
    all.

    Andy
     
    Andy Blanchard, Feb 7, 2004
    #51
  12. The answer to that is well established, given the same sensor count the
    bigger the pixels the better. This is why 828 and 717 users are wondering
    which is better--tiny pixels mean lots more noise.
    Accuracy is hard to define. If you mean noise, the bigger the better given
    the type of sensor with the same sensor count.
    Both are always desirable. And the two really are the same thing. Sensor
    count is all that matters, in that case, because not only are there more
    sensors, but there is also more space between sensors so it is win-win.
    Foveon can do this relative to Bayer because there are 3 layers to spread
    sensors instead of only 1. With Bayer compared to Bayer it is easy, just
    figure the density and all else being equal the lower density chip with the
    same sensor count will be superior.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 8, 2004
    #52
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.