For your amusement and edification...

Colin_D wrote:
> Eh? My browser is Firefox, I didn't scale the pics, I looked directly
> at the image specs - right click on image, read properties.
>
> OP said both pics are about 3 MP, implying that they both were shrunk
> for the net.

He said 3 MB, not MP. They're both about 8 MP.

JPEG artifacts look to be the limiting factor on resolution,
so I'd hesitate to rank sensors or lenses based on these
photos.


--
--Bryan
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

Colin_D <nospam.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Colin_D wrote:
>>> Eh? My browser is Firefox, I didn't scale the pics,
>>> I looked directly at the image specs - right click on
>>> image, read properties.
>>>
>>> OP said both pics are about 3 MP, implying that they
>>> both were shrunk for the net.
>> He said 3 MB, not MP. They're both about 8 MP.
>
>Yes, my bad there - but yours too! (grin)

I don't think so... Or at least not in the way you are
suggesting. I would suggest that the OP's original
question is an interesting parlor game for
entertainment, but has no useful validity otherwise.

>A 3 MB file is actually a 1 MP file, since there are three bytes to a
>pixel, provided the file is not compressed - which these are.

The OP was correct; the images were not scaled, as the
size as posted is exactly that produced by each camera:

Pict1.JPG Pict2.JPG

3,674,974 bytes 3,174,858 bytes
3296x2472 pixels 3264x2448 pixels
8,147,712 pixels 7,990,272 pixels

(Fujifilm A805) (Panasonic DMC-FZ30)

There is no indication that the images were in any way
manipulated; they appear to be exactly as they came from
the camera.

>> JPEG artifacts look to be the limiting factor on
>> resolution,
>> so I'd hesitate to rank sensors or lenses based on these
>> photos.
>>
>I still reckon the first pic is from the more expensive camera.

A number of people listed obvious and not so obvious
differences, and clearly the first image is no match
for the second. The first one is over sharpened, it is
noisier, and for whatever reason that camera chose to
use a very high shutter speed and set the aperture wide
open, while the second image stopped the aperture down
but still used a reasonable shutter speed.

But the whole exercise is ridiculous, and your comments
do prove a point that should NOT be missed. The obvious
faults, such as the flare in the second image or the
choice of aperture in the first image, may or may not
mean anything. Are those results typical of what will
be seen when using those two cameras, or are the simply
an artifact of having chosen that particular subject to
photograph on that particular day?

I would suggest, for example, that the flare may be the
most noticeable fault in the two images, but it is also
the least likely to indicate something seriously wrong
with the camera in terms of what will be seen with
typical usage. (The flare is simply a side effect from
having a complex 12x zoom on the expensive camera and as
opposed to a fairly simple 3x zoom on the other model.)

But it should also be obvious that if lack of flare is
important, a 12x zoom is probably not the one to
choose! So which camera is "better" depends on the
scene is to be photographed. Those two images don't
indicate which is the better camera, they just indicate
they are different.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

Colin_D wrote:
> me.RemoveThis@mine.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:19:47 +1300, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>> Colin_D <nospam.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Considering the images are downsized to fewer pixels than either
>>> cameras' native image dimensions, it's difficult to judge on
>>> definition alone, but observing the flare on pic2 and the better
>>> micro-contrast of pic1, I'd say pic 1 was the superior camera.
>>
>> Unless the images have been replaced, your browser is scaling the images.
>
> Eh? My browser is Firefox, I didn't scale the pics, I looked directly
> at the image specs - right click on image, read properties.
>
> OP said both pics are about 3 MP, implying that they both were shrunk
> for the net.
>
> Colin D.
>

Hi

It's easy to download the whole picture. Just right click on it and
then, when the menu comes up, go 'Save Image As'. It will download in
it's entirety and the EXIF headers will be easy to read.

This is in Firefox browser, but they all have a similar function.


mike
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> m II <c.RemoveThis@in.the.hat> wrote:

>> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
>> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>
> Another "I can produce terrible pictures with any camera"
> contest? Or a "In daylight even a P&S can produce usable
> images" aka "See my NASCAR racer being just as slow as your
> runabout in stop and go traffic"?
>
> I'm suitably unimpressed.


....as well you should be. It was rather a tongue in cheek opening line.


Perhaps I should have phrased the following in a better fashion, it
obviously has no meaning..

====================
"There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography,
so please spare the vulgarities.
====================






mike
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

On 2008-02-23 00:20:09 -0800, m II <c DeleteThis @in.the.hat> said:

> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>
> Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader
> tell which is which?

No. The second picture is more out of focus than the first and suffers
from lens flare, but that could happen with either camera. Since the
pictures were taken handheld they both exhibit some motion blur. Not
only that, but the image quality is probably limited more by being
displayed on a computer than by anything else.

Now, since I could not tell simply by looking at the picture, I looked
at the EXIF: Neither one was a DSLR and they both have about the same
size sensor. One has more bells and whistles than the other, but they
should be approximately equivalent in picture quality. The second has a
better and faster lens, but that was not a factor here. The photos were
not taken at the same aperture or focal length and are in no way
comparable for judging the lens.

Have you considered submitting your experiments to The Journal of
Irreproducible Results?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

Bryan Olson wrote:
> Colin_D wrote:
>> Eh? My browser is Firefox, I didn't scale the pics, I looked directly
>> at the image specs - right click on image, read properties.
>>
>> OP said both pics are about 3 MP, implying that they both were shrunk
>> for the net.
>
> He said 3 MB, not MP. They're both about 8 MP.

Yes, my bad there - but yours too! (grin)

A 3 MB file is actually a 1 MP file, since there are three bytes to a
pixel, provided the file is not compressed - which these are.
>
> JPEG artifacts look to be the limiting factor on resolution,
> so I'd hesitate to rank sensors or lenses based on these
> photos.
>
>
I still reckon the first pic is from the more expensive camera.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-02-23 00:20:09 -0800, m II <c DeleteThis @in.the.hat> said:
>
>> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
>> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>>
>> Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader
>> tell which is which?
>
> No. The second picture is more out of focus than the first and suffers
> from lens flare, but that could happen with either camera. Since the
> pictures were taken handheld they both exhibit some motion blur. Not
> only that, but the image quality is probably limited more by being
> displayed on a computer than by anything else.
>

Interestingly, the shake reduction was turned on camera 2, as was the
autofocus.



> Now, since I could not tell simply by looking at the picture, I looked
> at the EXIF: Neither one was a DSLR and they both have about the same
> size sensor. One has more bells and whistles than the other, but they
> should be approximately equivalent in picture quality. The second has a
> better and faster lens, but that was not a factor here. The photos were
> not taken at the same aperture or focal length and are in no way
> comparable for judging the lens.

The default settings were used in both cameras. To me, at least, that
means the designers thought that for the majority of the users and the
majority of the time, those settings would produce the most acceptable
results. They compromised in a way that would usually produce acceptable
shots. It's perhaps more a reflection of what the designers thought than
any hardware demands.


> Have you considered submitting your experiments to The Journal of
> Irreproducible Results?
>

Yes. They've accepted all my Annika1980 observations without question.





mike
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

m II <c.RemoveThis@in.the.hat> wrote in news:ZGQvj.36844$FO1.9246@edtnps82:

I haven't read the rest of the thread, or looked at the EXIF, but my
initial reaction is that the first one has ridiculous amounts of NR, making
the image look like a big, jagged cartoon.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.RemoveThis@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

Chris Savage <spam.goes.here DeleteThis @devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote in news:hoh595-
mj6.ln1 DeleteThis @tog.savvo.co.uk:

The second seems to handle the jaggies rather better.

The jaggedness of #1 is not from aliasing ("jaggies"); it is an artifact of
edge-detecting and preserving noise reduction. What would be a smooth line
or curve has pixels dark from noise on the bright side, and vbright from
noise on the dark side, and the algorithm sees this as an edge and sharpens
it.

The Fuji jagged cartoon look.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS DeleteThis @no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification...