 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / ZLR Cameras / January 2005Highest resolution Viewfinder.
I am beginning to be convinced that lcd viewfinders are the trend of the future even if that sounds like a pompous prognostication since I don't even own a zlr (g). However, am I correct in thinking that Minolta currently makes the highest resolution viewfinder? I was rather impressed by their "superfine evf" which seemed almost good enough for someone, like me, used to a film slr.  SignatureJames V. Silverton Potomac, Maryland, USA > I am beginning to be convinced that lcd viewfinders are the trend of > the future even if that sounds like a pompous prognostication since I > don't even own a zlr (g). However, am I correct in thinking that > Minolta currently makes the highest resolution viewfinder? I was > rather impressed by their "superfine evf" which seemed almost good > enough for someone, like me, used to a film slr. On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution - 640 x 480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly described as "900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over 300,000 pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV. In use, it was definitely better than lower-resolution finders, although I suspect you would may need something approaching 1024 x 768 pixels to be as good as an SLR. [The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent the camera back for a refund]. What is useful in some cameras (such as the Panasonic FZ20) is the ability to enlarge the central section of the EVF (and LCD) when manual focussing is engaged, allowing for a finer adjustment. Cheers, David Hi David, you say > [The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent > the camera back for a refund]. With or without lie, A2's EVF is the best I am aware of on the market. Being interested in photography rather than in biblical punishment, and at least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2 with lies than another camera with a worse EVF without lies. The best! Julio. > Hi David, you say > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Julio. Well, I didn't. The LCD swivel finder was very tinny (not robust), the JPEG in-camera conversion was poor, etc. etc., and those factors together outweighed any positive rating for the viewfinder. For a wide-angle camera, you can't beat the Nikon Coolpix 8400 (24mm wide-angle) and the best value telephoto stabilised camera is, in my opinion, the Panasonic FZ20. David > Hi David, you say > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2 with lies > than another camera with a worse EVF without lies. Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or 230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if we say *everybody* is lying. SignatureJohn Bean What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing (Oscar Wilde) [] > Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers > use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or > 230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if > we say *everybody* is lying. Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think there should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B components and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a different standard viewfinders. Cheers, David > [] > > Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Cheers, > David Actually there isnt a double standard... Comparing the Mpixels of the camera with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges comparison. The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished photograph, which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print. The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as such. It is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera resolution, but until it does catch up, changing the way the evf is labeled isnt going to help. If you cant put a 6 or 8 megapixel image at 100% size on a 19" LCD monitor on your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it with an EVF???? What we are getting is the best they can do so far. Are they good enough to use when manually focussing??? The short answer is NO. Is it likely to be better in the near future??? NO! Logic and reason needs to be used in the purchase of a digital camera (just like when you buy anything else). No camera manufacturer claims a full resolution EVF simply because they dont exist, and are not likely to exist with current technology. Its the major difference between a "ZLR" camera and a DSLR camera, and one of the biggest reasons that a lot of people went DSLR. With a DSLR you get a reflection of the actual image in the viewfinder NOT an electronic reconstruction of the view. In order to get this, you must sacrifice "live preview" and histograms (the histograms are only available on REVIEW in a DSLR) All things being equal the highest pixel count in an EVF will be the highest resolution. The only time there would be any confusion in this area would be if the manufacturers started counting them differently. The way they count them now is just fine, as long as they dont change it, the highest number is STILL the highest number. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >> [] >>> Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > camera with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges > comparison. Yes, I agree. The camera typically has sensor quads (e.g. GRGB) and interpolates to pixel quads, resulting in an 8MP camera having 2MP red, 2MP blue and 4MP green (arrangements can vary). The typical 1024 x 768 display has 786,432 sites each providing independant R, G and B pixels. > The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished > photograph, which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print. I think there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the consumer. > The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as > such. It is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > monitor on your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it > with an EVF???? Yes, you can put 9.2 Mpixels on the desktop: http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/ although you do need 22.1 inches to reach that incredible resolution! > What we are getting is the best they can do so far. Are they good > enough to use when manually focussing??? The short answer is NO. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The way they count them now is just fine, as long as they dont change > it, the highest number is STILL the highest number. Well, I dispute that - if a monitor is VGA resolution (the best I've seen to date) then it should be described as 640 x 480 pixels, i.e. 307,200 pixels, not "900,000 pixels" as promoted by one manufacturer. Being honest about the display resolution is something the consumer deserves, I believe. I do agree with you that this is one area of the EVF that needs drastic improvement. Cheers, David > Well, I dispute that - if a monitor is VGA resolution (the best I've seen > to date) then it should be described as 640 x 480 pixels, i.e. 307,200 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Cheers, > David I think you may have missed the point I was making (because I was making it badly). The point is this: At this time its NOT POSSIBLE to cram as many pixels into the space it takes for an EVF as we would like to have. There is at this time a limit on the "dot pitch" of the screen, and they just cant make the dots small enough to raise the resolution of an EVF to where it truly needs to be. I grant you that some manufacturers cloud the issue by telling us the number of "color dots" they have and calling them "pixels", but most of us are smart enough to know better. Ya' gotta' recognize "sales hype" for what it is. I dont consider a camera to be good or bad by how it lives up to its "HYPE", I judge it by the pictures I get from it. Here is a "for instance".. Fuji sells its S7000 as a camera that can produce 12 mpixel images... and it can produce them, but its NOT a 12 mpixel camera, its a 6 mpixel camera (and a damn fine one when its used properly). I bought one, and sometimes (only sometimes) I actually let the raw converter in Photoshop interpolate the image to 12 mpixels.. Most of the time I stick with the 6 mpixel file, and if I need it bigger, I make it bigger LATER, with the apropriate software, which does a better job than the raw converter. (usually Genuine Fractals). SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. [] > I think you may have missed the point I was making (because I was > making it badly). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At this time its NOT POSSIBLE to cram as many pixels into the space > it takes for an EVF as we would like to have. I really picked up more on the point of manufacturers deliberately misleading customers about the number of pixels in the EVF or LCD. I suspect that it would be possible to make a good enough LCD - but probably not cost effectively just yet. I used a 640 x 480 EVF (VGA resolution) for a while and it was quite good, whether I would need twice the number of pixels or even twice the resolution for my purposes I don't know. I have the feeling that VGA resolution might actually be good enough. Certainly, the Panasonic FZ20 has fewer pixels in the display but manual focussing with the LCD is no problem because of the central area enlargment as soon as the manual focus ring is moved. I'd be interested to know how that compares with the "magnifying EVF" cameras you have, as far as ease of focussing is concerned. Cheers, David > In article <34ipmmF4b7hpqU1@individual.net>, > david-taylor@invalid.com [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > monitor on your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it > with an EVF???? I don't think that anyone would really need the full resolution of a 6-8 meg image in an eyepiece. Indeed, I don't think many people's eyes could resolve that. The question is what resolution would be needed in a satisfactory viewfinder. I don't think any ZLR has attained that but I wonder if about twice that provided by Minolta would suffice. I don't own one but examining one in store persuades me they have not far to go. SignatureJames V. Silverton Potomac, Maryland, USA > I don't think that anyone would really need the full resolution of a > 6-8 meg image in an eyepiece. Indeed, I don't think many people's eyes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't own one but examining one in store persuades me they have not > far to go. I think they need to go to twice what is currently available, but I dont think its going to be achieved soon, because of the size problem. I have Several EVF cameras, and NONE of them are easily usable for focusing, even the ones that "magnify" the view when manually focusing are not easy to use with a "busy" image. There is simply not enough resolution in the EVF. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. The magnifying bit probably compounds the problem. I have one of those hood things that snap over the LCD and it has a 3x magnifying lens, it just makes the pixels look larger. > The magnifying bit probably compounds > the problem. I have one of those hood > things that snap over the LCD and it has > a 3x magnifying lens, it just makes the > pixels look larger. This is different - they use a smaller area of the sensor and present that magnified up on the LCD or EVF. It's more like zooming in to 1:1 magnification with your image processing software, and presenting a small, central selection of that on the viewfinder. Cheers, David > On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution - 640 x > 480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly described as > "900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over 300,000 > pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV. Standard TV is around 320 x 240 (QVGA; e.g., Quarter VGA). http://www.micron.com/products/imaging/technology/formats.html -- National Television Standards Committee (NTSC). 4:3 horizontal-to-vertical picture aspect ratio. Most television is interlaced, not progressive-scan. There are two fields per frame. This format specifies 525 lines total (242 active lines per field) but not how many pixels across. Horizontal resolution is typically 330 pixels across. TV-type pixels are usually not square. -- >> On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution - >> 640 x 480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > how many pixels across. Horizontal resolution is typically 330 pixels > across. TV-type pixels are usually not square. Yes, Kell factor and all that. With today's TVs, though, there can be a framestore in the receiver which means that the resolution can be nearer to VGA. The horizontal resolution is much greater than 330 pixels. (For example, British TV is 6MHz bandwidth and 52us scan time, so that's about 312 cycles per picture width, or 624 pixels. You need a little more than that to avoid aliasing, and typically 720 and 768 are the number of pixels across a digital TV picture). Cheers, David >> On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution - 640 x >> 480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly described as >> "900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over 300,000 >> pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV. > Standard TV is around 320 x 240 (QVGA; e.g., Quarter VGA). Nope. VGA. > http://www.micron.com/products/imaging/technology/formats.html Claims for NTSC: "525 lines total (242 active lines per field)" => vertical 2*242=484 active lines (2 fields => 1 frame) "typically 330 pixels across" => 330x484 Claims for PAL (and SECAM): "625 lines, 290 active lines per field" => vertical 2*290=580 activel lines (2 fields => 1 frame) "Typically, it is 425 pixels across" => 425x580 Both sound very much off base in the horizontal resolution. Yes, TV pixels are not square, but they are not that much deformed! Perhaps he means line pairs 'across' (or the much less relevant chrominance resolution??), so we get 660x484 and 850x580? This --- though a bit off base --- matches with http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Chap3.4/Chap3.4.html which says: NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution 360 x 480 chrominance resolution 1/59.94s per field (1/29.97s per frame) (see other sources) PAL: 720 x 576 luminance resolution 360 x 576 chrominance resolution 1/25s per field (1/50s per frame) Note that the eye is much more luminance than chrominance sensitive (compare JPEG!) DVDs also use 720 pixel horizontzally. Your TV set may not be able to display the full resolution, though. see also: http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm http://tangentsoft.net/video/glossary.html Thus we get close to 640x480, i.e. VGA, much closer than QVGA. VHS, however, only records half the lines and is much closer to QVGA quality. -Wolfgang [] > VHS, however, only records half the lines and is much closer to > QVGA quality. > > -Wolfgang I was wondering if the QVGA claim related to a VHS-processed TV picture! VHS records all the lines by the way (or so I believe, at least in the PAL system) but does so at reduced horizontal luminance resolution. The colour resolution is also reduced. Cheers, David http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Chap3.4/Chap3.4.html > which says: > NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution It says, "Ordinary TV -- ~320 lines". > see also: > http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm It says, "CIF resolution [NTSC] 320x240." "...one needs to know Common Intermediate Format (CIF). CIF refers to the number of squares of color (pixels) in columns and rows." http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailBuildings.asp?ArticleID=2209 > http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Chap3.4/Chap3.4.html > >> which says: >> NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution > > It says, "Ordinary TV -- ~320 lines". I see no justification for that statement in that document. You can (on UK TV) quite often see interlace flicker (unless you view with dimmed lighting to reduce the eye's response speed), which says that information at close to the limiting resolution is present. That would be 480 lines (or so) vertically on NTSC or 575 lines on the European PAL standard. >> see also: >> http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm > > It says, "CIF resolution [NTSC] 320x240." It says: "Note: vertical resolution is less than 525 or 625 lines per image because some are used for blanking (synchronization). CIF is Common Intermediate Format, noninterlaced, every pixel carries Luma and Chroma, this format is less demanding because 1/4 of full size but it carries very accurate data. Yes, NTSC isn't 30fps but 29.97 ! So we have Luma coded with 720x576 pixels (NTSC 720x485) and Chroma with 360x576 (NTSC 360x485) therefore every line carries meaningful information and dealing with interlaced video makes sense (versus CIF). " > "...one needs to know Common Intermediate Format (CIF). CIF refers to > the number of squares of color (pixels) in columns and rows." > http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailBuildings.asp?ArticleID=2209 This reference to CIF is not relevant here - it is a video-conferencing format, not an analogue TV format: http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/DISCOVER/CIF.html Even analog TV is better than CIF video conferencing! Cheers, David > http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Chap3.4/Chap3.4.html >> which says: >> NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution > It says, "Ordinary TV -- ~320 lines". And now you show me ho to compare these 320 to 420 (Laserdisc, S-VHS on NTSC) to 485 lines (Maximum of the format) to the 240 lines QVGA has! You still remove 1/4 of the lines. >> see also: >> http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm > It says, "CIF resolution [NTSC] 320x240." It also says "to make 30fps NTSC from 24fps FILM, the process used is called 3:2 pull-down" which has exactly the same relevance as your quote. CIF is not what we talk about. However, you can also find: "digital resolution 640x480 [NTSC]", which firmly supports my statement and debunks the "TV is QVGA" claim. -Wolfgang [] > However, you can also find: "digital resolution 640x480 [NTSC]", > which firmly supports my statement and debunks the "TV is QVGA" > claim. > > -Wolfgang Yes, the resolution is as you say - VGA - however, many of the recording systems do not work at the full resolution of the TV system. Perhaps this is confusing the original poster. Cheers, David |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.