Fuji Anti-Blur

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:10:35 GMT, David J Taylor, Panatic
extraordinaire wrote:

> If true, whether you think this Fuji "anti-blur" is a gimmick or
> deliberately misleading advertising is up to you. To me, it adds to "Fuji
> beating the laws of physics" in sensor performance and decreases my trust
> in the company's claims.

It's a gimmick, but only someone with your consistent agenda would
try to spin it as deliberately misleading advertising. Either
Fuji's sensor (and that's the one in the F10/11/30, not the one in
the S5200 that Tippi mentioned) performs as well as reviewers and
owners claim or it doesn't. Physics, whether beaten, stirred or
shakened has nothing to do with it, but it does make for a useful
mantra for those that apparently feel that a better Fuji would
diminish their camera [Panasonic/Canon/whatever] in their own eyes.
If you're so certain that the F30 can't perform as claimed, why not
buy or borrow one? If you're right it wouldn't take too much effort
to demonstrate that its low light performance is really no better
than its peers, and you'd become famous for debunking all of the
revered reviewers' claims. This way you'd actually earn back some
of the respect you've squandered by your continuous baseless sniping
from the sidelines.
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:10:35 GMT, David J Taylor, Panatic
> extraordinaire wrote:
>
>> If true, whether you think this Fuji "anti-blur" is a gimmick or
>> deliberately misleading advertising is up to you. To me, it adds to
>> "Fuji beating the laws of physics" in sensor performance and
>> decreases my trust in the company's claims.
>
> It's a gimmick

I'm glad you agree.

> but only someone with your consistent agenda would
> try to spin it as deliberately misleading advertising. Either
> Fuji's sensor (and that's the one in the F10/11/30, not the one in
> the S5200 that Tippi mentioned) performs as well as reviewers and
> owners claim or it doesn't. Physics, whether beaten, stirred or
> shakened has nothing to do with it, but it does make for a useful
> mantra for those that apparently feel that a better Fuji would
> diminish their camera [Panasonic/Canon/whatever] in their own eyes.
> If you're so certain that the F30 can't perform as claimed, why not
> buy or borrow one? If you're right it wouldn't take too much effort
> to demonstrate that its low light performance is really no better
> than its peers, and you'd become famous for debunking all of the
> revered reviewers' claims. This way you'd actually earn back some
> of the respect you've squandered by your continuous baseless sniping
> from the sidelines.

Fuji's "anti-blur" is not the same as what others call "anti-shake" or
"image stabilisation" or "vibration reduction", and yet they choose to
name a feature "anti-blur" when it simply means using a high shutter
speed. Why?

Physics has everything to do with it - it's not "sniping" at all. There
is no way Fuji can escape the laws of physics which limit the available
signal-to-noise ratio available in small-sensor cameras. It's relatively
easy to add noise reduction to an image to produce something which may
more pleasing to the eye, and perhaps this is what Fuji are doing. If you
like the results, that's great.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:17:23 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote:
>Physics has everything to do with it - it's not "sniping" at all. There
>is no way Fuji can escape the laws of physics which limit the available
>signal-to-noise ratio available in small-sensor cameras. It's relatively
>easy to add noise reduction to an image to produce something which may
>more pleasing to the eye, and perhaps this is what Fuji are doing. If you
>like the results, that's great.

David, why don't you actually do the comparisons and present
results like ASAAR suggested rather than quoting vague
"laws" of physics which are equally meaningless without
quantification?

I use a Pentax *istDS, a Panasonic LX1 and a Fuji F10, all
in different circumstances. The LX1 has unique capabilities
but is not really a "carry everywhere" camera because it
neither fits my pocket nor has acceptable performance above
ISO80. But I like it - a lot - in the situations I use it.

The F10 is silky smooth up to ISO200, almost dSLR-smooth. NR
starts to become visible only above ISO400. I speak from
personal experience not theory, and my benchmark image
quality is a 6MP dSLR not some other small-sensor P&S. In
the F30 the performance is allegedly even better, but since
I haven't tested this myself I can't confirm that claim.

The Fuji F-series may have their defects (and they have!)
but in image quality at ISO higher than ISO200 they are in a
class of their own amongst P&S cameras. That you disagree
with this will not change the facts, and if you believe that
every test that shows this performance is "making it up"
then I suggest you do some controlled testing of your own to
demonstrate "the truth" rather than just waving a few
pseudo-scientific phrases in the air.


--
John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

John Bean wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:17:23 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
> wrote:
>> Physics has everything to do with it - it's not "sniping" at all.
>> There is no way Fuji can escape the laws of physics which limit the
>> available signal-to-noise ratio available in small-sensor cameras.
>> It's relatively easy to add noise reduction to an image to produce
>> something which may more pleasing to the eye, and perhaps this is
>> what Fuji are doing. If you like the results, that's great.
>
> David, why don't you actually do the comparisons and present
> results like ASAAR suggested rather than quoting vague
> "laws" of physics which are equally meaningless without
> quantification?


There have been plenty of dicussionas about this already - please see the
previous posts particularly those from Roger N. Clarke

> I use a Pentax *istDS, a Panasonic LX1 and a Fuji F10, all
> in different circumstances. The LX1 has unique capabilities
> but is not really a "carry everywhere" camera because it
> neither fits my pocket nor has acceptable performance above
> ISO80. But I like it - a lot - in the situations I use it.
>
> The F10 is silky smooth up to ISO200, almost dSLR-smooth. NR
> starts to become visible only above ISO400. I speak from
> personal experience not theory, and my benchmark image
> quality is a 6MP dSLR not some other small-sensor P&S. In
> the F30 the performance is allegedly even better, but since
> I haven't tested this myself I can't confirm that claim.
>
> The Fuji F-series may have their defects (and they have!)
> but in image quality at ISO higher than ISO200 they are in a
> class of their own amongst P&S cameras. That you disagree
> with this will not change the facts, and if you believe that
> every test that shows this performance is "making it up"
> then I suggest you do some controlled testing of your own to
> demonstrate "the truth" rather than just waving a few
> pseudo-scientific phrases in the air.

I do not disagree that Fuji F30 may present better images, nor have I
suggested the tests are "made up", just that Fuji cameras like all others
are subject to the laws of physics (in particular Poisson noise
statistics) that will limit the noise performance of small sensor cameras.

I would like to see a scientific explanation of precisely how Fuji achieve
those results, but of course Fuji may not wish to give away trade secrets!

David
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

Just to summarise a couple of items and get back ontopic..

The Fuji system, as I read it, automatically watches your shutter speed
relative to the focal length, and then ramps the ISO up and down as
needed to get the best results. I've never seen misleading claims by
Fuji - they always state exactly what the camera does and what they
call it. What exactly is wrong in calling an automatic
ISO-ramping-shutter-speed-watching-focal-length-matching (phew..)
system, "anti-blur"?

More correctly, I guess it is an anti-shake system. But that has
already been taken, so perhaps they are more moral than you give
credit.. Interestingly, I note a lot of folks seem to think that IS
will help not only with camera movement but also subject movement, so
perhaps other claimants aren't exactly getting their message out
truthfully either... Personally I think IS is a little over-rated, but
I'm big and strong and carry a heavy tripod... (O:

While I don't own any of these cameras, I've seen the Fuji system in
action, and given the Fuji's excellent high ISO performance, it is a
useful addition to the cameras. Not quite as useful as IS, to be sure,
but I haven't seen anyone claiming it was, certainly not Fuji
themselves.

Oh, and here's a challenge - I would ask the 'bumblebee enthusiasts',
who roll out this claim quite frequently, to please *quote* the
scientist/organisation who made the statement about it being unable to
fly.

Yes, there have been some stupid statements made by stupid
pseudo-'scientists', but is this *really* one of them...?? Please
read:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp

How about you find a *different* analogy, dudes....!!
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:17:23 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Fuji's "anti-blur" is not the same as what others call "anti-shake" or
> "image stabilisation" or "vibration reduction", and yet they choose to
> name a feature "anti-blur" when it simply means using a high shutter
> speed. Why?

For the same reason that most P&S cameras have many different
shooting modes. To make it somewhat easier for novices that aren't
interested in learning and understanding how to effectively utilize
their cameras. Fuji could call it PseudoTripodMode and it wouldn't
matter either, as long as they don't call it IS or VR. It obviously
hasn't confused *you*, since you're well aware that it's not in any
manner comparable to IS or VR. I get the feeling that if you had
your way, Fuji wouldn't be able to advertise "anti-blur" without
adding many caveats sufficient to make it appear to be a nearly
useless feature. It may be nearly useless for you and most other
experienced photographers, but for many P&S owners (presumably not
most of them that frequent this ng), it may well be a handy, useful
addition.


> Physics has everything to do with it - it's not "sniping" at all. There
> is no way Fuji can escape the laws of physics which limit the available
> signal-to-noise ratio available in small-sensor cameras.

If you want to rely on "physics" to prove that Fuji's F10/F11/F30
can't do what many are claiming, then it's up to you to demonstrate
*something* based on tests and measurements, not just to hide behind
an unproven claim that only by violating the laws of physics could
the Fuji do as well as it appears to be doing. Perhaps the problem
is an insufficient understanding of all of the physics that is
involved?



> It's relatively easy to add noise reduction to an image to produce something which
> may more pleasing to the eye, and perhaps this is what Fuji are doing. If you
> like the results, that's great.

I already countered this assertion, but you ignored it. Here it
is one more time. Several of the reviewers that rated the Fuji very
highly are (based on previous reviews) well aware of the amount of
noise reduction used by the cameras that they test. Cameras are
frequently criticized in reviews based on their use of less than
optimal in-camera processing, including noise reduction. Why is it
that you think that suddenly, and probably only for these Fuji
cameras, the reviewers suddenly forgot everything they know about
the effects of noise reduction, which they usually demonstrate with
examples?


[from another message]:
> There have been plenty of dicussionas about this already - please see the
> previous posts particularly those from Roger N. Clarke

Even though he knows a great deal, he essentially has said no more
than you as to demonstrating what Fuji may be doing, and has said
virtually the same thing in the same way (about violating the laws
of physics). As I already said, sometimes one gets tripped up by
taking the easy way out, relying on consensus and "conventional
wisdom". In an earlier era, that led to engineering proofs that
bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. I think we can all agree at
this late date that bumblebees don't violate the laws of physics.

 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

I am simply asking that Fuji state how they can get such good performance,
in a scientific and quantifiable way. So far, they have not done so,
unless you know otherwise. As I already said, if you like the results,
fine. I am not claiming that Fuji violate the laws of physics, only that
they are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

I still believe that their "anti-blur" advertising is designed to confuse
punters into believing that the Fuji camera has a feature (image
stabilisation) which it does not.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:13:34 -0400, ASAAR <caught.RemoveThis@22.com>
wrote:
>In an earlier era, that led to engineering proofs that
>bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. I think we can all agree at
>this late date that bumblebees don't violate the laws of physics.

That's a rather good example (that I'd forgotten) of poorly
understood (pseudo) science leading to completely erroneous
conclusions. I've been trying unsucessfully to find a
reference I had from the 1960s concerning AF, when a quite
reputable scientist said that "true" AF as used by our
brain/eye would never be possible in a camera, it was
"impossible" for any mechanism to judge when an image was in
focus and instead would have to use some sort of
rangefinder. He was confusing available technology with
science, and the first AF cameras (Polaroid, etc) did indeed
use sonic distance measurement. Many later AF P&S cameras
used active IR rangefinders, but most modern cameras use no
distance measurement at all - they work in just the way he
said was "impossible".

I'll try to find the reference, it's a reminder to never use
pseudo-science to claim that anything is "impossible" -
you'll always look really stupid when technology catches up
and somebody goes ahead and does it anyway.

--
John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

ASAAR wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2006 16:29:00 -0700, the doodly mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp
> >
> > How about you find a *different* analogy, dudes....!!
>
> Aww. You had to go and spoil it all by ending with "dudes".

Heheh.. that *was* a little out of character, I'm not usually a 'dude'
sort of person.. But I *am* a bit of a party pooper when it comes to
urban myths and analogies (which are usually inappropriate and equally
useless), because I tend to open my big mouth.. Yes, I'm the annoying
type who always checks www.snopes.com as soon as I hear anything that
sounds like a myth.. and if that fails (which it did in the case of
the bumblebee), a Google search will usually reveal the bullsh!t very
quickly..

(O;
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:59:14 +0100, John Bean wrote:

> I'll try to find the reference, it's a reminder to never use
> pseudo-science to claim that anything is "impossible" -
> you'll always look really stupid when technology catches up
> and somebody goes ahead and does it anyway.

Another example (from my era) involved those that put very low
limits on the maximum theoretical data transfer rate that modems
would be able to achieve. Praise be that they were mistaken, since
I'm not yet using broadband. What the debate over Fuji's sensor
amounts to is very little. In the end, those claiming that "the
sensor can't violate the laws of physics" will, naturally be proven
to be correct. But their current position seems to be designed to
insinuate that therefore Fuji's low light ability can't be as good
many people and reviewers have found it to be. If it works, it
works, but until the real method used becomes widely known, a good
enough explanation would be "Fuji Inc's researchers have finally
divined the proper use of arcane magic spells and potions". <g>
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

On 15 Jul 2006 16:29:00 -0700, the doodly mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com
wrote:

> http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp
>
> How about you find a *different* analogy, dudes....!!

Aww. You had to go and spoil it all by ending with "dudes".
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

ASAAR wrote:
> I'll have you know that when I first read of the mystical
> bumblebee it was no urban legend or myth. But that's because it
> occurred many years before the term came into existence, I think.
> It would also have predated the internet/Arpanet by many years. I
> guess that would have made it a suburban legend.

(groan (O

And I'll have you know that the first time I heard about the bumblebee
thing being 'questionable' was only a few years ago when I worked as
the Ops Manager at a marine research centre... I know bumblebees have
little to do with the marine environment, but hanging around university
professors and 'good' scientists (for *way* too long!) tends to make
you into a person who questions *everything* you hear, just like they
do..

...and being a cynic/skeptic comes in handy sometimes - I'm not often
fooled. But enough of this timewasting - I've just got an email from
Microsoft saying that if I send it on to ten people...
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur 

On 16 Jul 2006 00:47:15 -0700, mark.thomas.7.RemoveThis@gmail.com pooped:

> Heheh.. that *was* a little out of character, I'm not usually a 'dude'
> sort of person.. But I *am* a bit of a party pooper when it comes to
> urban myths and analogies (which are usually inappropriate and equally
> useless), because I tend to open my big mouth.. Yes, I'm the annoying
> type who always checks www.snopes.com as soon as I hear anything that
> sounds like a myth.. and if that fails (which it did in the case of
> the bumblebee), a Google search will usually reveal the bullsh!t very
> quickly..

I'll have you know that when I first read of the mystical
bumblebee it was no urban legend or myth. But that's because it
occurred many years before the term came into existence, I think.
It would also have predated the internet/Arpanet by many years. I
guess that would have made it a suburban legend.
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji Anti-Blur