Fuji's DSLR killer

In article
<0ec74280-cdbe-467f-b0c1-4562a4ec80f8.DeleteThis@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<mark.thomas.7.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 5:00 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <QJSdnWv3sfEFKwLanZ2dnUVZ_gudn....DeleteThis@speakeasy.net>, Cynicor
> > says...
> > > My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....
> >
> > 1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...
>
> The D300 has stretched pixels on its display. (No, I'm not
> kidding..)

then you're confused. they're counting dots, not pixels, and it looks
normal.
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

On Jan 30, 5:27 pm, nospam <nos....RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <0ec74280-cdbe-467f-b0c1-4562a4ec8....RemoveThis@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <mark.thoma....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 5:00 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <QJSdnWv3sfEFKwLanZ2dnUVZ_gudn....RemoveThis@speakeasy.net>, Cynicor
> > > says...
> > > > My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....
>
> > > 1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...
>
> > The D300 has stretched pixels on its display. (No, I'm not
> > kidding..)
>
> then you're confused. they're counting dots, not pixels, and it looks
> normal.

I guess I'm as 'confused' as DPreview acknowledges many are:
"the words pixels and dots are interchanged almost randomly in
specification sheets but strictly speaking we should talk of dots
(these being red, green or blue sub-pixels)"
They then say "the dots are a third thinner than they are high and so
each group of three dots (sub-pixels) make up one full color pixel",
so I think my 'stretched pixel' (mis)description is quite adequate,
without going into a full explanation and diagram..

And then we could discuss whether a Bayer 'pixel' is really a dot, or
is it a colour-interpolated sub-pixel, or...? To me it's all getting
a teeny bit semantic... (O:
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

In article
<7c5551fc-8b04-4fd8-9dc7-b98f3a3bc8cb.TakeThisOut@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<mark.thomas.7.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > The D300 has stretched pixels on its display. (No, I'm not
> > > kidding..)
> >
> > then you're confused. they're counting dots, not pixels, and it looks
> > normal.
>
> I guess I'm as 'confused' as DPreview acknowledges many are:
> "the words pixels and dots are interchanged almost randomly in
> specification sheets but strictly speaking we should talk of dots
> (these being red, green or blue sub-pixels)"
> They then say "the dots are a third thinner than they are high and so
> each group of three dots (sub-pixels) make up one full color pixel",
> so I think my 'stretched pixel' (mis)description is quite adequate,
> without going into a full explanation and diagram..

and if you take three dots (sub-pixels) that are each one third thinner
than they are high, you end up with a normal sized pixel.
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

...Strange how you cropped out the bit about it all being semantic..
(O;
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

In article <QJSdnWv3sfEFKwLanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net>, Cynicor
says...

> My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....

1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

In article <MPG.220a3eed6c52e47d98b937.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <QJSdnWv3sfEFKwLanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net>, Cynicor
> says...
>
> > My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....
>
> 1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...

dots, not pixels. a horizontal row is comprised of r/g/b dots,
resulting in a 640x480 rgb pixel lcd screen. it's annoying marketing
so they can use bigger numbers.

more info:
<http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page3.asp>
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

nospam wrote:
> In article
> <0ec74280-cdbe-467f-b0c1-4562a4ec80f8.DeleteThis@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> <mark.thomas.7.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 5:00 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article <QJSdnWv3sfEFKwLanZ2dnUVZ_gudn....DeleteThis@speakeasy.net>, Cynicor
>>> says...
>>>> My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....
>>> 1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...
>> The D300 has stretched pixels on its display. (No, I'm not
>> kidding..)
>
> then you're confused. they're counting dots, not pixels, and it looks
> normal.

That's why I specifically said dots instead of pixels. It's still an
amazingly sharp display. Now if only Sigma would level with us and use
dots instead of pixels when talking about their Foveon sensors....
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

nospam wrote:
> In article <MPG.220a3eed6c52e47d98b937.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
> Molon <alfred_molon.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <QJSdnWv3sfEFKwLanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net>, Cynicor
>> says...
>>
>>> My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....
>>
>> 1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...
>
> dots, not pixels. a horizontal row is comprised of r/g/b dots,
> resulting in a 640x480 rgb pixel lcd screen. it's annoying marketing
> so they can use bigger numbers.

OK so 3" & 300,000 pixels
the D200 for comparison is 2.5" & 230,000
-not as dramatic of a difference as I thought.

> more info:
> <http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page3.asp>
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

In article <9S2oj.4996$0o7.3389@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Paul
Furman <paul- RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:

> >>> My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....
> >>
> >> 1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...
> >
> > dots, not pixels. a horizontal row is comprised of r/g/b dots,
> > resulting in a 640x480 rgb pixel lcd screen. it's annoying marketing
> > so they can use bigger numbers.
>
> OK so 3" & 300,000 pixels
> the D200 for comparison is 2.5" & 230,000
> -not as dramatic of a difference as I thought.

the d200 has 230,000 dots, or 76k pixels (320x240):
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d200/index.htm
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

nospam wrote:
> In article <9S2oj.4996$0o7.3389@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Paul
> Furman <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> My D300 has a 1920x480 dot EVF....
>>>>
>>>> 1920 x 480? That's a 4:1 aspect ratio...
>>> dots, not pixels. a horizontal row is comprised of r/g/b dots,
>>> resulting in a 640x480 rgb pixel lcd screen. it's annoying marketing
>>> so they can use bigger numbers.
>> OK so 3" & 300,000 pixels
>> the D200 for comparison is 2.5" & 230,000
>> -not as dramatic of a difference as I thought.
>
> the d200 has 230,000 dots, or 76k pixels (320x240):
> http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d200/index.htm

Ah, OK that's a dramatic difference.
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
> dj_nme
> <dj_nme.DeleteThis@iinet.net.au>], who wrote in article <479ecde8$0$9719$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>
>>>You've missed the point. What I'm discussing is PARALLAX. With
>>>live-view, auxiliary distance-meter can operate with no parallax -
>>>meaning it can measure distance to the "marked point" in viewfinder.
>
>
>>You don't seem to understand what causes parallax.
>
>
> LOL!
>
>
>>In the case of external (non-TTL) rangefinders/focusing mechanisms, it
>>is the distance from the focus sensor to the imaging lens which will
>>cause parallax.
>
>
> Get some clue! Distance meters USE parallax to measure the distance.

There has been that "whooshing" noise of concepts flying over your head
again!
If the RF mechanism is not a TTL type (eg: phase detection or contrast
detection), then there will definitely be parallax between the RF and
the imaging lens.
Distance from RF window to taking lens equals paralax.
It is a fact of life.

> If you STILL do not understand what I'm talking about:
>
> a focus indicator (say, in the center of the live view display)
> shows a cross; one needs to measure distance to the corresponding
> point on the subject. External distance meter is "tilted"
> (mechanically, or electronically) until its looking/illuminating the
> same point. After this, it can either use its own parallax meter to
> measure the distance to this point (if it has two points of view)
> or, (better?) just report the tilt angle.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ilya

It doesn't help you.
This proposed method would require quite complex image processing and
would be glacially slow as a result.
Current pattern recognition has difficulty when faced with known
objects, such as faces (comparing a captured image to a face in a
database) and would require a quantum leap in both processing power and
pattern recognition algorithms (to be able to match the [unkown] image
in the RF camera to the [unkown] image captured by the imaging sensor).
Also: you would essentially make a single focus-point camera, in an age
of multiple focus areas on (even) most of the EVF digicams.
What makes you believe that any manufacturer would wish to step
backwards about 25 years to to a single focus point AF technology?
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
David J. Littleboy
<davidjl.DeleteThis@gol.com>], who wrote in article <O_ydnU0CgPptCAPanZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d.DeleteThis@giganews.com>:
> FWIW, I A/B compared my F707 EVF with the Canon 300D screen.

DPreview does not address the resolution of f707 viewfinder (except
saying that it is "better than contemporaries"). Judging by its age,
I think it is in (or below) 100K range, something like 200x150x3. For
comparison, A2 was VGA (640x480x3) [which would make it about 10x more
pixels than 100K].

Yours,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer 

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
> David J. Littleboy
> <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com>], who wrote in article <O_ydnU0CgPptCAPanZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d DeleteThis @giganews.com>:
>
>>FWIW, I A/B compared my F707 EVF with the Canon 300D screen.
>
>
> DPreview does not address the resolution of f707 viewfinder (except
> saying that it is "better than contemporaries"). Judging by its age,
> I think it is in (or below) 100K range, something like 200x150x3. For
> comparison, A2 was VGA (640x480x3) [which would make it about 10x more
> pixels than 100K].

A 640x480 display has 307,200 pixels (300k pixels).
To describe it as a "900k pixel" EVF is more than slightly exagerating.
Konica-Minolta used "Foveon mathematics" (times the pixels by 3, using
every R, G & B sub-pixel in the pixel count) to get the huge number
quoted in their literature.
Very nice compared to other EVF, but nowhere near as good as a real TTL
optical viewfinder.
 >> Stay informed about: Fuji's DSLR killer