Toys: Two Sets of Details

Warning: This is a really boring post. It’s meant more for my future reference than for anything else. Lots of technical garbage in here, and some droning on, and no pretty pictures or attempts at insight. Feel free to read on, but only with duly diminished expectations.

No, I mean really. It’s boring. Very much. Are you sure you want to keep scrolling?

O.K.

You’re on your own from here.

11 October 2007, lens wide open

20 January 2009, 12x optical zoom

(this shows what the 3264 x 2448 frame included)

11 October 2007, 6x optical zoom + 4x digital zoom = 24x zoom
(this shows what the 3264 x 2448 frame included)

20 January 2009, 12x optical zoom + 5x digital zoom = 60x zoom

(this shows what a 1280 x 960 frame included: note resolution drops in digital zoom)

11 October 2007, 6x optical zoom + 4x digital zoom = 24x zoom
(640 x 480 detail: click to expand to actual size, pixel for pixel)

20 January 2009, 12x optical zoom + 5x digital zoom = 60x zoom
(640 x 480 detail: click to expand to actual size, pixel for pixel)

20 January 2009, 12x optical zoom

(this shows what the 3264 x 2448 frame included)

11 October 2007, 6x optical zoom + 4x digital zoom = 24x zoom

(this shows what the 3264 x 2448 frame included)

20 January 2009, 12x optical zoom + 5x digital zoom = 60x zoom

(this shows what the 1280 x 960 frame included: note resolution drops in digital zoom)

11 October 2007, 6x optical zoom + 4x digital zoom = 24x zoom
(640 x 480 detail: click to expand to actual size, pixel for pixel)

20 January 2009, 12x optical zoom + 5x digital zoom = 60x zoom
(640 x 480 detail A: click to expand to actual size, pixel for pixel)

20 January 2009, 12x optical zoom + 5x digital zoom = 60x zoom
(640 x 480 detail B: click to expand to actual size, pixel for pixel)

Some observations:

• Picking up the gleam of light on the tiny hub of the hygrometer hand from across the room is pretty nice.
• The camera with the more powerful lens (12x optical) has a twitchy autofocus mechanism, which makes it more tricky to handle. Still figuring out other controls. Could be better than old camera; could be worse.
• Pictures taken with the old camera were never rebalanced to make up for dim light. Pictures from the new camera have been rebalanced. Don’t blame the old camera for a slightly murkier look. Normally I’d fix that if a picture needed it before doing anything interesting with the shot.
  
• 12x optical zoom + 5x digital is theoretically a 60x zoom, but when you reduce the dimensions to 40% of the pixels in each direction, you really end up with more like a 24x zoom, in terms of the ability to make a large print or crop a tight close-up. Still, the results are dramatically better than the 24x zoom achieved the old way.
  

Actual-size comparison of the maximum zoom on the old camera (6x + 4x = 24x, left) next to the maximum zoom on the new (12x + 5x = 60x, 60x * 40% = 24x, right):

In terms of actual pixels taken up—absolute image size—the digits as captured by the old camera are larger. But the clearly superior image is from the new camera, even if officially it’s not as magnified. The clarity is much better. It has roughly doubled the size of the original 12x image; the older camera has quadrupled the size of an original that was only half as large. As you’d expect, the larger you stretch an image using digital expansion, the more you torture it.

Note that these are both from point-and-shoot style CCD digital cameras, not from digital SLRs with their nicer CMOS digital pickups. 12x magnification captured with a CMOS sensor would probably look even nicer.

Also note that if you really care, you’ll still be thinking in terms of what large-format film (120 film, for example, or larger) would do for you. I’m not bragging on what these cameras can do; I’m just testing to see how far I can push them—what they’re good for, and what’s too much to ask. You can get some neat effects even with the cheap camera in a cell phone, if you pay attention to how to play to how it works.

There’s still no camera that can naturally grab what the eye sees without even paying attention. To get close to what the eye sees, we have to give cameras all kinds of explicit instructions: no, brighter; no, closer; no, more contrast; no, yellower; no, now it’s too bright. Cameras are getting better. But eyes are pretty cool.

(I won’t even get into the whole issue here of whether you want to capture what the eye sees or what the mind sees. All kinds of photography can be exciting.)

Further note apropos these shots: I almost never shoot using the digital zoom, because I’d usually prefer to use my computer’s tools to enhance the zoom, which give me results I like better than what the camera does on the fly. The computer has much more time and horsepower to devote to getting the expansion right. So the maximum optical+digital zoom is a bit of a moot point. I’m testing it to see what’s there.

What drew me to the new camera was the 12x optical zoom. That by itself is worth some learning curve. And it will occasionally be worth the extra weight to carry, depending on where I’m going. If the new camera can do more than that, or improve in some other ways on the old camera, that’s gravy.

I got the new toy (the one with the 12x lens) for well under $200 (new), not as a replacement for my main camera but as an auxiliary for shots where I want tighter close-ups. From what I had read, and from what I have now experienced, it appears it won’t be as handy for quick, off-the-cuff shots. For a shot from my bike seat, where I keep pedaling but whip out the camera to squeeze one off, I’ll use the old camera, which fires up fast and has a smooth, swift response as I adjust settings. When it’s worth stopping to frame a picture more perfectly, I can try the new camera, which wants more fiddling before things are perfect.

I expect my knack with the new toy to improve over time, which may affect how often it gets taken out. It’s still new, and I haven’t tinkered yet to see how it compares in terms of capturing colors, capturing smooth gradients without grain and digital noise to make them look less rich (think sunsets), how it does in low light, or any number of other situations where your eyes tell you there’s a picture but a camera might not see it without specific instruction. Time and experience will tell.

I would expect the old camera and the new camera to deliver similar results on 80% of the pictures I take, with the old camera remaining more convenient to use. For certain pictures, notably extreme telephotos, it’ll be worth having the new camera around.