Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Canon SX50 Digital Teleconverter Experiment
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Jan 11, 2015 16:42:58   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
I just bought the Canon SX50 and one of the things to try out was the Digital Teleconverter. It can only be done using JPEG and allows a 1.5X or a 2.0X multiplier factor to be used. Like a digital zoom, it only uses the center pixels and then takes it one step father and uses an algorithm to compute what each missing pixel should be to get back to the original number of pixels. Not as good as pure optical zoom, but I wanted to see how well it could actually do. My Sony Camera have this also and it is called "Clear Image Zoom". Don't know which implementation is better.

The 1st shot is at 1200mm FL of a shed over a mile away on the other side of a canyon. This shot was taken in RAW. Actually was 3 shots and I used HDR SW in post processing.

I then changed to JPEG, and turned on the 1.5X multiplier. (1800mm equiv.)

And the the 2.0X multiplier for the 3rd image. (2400mm equiv.)

In all 3 cases, the number of reported pixels is 4000 x 3000.

1200mm with no digital TC
1200mm with no digital TC...
(Download)

1800mm with 1.5X digital TC
1800mm with 1.5X digital TC...
(Download)

2400mm with 2.0X digital TC
2400mm with 2.0X digital TC...
(Download)

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 16:58:05   #
Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia
 
Pretty neat. Gonna have to try that, just to impress the chicks.

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 17:21:59   #
wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ
 
Michael Hartley wrote:
Pretty neat. Gonna have to try that, just to impress the chicks.


The digital enlargement is a common feature in those type cameras, it is the same effect as cropping.

Reply
 
 
Jan 11, 2015 17:28:21   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
wlgoode wrote:
The digital enlargement is a common feature in those type cameras, it is the same effect as cropping.


No it is not ! ,......

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 17:35:05   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
imagemeister wrote:
No it is not ! ,......


Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) is Sony's propietary way of interpolating pixels for image enlargement - and it works very well. It is variable from 1.1 - 2x. - IMHO, it blows away optical TC's .( no light loss)

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 17:55:10   #
wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ
 
imagemeister wrote:
No it is not ! ,......


What is it?

I now understand a bit more, pardon my ignorance.

An interpolation of the separate pixels. Not a Digital Zoom.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a PP plugin for this or find its way into DSLRS.

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 18:21:59   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
wlgoode wrote:
The digital enlargement is a common feature in those type cameras, it is the same effect as cropping.


Pure digital zoom would be what you are describing. This is not that kind of digital zoom. Instead the camera tries to figure out the missing pixels to back fill it and end up with an image that has the exact same numbers of pixels.

Its pretty good. The only question is: "Can it do as good a job as pure optical zoom?"

Sony is doing this with the "Clear Image Zoom" and Canon is doing this with "Digital Teleconverter". Functionally, they are doing the same thing. Cropping out a section of the middle and resizing it back to the same number of pixels.

I have searched on the internet for lab tests on just how good it is (or is not) and cannot find where any serious effort has attempted to look at this.

Some things are obvious:

1) If you do not post process, this is a very good way to get extra magnification.

2) If you do post process, can it do as good of job as various re-sizer type SW that runs on a computer?

3) And if you use an optical teleconverter, how does it compare to that?

It would be real nice to have some real test results to compare the methods. I put the shed out there as an example of a comparison test. I thought the 1.5X was very good. And I saw that it wasn't quite as good at 2X but still acceptable.

But it does require abandoning RAW, and I do like RAW.

So what is a good answer to this?


I have added some additional images to compare with and without Digital Teleconverter. All are taken at max zoom. This little island is at least 600 feet away. In the bottom picture, the bottom cormorant has a spot without feathers on his back side that you can see. I have also taken the 1st picture and did a crop on it to represent a pure digital 2.0X zoom. You can see it is not as sharp. It is the 4th picture.

Cormorant w/o digital teleconverter
Cormorant w/o digital teleconverter...
(Download)

Cormorant w 2.0X Digital teleconverter
Cormorant w 2.0X Digital teleconverter...
(Download)

A couple Cormorants w 2.0X plus some different bird laying down to the left with a red head
A couple Cormorants w 2.0X plus some different bir...
(Download)

A crop of the first picture to emulate a 2X digital zoom. Has far less detail than the Digital Teleconverter examples
A crop of the first picture to emulate a 2X digita...
(Download)

Reply
 
 
Jan 11, 2015 19:19:26   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
JimH123 wrote:
Not as good as pure optical zoom, .


Also note, that with an opitical zoom of longer focal length, the image will not be as sharp and you will lose light !

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 19:29:41   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
People who shoot RAW will want to poo-poo this - in order to justify their shooting RAW - and using their software, time and talent to produce the same thing ?? - that CIZ does in camera.

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 20:07:17   #
Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world
 
JimH123 wrote:
I just bought the Canon SX50 and one of the things to try out was the Digital Teleconverter. It can only be done using JPEG and allows a 1.5X or a 2.0X multiplier factor to be used. Like a digital zoom, it only uses the center pixels and then takes it one step father and uses an algorithm to compute what each missing pixel should be to get back to the original number of pixels. Not as good as pure optical zoom, but I wanted to see how well it could actually do. My Sony Camera have this also and it is called "Clear Image Zoom". Don't know which implementation is better.

The 1st shot is at 1200mm FL of a shed over a mile away on the other side of a canyon. This shot was taken in RAW. Actually was 3 shots and I used HDR SW in post processing.

I then changed to JPEG, and turned on the 1.5X multiplier. (1800mm equiv.)

And the the 2.0X multiplier for the 3rd image. (2400mm equiv.)

In all 3 cases, the number of reported pixels is 4000 x 3000.
I just bought the Canon SX50 and one of the things... (show quote)


Can anyone tell me if this works on an SX40hs?

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 20:27:07   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
Jackinthebox wrote:
Can anyone tell me if this works on an SX40hs?


Take a look. Hit "Menu", go to Digital Zoom and then see if it has a 1.5X entry, then a 2.0X entry, and finally "Standard" which is the old pure digital zoom. I would use that one.

Reply
 
 
Jan 11, 2015 20:47:25   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
imagemeister wrote:
People who shoot RAW will want to poo-poo this - in order to justify their shooting RAW - and using their software, time and talent to produce the same thing ?? - that CIZ does in camera.


Here is a shot done with Sony A3000 and Nikkor 300 4.5 ED IF W/1.7X CIZ - not definitive - but may give you some idea


(Download)

Reply
Jan 11, 2015 21:22:27   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
JimH123 wrote:
Take a look. Hit "Menu", go to Digital Zoom and then see if it has a 1.5X entry, then a 2.0X entry, and finally "Standard" which is the old pure digital zoom. I would use that one.


Correcting a typo. The last sentence should be "I would not use that one"

Reply
Jan 12, 2015 01:53:57   #
Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world
 
JimH123 wrote:
Take a look. Hit "Menu", go to Digital Zoom and then see if it has a 1.5X entry, then a 2.0X entry, and finally "Standard" which is the old pure digital zoom. I would use that one.


Thanks, it works fine.

Reply
Jan 12, 2015 06:18:50   #
johneccles Loc: Leyland UK
 
Hi Jim, interesting experiment, image quality is only acceptable though when zoomed in, something appears to happen to the grass !! although the shed does suffer that much.
John

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.