"charles" wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:19:29 -0500, Rich wrote:
charles wrote in
m:

It depends on sensor characteristics and processing but yes, smaller
pixels on the whole means lower image quality. Physics rules.


Would the converse be true, that larger pixels mean better pictures.
One pixel per camera would seem to be the limit then, best possible
picture achievable.

Obviously (does this really have to be stated?) there is a crossover of
lines on a graph where pixel count and pixel size meet at an idealized
point, based on what produces the best combination of resolution and
image quality for a given subject.


Obviously. Where is the best spot?

If you have a high pixel count camera, you can combine pixels (either pixel
binning or averaging after demosaicing) to get the same image a lower pixel
count camera would have given.

This even works when you think that the well depth is too small for the
desired dynamic range. That is, 16 pixels can count from 0 to 16 times the
number of pixels any one of a 16 times larger pixel could count.

So you pretty much always want more pixels.

And you always want a larger sensor.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan