If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
Just some random, mostly resolution-related questions. I fully accept
that the questions themselves may be misguided, so feel free to interpret. Chip size, noise and other stuff. All other things being equal, will a larger sensor have more noise? I ask this for two, interrelated reasons, the first of which is that I see discussions of the end of the Megapixel wars for APS-C sensor due to the loss of image quality with higher pixel pitch. The second is that I have recently seen some pretty good images from a Canon G10 which has a much higher pixel pitch albeit on a much smaller chip. Actual resolution increase with higher pixel pitch. It certainly seems that the G10 has much higher resolution than my 5D (but certainly not better image quality) considering the pixel pitch/sensor size. What actual resolution increase could I expect with that kind of pixel pitch on an APS-C or FF/35mm sensor? Is there some formula that describes the diminishing resolution gains due to added noise? Size of pixel/photosite where resolution increase would not equal additional pixels. Is there a certain way in which noise is related to the size of the individual photosite? Or is that dependent upon other factors that can be addressed through better engineering/manufacture of the sensor? Conversion of Bayer pattern only affect colors of image. Finally, do the algorithms used to convert the output of a Bayer-type sensor independently process luminance and color information? I guess that would be, does the algorithm produce color and luminance information independently of each other such that a grayscale value could be produced for each pixel without using information collected at more than one photosite? Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
Eric Miller wrote:
Just some random, mostly resolution-related questions. I fully accept that the questions themselves may be misguided, so feel free to interpret. Chip size, noise and other stuff. All other things being equal, will a larger sensor have more noise? I ask this for two, interrelated reasons, the first of which is that I see discussions of the end of the Megapixel wars for APS-C sensor due to the loss of image quality with higher pixel pitch. The second is that I have recently seen some pretty good images from a Canon G10 which has a much higher pixel pitch albeit on a much smaller chip. Basically it is the sensor "site size" that has the most affect on signal but noise does not vary that much. Of course with less signal the noise becomes more important. Canon has developed remarkable noise reduction s/w as well, so they can make less than optimal hardware look very good. Actual resolution increase with higher pixel pitch. Lens and anti-alias filter limited. It certainly seems that the G10 has much higher resolution than my 5D (but certainly not better image quality) considering the pixel pitch/sensor size. What actual resolution increase could I expect with that kind of pixel pitch on an APS-C or FF/35mm sensor? Is there some formula that describes the diminishing resolution gains due to added noise? Size of pixel/photosite where resolution increase would not equal additional pixels. Is there a certain way in which noise is related to the size of the individual photosite? Or is that dependent upon other factors that can be addressed through better engineering/manufacture of the sensor? Yes. Roughly speaking noise does not change much with site size; but signal goes up as the site size increases thereby increasing S/N. Conversion of Bayer pattern only affect colors of image. Finally, do the algorithms used to convert the output of a Bayer-type sensor independently process luminance and color information? I guess that would be, does the algorithm produce color and luminance information independently of each other such that a grayscale value could be produced for each pixel without using information collected at more than one photosite? Good question. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
In article , Eric Miller
wrote: Just some random, mostly resolution-related questions. I fully accept that the questions themselves may be misguided, so feel free to interpret. Chip size, noise and other stuff. All other things being equal, will a larger sensor have more noise? no. for a given sensor technology and pixel count, a larger sensor will have larger pixels, and therefore have less noise. http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...formance.summa ry/ I ask this for two, interrelated reasons, the first of which is that I see discussions of the end of the Megapixel wars for APS-C sensor due to the loss of image quality with higher pixel pitch. The second is that I have recently seen some pretty good images from a Canon G10 which has a much higher pixel pitch albeit on a much smaller chip. Actual resolution increase with higher pixel pitch. It certainly seems that the G10 has much higher resolution than my 5D (but certainly not better image quality) considering the pixel pitch/sensor size. What actual resolution increase could I expect with that kind of pixel pitch on an APS-C or FF/35mm sensor? Is there some formula that describes the diminishing resolution gains due to added noise? resolution depends on a lot of factors, including the sensor, the lens, how accurately you focus, etc. you can have the best sensor in the world but if you slap a cheapo lens on the camera, it won't matter much. if you want to know how a g10 compares with a 5d, you need to test them both. dpreview has done that, and the g10 will have slightly higher resolution, but a lot more noise. Size of pixel/photosite where resolution increase would not equal additional pixels. Is there a certain way in which noise is related to the size of the individual photosite? Or is that dependent upon other factors that can be addressed through better engineering/manufacture of the sensor? the bigger the better, but better sensor technology counts too. a small sensor of today might be better than a large sensor of a few years ago, but you can always make a larger sensor with the latest technology so it's moot. Conversion of Bayer pattern only affect colors of image. Finally, do the algorithms used to convert the output of a Bayer-type sensor independently process luminance and color information? I guess that would be, does the algorithm produce color and luminance information independently of each other such that a grayscale value could be produced for each pixel without using information collected at more than one photosite? there are many many ways to demosaic bayer images, and you will need more than one photosite no matter what you do. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:02:21 -0500, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Miller wrote: Just some random, mostly resolution-related questions. I fully accept that the questions themselves may be misguided, so feel free to interpret. Chip size, noise and other stuff. All other things being equal, will a larger sensor have more noise? no. for a given sensor technology and pixel count, a larger sensor will have larger pixels, and therefore have less noise. http://www.spamsite.com/imagedetail/...formance.summa ry/ I guess that's why this 1/2.5" sized sensor has more dynamic range than most APS-C sized DSLR sensors which only have 7-8 EV stops. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg You're a pretend-photographer troll, one that loves nothing better than to spout biased misinformation posted by another DSLR-Troll who posted tests on his website to justify why he wasted all that money on his DSLR gear. I.e. Clarkblindness.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
In article , NameHere
wrote: I guess that's why this 1/2.5" sized sensor has more dynamic range than most APS-C sized DSLR sensors which only have 7-8 EV stops. most dslr sensors are capable of over 12 stops, limited by the d/a converter. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
nospam wrote:
most dslr sensors are capable of over 12 stops, limited by the d/a converter. Is this the limit? Then why did Fuji have their fancy "super" sensor with differing sizes of sites? I wonder why someone does not come out with a 16 bit a/d chip? Pete -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:30:06 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote: NameHere wrote: On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:02:21 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Miller wrote: Just some random, mostly resolution-related questions. I fully accept that the questions themselves may be misguided, so feel free to interpret. Chip size, noise and other stuff. All other things being equal, will a larger sensor have more noise? no. for a given sensor technology and pixel count, a larger sensor will have larger pixels, and therefore have less noise. http://www.spamsite.com/imagedetail/...formance.summa ry/ I guess that's why this 1/2.5" sized sensor has more dynamic range than most APS-C sized DSLR sensors which only have 7-8 EV stops. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg You're a pretend-photographer troll, one that loves nothing better than to [snip] Don't mind this loon. He has no idea what he's talking about, & delights in wasting everybody's time. Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic." http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
... In article , lid says... most dslr sensors are capable of over 12 stops, limited by the d/a converter. Not true. Most DSLRs have less than 9 stops of dynamic range, according to the tests of dpreview. See for instance the Nikon D300s: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page17.asp The best it achieves is 8.6 EV. Even the D3, with its bigger pixels is not better: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page20.asp Also here the maximum is 8.6EV. Reading all the way down to "RAW headroom" on the D3 link, 2nd paragraph: "As usual the default Adobe Camera RAW conversion delivers less dynamic range than JPEG from the camera (a more contrasty tone curve and very little noise reduction in shadows). Simply switching to 'Auto' in the ACR conversion dialog reaps huge rewards (we measured the result to have exactly 12 stops of dynamic range), and in our tests with real world shots produced superb results with images that seemed to be over exposed beyond redemption." -Jim |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote: most dslr sensors are capable of over 12 stops, limited by the d/a converter. Not true. Most DSLRs have less than 9 stops of dynamic range, according to the tests of dpreview. See for instance the Nikon D300s: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page17.asp dpreview tests dynamic range by comparing jpegs which is bogus, to say the least. The best it achieves is 8.6 EV. Even the D3, with its bigger pixels is not better: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page20.asp Also here the maximum is 8.6EV. scroll to the bottom where they measured 12 stops with raw. dxo labs measured it at 12.2 he http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3 and roger clark measured 13.7 here, but he measures the capability of the sensor itself, not the rest of the system. http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...formance.summa ry/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Nagging questions
nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Miller wrote: Just some random, mostly resolution-related questions. I fully accept that the questions themselves may be misguided, so feel free to interpret. Chip size, noise and other stuff. All other things being equal, will a larger sensor have more noise? no. for a given sensor technology and pixel count, a larger sensor will have larger pixels, and therefore have less noise. http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...formance.summa ry/ Okay, but if the larger sensor has pixels of the same size, will it have more noise? Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nagging questions | Eric Miller | Digital Photography | 13 | December 7th 09 03:49 AM |
Nagging questions | Eric Miller | 35mm Photo Equipment | 17 | December 7th 09 03:49 AM |
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions | Linux Flash Drives | Digital Photography | 0 | May 7th 07 06:38 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography | David J Taylor | Digital Photography | 10 | March 24th 05 06:18 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography | Progressiveabsolution | Digital Photography | 4 | March 24th 05 05:11 PM |