A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 23rd 10, 02:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...


"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


  #22  
Old September 23rd 10, 02:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...


"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

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.


Aargh.

That is, 16 pixels can count from 0 to 16 times the number of photons any
one pixel could count and thus can count the same number of photons 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


  #23  
Old October 13th 10, 07:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

Rich wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:58 pm, James wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:26:04 +0100, wrote:
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...


... you're WRONG!


There have been some very exciting announcements of new photo
equipment in advance of Photokina, and there are probably one or two
surprises still to come. There have been new point and shoot
digicams, new superzooms, new high quality compact digicams (including
three with optical viewfinders), several new SLRs and a selection of
mirrorless cameras from Sony, Samsung and Panasonic.


But one trend is very clear, and that is that the megapixel race is
far from over. Notable announcements include the Leaf 80 MP digital
back for medium format cameras, Sigma's 46 MP SD-1 DSLR, Nikon's 16 MP
D7000 and the Pentax K-5, also with 16 MP. The pace of increase in MP
may have slowed slightly, but there is no sign of it levelling off.


There have also been some interesting studies where higher pixel densities
offset any effects from increased noise in the smaller photosites. Since
the base level noise is averaged throughout many smaller photosites the
noise disappears and the content's details become more visible.

There *is* a free-lunch that disobeys the laws of troll's-physics.

Smaller photosites does not automatically equate to lesser image quality,


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


It means reduced dynamic range.
  #24  
Old October 13th 10, 07:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...


"Paul Furman" wrote:

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


It means reduced dynamic range.


Not even that. You can always pixel bin (if the camera supports that) the
same DR as larger pixels, or downsample to get very close to the same DR.

The problem is that if you have a 21MP camera, you'll find that you like
21MP images and that downsampled images aren't very interesting.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Megapixel Race SimonLW Digital Photography 102 November 1st 06 02:25 AM
The megapixel race heats up again Roy Smith Digital SLR Cameras 40 July 1st 06 02:28 AM
The megapixel race Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 49 January 6th 05 11:44 AM
The megapixel race Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 0 January 3rd 05 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.