Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp?

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:17:18 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
wrote:

Ok. I was actually not looking for a terribly specific answer,
just a general one like "It seems that 1/1.8" is really not that
effective about 6mp, in my opinion" or something like that. Or
maybe "I think 1/1.8" sorta maxes out at 8mp in general before
you get to a point of diminishing returns." No biggie. Thanks
for the reply though - I do appreciate it.

You're welcome.
I'm usually of the opinion that you can make most of these
determinations for yourself. Asking this sort of question only seems
to stir up debate based on personal opinion, simply because there is
no pat answer. It's up to what is acceptable to your own audience.

80-400 probably

Define "sufficient".
It depends on what you find acceptable.
You can go to many sites that review cameras and look at the
representative pictures, and even at specific pictures
designed to show noise (I assume you're worried about noise
from these sensors at the ISOs you mention). Decide for
yourself, because we really can't decide for you.
If the noise is acceptable to you, then the sensor is
sufficient for your needs.
It really is that simple.


--
Senator Joe Biden apologized
Thursday for calling Senator
Barack Obama clean and articulate.
He may have crippled his own
presidential campaign. Within
the hour Joe Biden was endorsed
by Mel Gibson, Isaiah Washington,
Michael Richards and Borat.

David J Taylor wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
of data?
Inadequate. Also for 6MP.

Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
4/3"?
Or even bigger. I think I'd be happier with my D200 if the sensor
were divided up into 8 or even 6 MP instead of the 10 it actually is
-- I think that'd get me better ISO 1600 and maybe a real 3200, and
for me that tradeoff is easily worth the MP loss.

What is to stop you resampling the 10MP down to 6MP to achieve the same
noise level as a 6MP sensor?

There's nothing to stop me resampling down. I'm not clear that it in
fact gives me the same (or better; I'd settle for better) noise
characteristics as the bigger original pixels would. If it does, then
never mind :-), I'm already doing it (since I resample to the size I
want based on issues including whether I think the noise permits that
size).

David Dyer-Bennet writes:
There's nothing to stop me resampling down. I'm not clear that it in
fact gives me the same (or better; I'd settle for better) noise
characteristics as the bigger original pixels would.

That hasn't helped when I've tried it, though maybe there are better
ways.

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
You say POE TAY TOE, I say French Fries.

There's plenty of room for both schools of thought. No harm, no
foul.

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
There is no solid concensus. Some people get irritated that
they have to scroll, and get mad at people who don't top post.

But there's a consensus, and while not terribly solid, it's
established here that trimming and bottom posting are
preferred.

No; in this case you're being contrary.

--
lsmft

On Feb 12, 12:47 pm, "Paul D. Sullivan" wrote:
You say POE TAY TOE, I say French Fries.

There's plenty of room for both schools of thought. No harm, no
foul.

The beginning of your last sentence reminded me that, as usual,
Feynman said it best:
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
(look at the title of the talk)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[]
Or even bigger. I think I'd be happier with my D200 if the sensor
were divided up into 8 or even 6 MP instead of the 10 it actually is
-- I think that'd get me better ISO 1600 and maybe a real 3200, and
for me that tradeoff is easily worth the MP loss.

What is to stop you resampling the 10MP down to 6MP to achieve the
same noise level as a 6MP sensor?

There's nothing to stop me resampling down. I'm not clear that it in
fact gives me the same (or better; I'd settle for better) noise
characteristics as the bigger original pixels would. If it does, then
never mind :-), I'm already doing it (since I resample to the size I
want based on issues including whether I think the noise permits that
size).

I /thought/ you might say that because the individual pixels were smaller,
they might not occupy quite the same fraction of the sensitive area as
larger pixels (because the supporting structures occupied a greater
fraction of the available pixel area). As they were a smaller fraction,
they might be less sensitive. Of course, this is probably offset by the
10MP sensor being newer and perhaps a fraction more sensitive!

By resampling, you are effectively limiting both the spatial bandwidth of
the noise, and the spatial bandwidth of the image. I guess it's
subjective whether you prefer any particular image sharper and grainier,
or software and smoother.

David

In article , John
McWilliams says...
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
There is no solid concensus. Some people get irritated that they
have to scroll, and get mad at people who don't top post.

But there's a consensus, and while not terribly solid, it's established
here that trimming and bottom posting are preferred.

No such thing as a consensus that bottom posting is better. But there
are bottom-posters who like to complain when somebody top-posts.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , John
McWilliams says...

But there's a consensus, and while not terribly solid, it's established
here that trimming and bottom posting are preferred.

No such thing as a consensus that bottom posting is better. But there
are bottom-posters who like to complain when somebody top-posts.

I suppose it is or isn't depending on which shade of the word
"consensus" one means. I stated there wasn't a solid consensus,
indicating, I thought, that most regular posters here bottom post, and
importantly, trim.

--
john mcwilliams

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
of data?

Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
4/3"?

Thanks


Paul, your posts won't win any prizes for their penetrating and
challenging incites, but you are first choice for generating the most
responses. Unfortunately, no prizes are currently being offered in that
category.
Dave Cohen

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
SNIP
But there's a consensus, and while not terribly solid, it's
established here that trimming and bottom posting are preferred.

Since most people read from top to bottom, and most also read from
left to right, it seems the logical way to build-up a message.
Especially
on Usenet, where messages can arrive out of sync (an answer
may arrive before the question) and traditionally bandwith is limited,
it makes a lot of sense to post in chronological order and trim all
but
the part(s) one is reacting to.

To keep flying in the face of that is eccentric, egocentric, or just
plain Dutch (with a wink to Bart).

I agree, and wink appreciated.

That, by the way, is (for me) a new use of 'Dutch' in the English
language. Most uses seem to have a somewhat negative connotation,
often related to (alleged) stinginess (instead of common sense ;-)).
For instance, a Dutch crossing (of a street), is the fastest way of
getting from point A to B. Fastest seems efficient/sensible to me ;-)

'Your' example seems to express a kind of (misplaced) belligerence.
Stingy, okay I could live with that, after all why waste one's
resources
when there are so many additional opportunities available?
Belligerence
however, no way! We just claim our right to solve our issues in our
own
(at times unorthodox) way, and we have historically always hated to
pay
taxes to self proclaimed powers ... Nothing wrong with that, is there?

--
Bart