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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Megapixel Race | SimonLW | Digital Photography | 102 | November 1st 06 01:25 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 10:44 AM |
The megapixel race | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 0 | January 3rd 05 09:39 PM |