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 Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 20th 18, 07:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/19/2018 5:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

size matters. full frame sensors have about a stop less noise than crop
sensors, which have about a stop less noise than micro 4/3rds, which
have a lot less noise than compact cameras and certainly cellphone
cameras, which have tiny sensors and very aggressive noise reduction
(which works fairly well, but not without compromise).

So a bigger sensor means less noise for the same sensor type.

Nospam ignores the fact that his reply to my comment was comparing
_cameras_, not the noise level of a single sensor cell.

i was comparing cameras.

Nope.


wrong.

At 12mp, the
final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same
linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor
but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final
image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor
cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the
sensor cell's noise level.

false.


Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS.


i've done the math, as have many others.

simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr.

The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller
sensored camera. So, you not only were not comparing the cameras under
discussion, but your math is irrelevant. NOBODY was talking about two
cameras with the same resolution but you.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #22  
Old April 20th 18, 08:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

In article , Neil
wrote:

At 12mp, the
final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same
linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor
but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final
image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor
cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the
sensor cell's noise level.

false.

Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS.


i've done the math, as have many others.

simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr.


The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller
sensored camera.


that would be comparing *two* variables and then attributing any
difference to only one of them.

in other words, an invalid comparison.

and actually, it's more than just two variables since the lenses will
be different, the sensor technology is different, the exposure and raw
processing will be different as well as many other factors.

So, you not only were not comparing the cameras under
discussion, but your math is irrelevant.


math is never irrelevant.

if not for the math (and physics), there wouldn't be any cameras.

NOBODY was talking about two
cameras with the same resolution but you.


that's the only proper comparison.

if more than one variable is different, then anything goes.
  #23  
Old April 20th 18, 08:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.


It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.


I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #24  
Old April 20th 18, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/20/2018 3:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

At 12mp, the
final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same
linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor
but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final
image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor
cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the
sensor cell's noise level.

false.

Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS.

i've done the math, as have many others.

simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr.


The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller
sensored camera.


that would be comparing *two* variables and then attributing any
difference to only one of them.

in other words, an invalid comparison.

Not at all. I'm talking about the resulting images, which is all that I
care about. You're talking about sensor cell performance which is not an
issue, since it's obvious that larger sensors will have lower S/N ratios
than smaller ones. Only you are talking about that aspect in response to
my comment.

and actually, it's more than just two variables since the lenses will
be different, the sensor technology is different, the exposure and raw
processing will be different as well as many other factors.

My comment was ONLY about preferring to carry a smaller, much higher
resolution camera. All pertinent factors, such as those you mentioned
are taken into consideration because I'm only comparing the resulting
images of subjects. I doubt that sensor noise will be the most degrading
element in that comparison.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #25  
Old April 20th 18, 09:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

In article , Neil
wrote:

At 12mp, the
final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the
same
linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor
but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final
image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual
sensor
cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the
sensor cell's noise level.

false.

Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS.

i've done the math, as have many others.

simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr.

The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller
sensored camera.


that would be comparing *two* variables and then attributing any
difference to only one of them.

in other words, an invalid comparison.

Not at all.


yes at all.

you *can't* attribute a difference in image quality to any one factor
when multiple factors are different.

I'm talking about the resulting images, which is all that I
care about. You're talking about sensor cell performance which is not an
issue, since it's obvious that larger sensors will have lower S/N ratios
than smaller ones.


apparently not obvious to everyone.

Only you are talking about that aspect in response to
my comment.


because i understand the physics involved.

and actually, it's more than just two variables since the lenses will
be different, the sensor technology is different, the exposure and raw
processing will be different as well as many other factors.


My comment was ONLY about preferring to carry a smaller, much higher
resolution camera. All pertinent factors, such as those you mentioned
are taken into consideration because I'm only comparing the resulting
images of subjects. I doubt that sensor noise will be the most degrading
element in that comparison.


most people prefer to carry smaller cameras than lug an 8x10 behemoth
around, or even an slr. often, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. sometimes it
isn't.

a photo studio may choose to use a large format camera for the utmost
quality because it *doesn't* have to be moved. the subjects come to
*it*, not the other way around.

pick the best tool for the job.
  #26  
Old April 23rd 18, 01:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.


You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #27  
Old April 23rd 18, 09:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.


you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases.

So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the
8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality! Why did you ask
"what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"?

The advantage of large sensors is their performance in extreme low-light
conditions, which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image
flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in
post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw"
images are not that impressive.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #28  
Old April 24th 18, 01:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.

you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases.

So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the
8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality!


Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in film days other than being part of the grain.
Noise is sensors is quite differnt.

I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an
variation in the output from a source signal. In film, grain is just one
of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to
vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal").


Why did you ask
"what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"?


because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ?

Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would
cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower
resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the
reason for asking the question is puzzling.


The advantage of large sensors is their performance in extreme low-light
conditions,


amonst other thin gs.


which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image
flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in
post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw"
images are not that impressive.


The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and better repeatability than a JOOC image could be.

JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw. The TG-4
does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome
only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything
other than still subjects.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #29  
Old April 24th 18, 04:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/24/2018 9:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:37:53 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.

you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases.

So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the
8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality!

Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in film days other than being part of the grain.
Noise is sensors is quite differnt.

I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an
variation in the output from a source signal.


No it is NOT.
Noise is defined as unwanted signal.
Lik students talking at the back of the class.

That is correct for one usage of the term. However, you must be aware
that there are others that are just as valid because they're analogous
but not measured in the same way? For example, when one refers to the
S/N of audio speakers, it is a figure assigned that does not take into
consideration any particular environment, so "noise" is therefore not an
external factor as it is in your example. Let's move on.

In film, grain is just one
of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to
vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal").


sort of right but what is your source signal ?

The subject being photographed.

Why did you ask
"what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"?

because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ?

Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would
cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower
resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the
reason for asking the question is puzzling.


because sufficiently means very little and isn't very accurate or scientific.
We can travel sufficiently close to the speed of sound anyhting esle as virtually meaningless.

In this context, "sufficiently" means "...enough to be the primary
reason for a poorer representation of the subject".






which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image
flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in
post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw"
images are not that impressive.

The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and better repeatability than a JOOC image could be.

JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw.


No it isn't if you're using JOOC.


The TG-4
does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome
only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything
other than still subjects.


Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that.

I don't see any bellows on that camera, and it would be just as easy to
attach one to the TG-4, if that mattered, because it does have
interchangeable lenses and standard thread mounts. So, it doesn't and
we're back to basics: which represents most subjects better, higher
resolution *in color* or lower S/N in monochrome?

--
best regards,

Neil
  #30  
Old April 25th 18, 12:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!

On 4/25/2018 5:11 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 16:29:27 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/24/2018 9:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:37:53 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.

you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases.

So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the
8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality!

Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in film days other than being part of the grain.
Noise is sensors is quite differnt.

I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an
variation in the output from a source signal.

No it is NOT.
Noise is defined as unwanted signal.
Lik students talking at the back of the class.

That is correct for one usage of the term. However, you must be aware
that there are others that are just as valid because they're analogous
but not measured in the same way?


Then how are they analogous.

For example, when one refers to the
S/N of audio speakers, it is a figure assigned that does not take into
consideration any particular environment, so "noise" is therefore not an
external factor as it is in your example. Let's move on.


You're talking crap, we used to test loudspeakers here, we had one of the few anachoic chambers in the country. Noise is NOT a feature of speakers. They DO NOT have a S/N ratio.

Oh, you think I made up that usage? I did not, and I don't particularly
agree with it, either. Usage is about communication, and that usage
communicates with many folks even though it doesn't remotely represent
your limited definition of noise being an external factor. Put your
hands over your ears and yell "blah blah" all you want. No one cares.

In film, grain is just one
of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to
vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal").

sort of right but what is your source signal ?

The subject being photographed.


SO what 'noise' comes from this source. See you even have this wrong NOISE does not come from the subject, well unless they are students of course, then it's almost pure noise.


Why did you ask
"what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"?

because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ?

Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would
cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower
resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the
reason for asking the question is puzzling.

because sufficiently means very little and isn't very accurate or scientific.
We can travel sufficiently close to the speed of sound anyhting esle as virtually meaningless.

In this context, "sufficiently" means "...enough to be the primary
reason for a poorer representation of the subject".


So pretty meaningless then as I suspected.

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image
flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in
post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw"
images are not that impressive.

The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and better repeatability than a JOOC image could be.

JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw.

No it isn't if you're using JOOC.

Keep setting up your straw men, I'll keep shooting them.


The TG-4
does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome
only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything
other than still subjects.

Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that.

I don't see any bellows on that camera,


Then go to specsavers, or another opticians.

and it would be just as easy to
attach one to the TG-4,


yeah sure it would.

Why do you believe that your personal limitations apply to everyone? If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon. I'd take one of my TG-4 lenses to the
closest MakerSpace ( 10 minute drive), do a 3D scan of the lens mount,
send the file to the CNC machine and attach the new mount to one of my
bellows. No big deal at all.

if that mattered, because it does have
interchangeable lenses and standard thread mounts. So, it doesn't and
we're back to basics:


a pin hole camera is back to basics

which represents most subjects better,


The 10X8 camera isn't for most subjects any more than the space shuttle was meant as public transport to the ISS.

I see no particular value to that camera. At 12mp it can do nothing that
can't be done better with dozens of cameras at a fraction of its cost.
Dance all you want, set up as many straw men as you want, and refuse to
give the obvious answer to the original question. No one cares.

higher
resolution *in color* or lower S/N in monochrome?


--
best regards,

Neil
 




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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trying to print a camera shot bigger than A4 edigi Digital Photography 2 May 13th 07 09:35 AM
Printing longer than 44 inches shockey Digital Photography 0 February 10th 05 03:12 AM
MegaPixels and Inches Explained PR General Photography Techniques 0 February 12th 04 07:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 AM.


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.