In which ways, and why, are smaller sensors more efficient than larger? Part 2

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
cpw
cpw
Regular MemberPosts: 297
Like?
Re: In which ways, and why, are smaller sensors more efficient than larger? Part 2
In reply to Anders W, 10 months ago

Anders W wrote:

...

While I am glad that you like the idea I introduced in my reply to Joe (Great Bustard) here and presented in greater detail in the OP of the present thread, illustrative examples like the one you provide above can be slightly misleading. First, they have to be done right and this one isn't. The ratio of the D4 sensor area to the S100 sensor area is about 21 whereas the ratio of the ISOs for the SNRs you are comparing (DxO measured ISOs of 1192 and 85, respectively) is only about 14. It follows that the comparison is biased against the smaller sensor. Furthermore, the difference between the S120 and the S100 isn't entirely negligible (more than a dB with the measured ISO kept constant at a point close to 100), which introduces additional bias against the smaller sensor. Second, a systematic analysis across the entire sample of sensors/bodies is of course preferable to a single illustration. You find such an analysis in the OP of the present thread.

What the data really says is: When comparing sensors at equivalent operating points (higher ISO for the FF and near base ISO for the smaller sensor as I wrote above), both large and small sensors with similar QEs operate with similar SNRs.

The question of QE aside, smaller sensors do better for SNR in this case too (although that may be because they have higher QE). See the results presented in the OP of this thread.

Hi Anders,

Ok cool.  I only chose S100 because that's all I could find!  Unfortunately I am user impaired, and can't see your results yet.  Is there a way to see it?

When we try to operate the large sensored camera at its lower ISO, an operating point that the small sensored camera can't operate at, then it's achievable SNR, while being larger than at high ISO, is not as high as it could be due to PRNU. This last point, of PRNU limitations, can be ameorilated by use of flat-fielding, which would allow the sensor to operate at its shot noise limit.

It's an ameliorative procedure all right, but would you say it is easily accomplished (and worth doing) for the ordinary photographer (and outside special applications like astrophotography)?

It takes alot of work and only in its infancy yet for photography, but I could see it incorporated as a button if found to be worth doing.  I have tried it for the raw green CFA in my D40 and can eliminate the PRNU so I know it's possible, but to answer your question about its necessity, I don't really know.  It might help for low contrast details and it also eliminates the corner rolloff.  I am of the opinion though, that we pay good money for sensors, and we deserve to have maximum IQ :).  Thanks for all your hard work,

Chris

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow