pixel density

Started Oct 18, 2013 | Discussions
utomo99
Regular MemberPosts: 366
Like?
pixel density
Oct 18, 2013

Now the mega pixel war is over.
Many people now want big sensor to get better image.
I suggest dpreview add pixel density info.
So we know that mega pixel divided by sensor size number.
I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.
Cmiiw

D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 9,924
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to utomo99, Oct 19, 2013

utomo99 wrote:

Now the mega pixel war is over.
Many people now want big sensor to get better image.
I suggest dpreview add pixel density info.
So we know that mega pixel divided by sensor size number.
I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.
Cmiiw

I believe we will get better images with a higher pixel density, but I agree that it might be nice to have it stated.

It would also be good if all sensor sizes were given in mm, rather than using obscure terms such as M4/3.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to D Cox, Oct 19, 2013

D Cox wrote:

utomo99 wrote:

Now the mega pixel war is over.
Many people now want big sensor to get better image.
I suggest dpreview add pixel density info.
So we know that mega pixel divided by sensor size number.
I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.
Cmiiw

I believe we will get better images with a higher pixel density, but I agree that it might be nice to have it stated.

You'll get noisier images that can be viewed or printed bigger. Not a good thing.

It would also be good if all sensor sizes were given in mm, rather than using obscure terms such as M4/3.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Futax
Regular MemberPosts: 336Gear list
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to Basalite, Oct 20, 2013

Basalite wrote:

D Cox wrote:

utomo99 wrote:

Now the mega pixel war is over.
Many people now want big sensor to get better image.
I suggest dpreview add pixel density info.
So we know that mega pixel divided by sensor size number.
I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.
Cmiiw

I believe we will get better images with a higher pixel density, but I agree that it might be nice to have it stated.

You'll get noisier images that can be viewed or printed bigger. Not a good thing.

It would also be good if all sensor sizes were given in mm, rather than using obscure terms such as M4/3.

Well, each pixel will have more noise, but for printed (or displayed) images of the same size, noise will be the same.  This is because any downsampling introduces binning, and the more pixels, the more binning.

 Futax's gear list:Futax's gear list
Sigma DP1 Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Panasonic Lumix DMC-XS1 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Henry Falkner
Forum ProPosts: 12,502Gear list
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to utomo99, Oct 20, 2013

utomo99 wrote:

Now the mega pixel war is over.
Many people now want big sensor to get better image.
I suggest dpreview add pixel density info.
So we know that mega pixel divided by sensor size number.
I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.
Cmiiw

DPReview did quote pixel density for a while, and then they went off it again.

I have three cameras with three different pixel counts at the same 1/2.3 size.

The 10 MP CCD in the SP-570UZ 20x zoom bridge camera (2008) I considered a vital step-up of resolution from the 7 MP in the SP-550UZ. It also has more shadow detail with less noise in it.

Then the 14 MP CCD in the Stylus 9010 10x zoom pocket P&S (2010) beat the SP-570UZ for both shadow detail and noise, AND it has better colour separation. That is disgusting. A P&S should not be allowed to beat a bridge camera for IQ.

Then the 16 MP BSI CMOS sensor in the 24x zoom SZ-30MR pocket P&S (2011) beat the first two for shadow detail, noise, resolution, colour separation and saturation.

These three shots were taken in quick succession in stable daylight conditions.

This link gives you the individual images and their exif -

http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner/henry102

The pixel density goes up from year to year - and so does the IQ, which goes against expectation. I suppose that is why DPReview stopped quoting pixel density.

Henry

-- hide signature --
 Henry Falkner's gear list:Henry Falkner's gear list
Olympus SP-570 UZ Olympus SH-50 Olympus Stylus SH-1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nigel Wilkins
Senior MemberPosts: 1,006
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to utomo99, Oct 20, 2013

utomo99 wrote:

Now the mega pixel war is over.
Many people now want big sensor to get better image.
I suggest dpreview add pixel density info.
So we know that mega pixel divided by sensor size number.
I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.
Cmiiw

You can't accurately judge image quality by numbers alone...you have to use your eyes to see it.

-- hide signature --

nigelwilkinsphotography.com
.
Everything to do with photography is a guideline. The only rules are generally enforced by the police.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lee Jay
Forum ProPosts: 46,171Gear list
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to utomo99, Oct 20, 2013

utomo99 wrote:

Now the mega pixel war is over.
Many people now want big sensor to get better image.
I suggest dpreview add pixel density info.
So we know that mega pixel divided by sensor size number.

They used to have it, and many of us begged them to get rid of it because of the confusion it caused.

I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.

That's the confusion - you are wrong and, in most cases, the opposite is true.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +25 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,814
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to utomo99, Oct 20, 2013

utomo99 wrote:

I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.

And that's why there's no more pixel density metric, it mislead many people.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Oly Canikon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,027
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to utomo99, Oct 20, 2013

utomo99 wrote:

I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.

You got that backwards. Generally higher density gives a better image.

But as with everything, not just photography, it is the whole system that matters not just one factor. We are limited by the weakest link. There is no benefit to go to a higher resolution sensor if for example the lens is not up to the task.

The biggest advantage to high pixel density is that the AA filter can be eliminated (or at least weakened) without adding artifacts.

There is very little correlation with pixel density to noise or DR. This has been proven beyond a doubt by every new camera that hits the market.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Draek
Senior MemberPosts: 2,028Gear list
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to utomo99, Oct 20, 2013

It was taken off for being useless. Why? three reasons:

Firstly, that even if you cared for pixel-level performance, what you care about is pixel size, not density, and technologies such as BSI send any density -> size relationship to the trashbin.

Secondly, the fact that sensors continue to improve their pixel-level performance, even for the same size. The 20 Mpx Sony A58 kicks the almighty rear off the 10 Mpx A100, both with APS-C sensors -- of course that's cheating a bit since one's a CMOS and the other's a CCD, but then that's the point.

And most importantly, because pixel-level performance is largely irrelevant for image-level detail -- what you should actually care about. All else equal, four noisy pixels from a 36 Mpx camera will perform together just as well (or poorly) as a single 'clean' pixel from a 9 Mpx sensor due to the wonders of Signal Processing theory.

 Draek's gear list:Draek's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Samsung TL500 Canon PowerShot A1200 Sony Alpha DSLR-A390
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 9,924
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to Oly Canikon, Oct 20, 2013

Oly Canikon wrote:

utomo99 wrote:

I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.

You got that backwards. Generally higher density gives a better image.

But as with everything, not just photography, it is the whole system that matters not just one factor. We are limited by the weakest link. There is no benefit to go to a higher resolution sensor if for example the lens is not up to the task.

Looking ahead there is. Deconvolution software is constantly improving, and so long as there are plenty of pixels to work with, it may well be possible to correct the lens aberrations in an image, in a few years' time.

See for instance

http://www.piccure.de/piccure_lens_correction_EN.pdf

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lee Jay
Forum ProPosts: 46,171Gear list
Like?
Re: pixel density
In reply to D Cox, Oct 20, 2013

D Cox wrote:

Oly Canikon wrote:

utomo99 wrote:

I believe we can get better image by having lower pixel density.

You got that backwards. Generally higher density gives a better image.

But as with everything, not just photography, it is the whole system that matters not just one factor. We are limited by the weakest link. There is no benefit to go to a higher resolution sensor if for example the lens is not up to the task.

Looking ahead there is. Deconvolution software is constantly improving, and so long as there are plenty of pixels to work with, it may well be possible to correct the lens aberrations in an image, in a few years' time.

Even without deconvolution, the statement was untrue anyway.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +25 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads