Reading mode: Light Dark

Pixel density: when Moore is less - discuss!

Go to last post
Ron Poelman said:
broadly speaking, (over various types of sensors and software) once
pixel size drops below a certain dimension, quality goes straight out
the door.
Click to expand...
This is the generally accepted theory. Phil Askey and his cohorts have never questioned this dogma.

I read about this in 2003 and I believed it. In 2004 when Sony announced the V3 I scoffed. My F707 had a 2/3 type sensor, but the V3 had a much smaller 1/1.8 size sensor. (These numbers are totally useless. This is something that needs to be changed. We need to have a sensible way of describing sensor size). See here for sensor size comparisons, but don't read the top which blames noise on pixel size. http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm On top of that the 707 was a 5 megapixel camera but the V3 was boosted up to 7.2 megapixels. I scoffed, but I was wrong. The V3 turned out to be an excellent camera.
Ron Poelman said:
The changes in image quality of the "H" series as the models
progress, is as good as an example as you can find and well
documented here.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a document. That was a lynch mob. You can't learn anything from a lynch mob except that people don't use their minds or their hearts when they gang up on one person.
Ron Poelman said:
Basically, density, sensor size and pixel count are just a way of
establishing pixel size.
Would have been easier for DPR to show that size, or, a ratio of it
VS the optimum size as a "quality" guide.
Click to expand...
There is no optimum size for a pixel. Every sensor is different. Electronics is exciting because it keeps advancing. We are heading for a hundred megapixels on the head of a pin.
Ron Poelman said:
regards,
--
Ron

Click to expand...
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
JortS29 said:
..but there are 2 factors that seem to compromise the theory in
reality IMHO.

One of them is NR, as mentioned by Marti. Many people pixel peep
(and/or crop) regardless of pixel density and pixel amount.
Manufacturers know this and came up with NR. The downside of NR is
unevenly spread detail (low contrast smearing) and artifacts. The
larger the pixel density, the more NR required to make things
viewable at 100%. Whether viewing at 100% is a good thing or not, is
another discussion, but fact is, we have NR and the only way to turn
it off is using RAW (if provided).
In short, reality is, that we crossed a point where NR is starting to
limit (low contrast smearing and artifacts) output (detail), which in
many cases, makes older cameras with less pixels the better choice
for blowing up your pictures or cropping (this mainly goes for
smaller sensor cameras, since they are equipped with more agressive
NR than for example DSLR's). Ofcourse there is some tech advance that
somewhat polishes away the effects mentioned above when comparing
newer to older cameras, but the main advance is in NR algorithms at
higher ISO's IMHO.
Click to expand...
Well, I have to admit that if you want to look at the images from a high pixel density, small size sensor, you can expect to see a lot of noise viewing the images at 100%. You have to look at the size of the sensor, and decide what a reasonable print or web display size would be. At that optimum size, high pixel density is going to maximize your detail, and the noise isn't affected by the number of pixels. I would also guess that it doesn't need to be affected by noise reduction, but I would still like to have the option of turning off noise reduction in camera.
JortS29 said:
The second factor that compromises the theory you mentioned, is the
fact that especially smaller cameras seem to have hit a certain wall.
It reminds me of water. Water is good for your health. Drink a lot an
your kidneys will be grateful. But up to a certain point. The endless
NR battle most small sensor manufacturers are fighting is a testimony
to that. Too much NR results in a smear fest, too little and people
start complaining about grainy blue skies even on bright days. Sony
isn't the only one fighting that beast for many years now, while
being battered by many. I'm not sure what the technical consequences
of hitting this "wall" are and whether there are any. But what I do
see is a clear change in noise since we passed the 6MP border. In the
6MP cameras I mainly see chroma noise in blue bright skies. Easy to
clean without affecting detail. Yet, those cameras didn't have much
NR to begin with. Todays small sensor cameras either have more or
less NR, but fact is they usually do show a little less detail at
comparable sizes, but in most cases show a lot more luminance noise
too. Even the most sophisticated external noise removal programs have
a hard time cleaning that up without compromising low contrast detail
beyond their 6MP (comparison after resampling) brothers and sister.
That still puzzles me (I have both a 6MP and a 8MP superzoom) and
doesn't fit the theory you mentioned.
Click to expand...
When the water hit the wall, I got little confused here. If there is a wall, I think that it is like Mach 1. There may be a sonic boom, but you can get through it, and what's on the other side of it is Mach 2 and Mach 3, and so on. You just have to fly a little differently on the other side.
JortS29 said:
Regards,

Jort
Click to expand...
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
Reichmann compared the W300 against the Samsung NV24. It's not hard for a blechh camera to look good when it's evaluated against one that's probably worst in its class.

high pixel count = detail = m'wee arse ;)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/W300/FULLRES/W300INBAP0.HTM

'bout the only thing the above image sample "resolves" is that I'd be buying something better than the W300... with a lot less mp. And with better optics. Unless my intent was simply to have a pocket cam, in which case, fine & whatever. They're all roughly the same when IQ isn't a criteria.

Whatever compact you decide to use for those party shots to pass around to your email friends, the pic of the snot running out of your drunk buddy's nose a split second before he barfed on himself will look fine, whether it's a little smeared or a bit painterly looking ;). Your friends won't be evaluating picture quality, just whether or not they can see the snot.

What I'm trying to say is, at this level of photography, does it really matter if one perfectly mediocre compact does a little better than another perfectly mediocre compact? No one's going to be preferring one of these things to print fine art let alone anything beyond 8x10's for some personal photo album, so beyond that, who cares really?
--
~ Martin
Personal: http://www.mpolanic.com
PhotoShelter: http://psc.photoshelter.com/user/mpolanic

Alamy: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/59EA39C4-7960-4B90-BDB5-23CC81654FD1/Martin+Polanic.html
 
jrdu said:
I can't see any problem with putting more and more megapixels in each
sensor. More megapixels mean more details. It's all good.
However, all the expert reviewers on this site, continually bemoan
the megapixel wars, and blame Sony most of all. They have taken to
giving Sony cameras lower ratings primarily, I think, because Sony
keeps packing in more megapixels.
Click to expand...
Well looking at the latest W300 sony, it looks good, but clearly the lens isnt able to deliver the details in the corners. Its not bad, sharp in the middle, but its losing it from that point.

At some point, you hit a wall, the demands on optics will be too much. Then you are just getting larger file sizes, and a big fat 0 out of it.

Many compacts are struggling at 10mp optics wise, its only going to get worse.

Considering the intended market for these cameras are small prints shooters, its rather odd anyone would support that kind of thinking

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)
 
1 - DSLR would be the camera for choice to produce less noise and have a bigger sensor. This is where the money can be spent on physical hardware to make the picture happen.

2. P&S cameras did quite well up to 6mp and there were some, like the P200 that did excellent work at 7.1mp.

3. Today, each camera manufacturer has been using tricks and software manipulation of the image to bring us the best pictures they could get out of the camera. No longer are excellent p&s images the brainchild of the lens and sensor, with the photographer behind the shutter button. Instead, it takes a lot of processing to get that image into an "acceptable" and "pleasing" finished product to the point that we can do some more tweaking if need be. It's all a balancing trick and there are some many computations that if you make one adjustment to the processing, you can end up creating havoc elsewhere. We've seen this in the 2007 models of Sony and other brands. Seems like in 2007 we told ourselves it was against the law for us to pixel peep.

Sensor size does play a huge role in the level of noise and the more megapixels is added the more noise control processing has to take place. I have to admit, that the H50 is a prime example of software processing that has gone right. The "do not pixel peep law" does not apply with this camera!!!!

Although, in all fairness, pixel peep the H50 against a true DSLR and you will see the difference. You'll see what a bigger sensor, better lens, experienced photographer and less in-camera processing (RAW) can do to the same image. Obviouisly we are talking about pixel peeping... because I am sure if you print out an 8 x 10 or 10 x 14 that there would not be a noticeable difference by most people unless you tell them what camera did what. I am going to print out my first poster-size print today. I went to the zoo and took pictures of an eagle and it's the best eagle pictures I've ever done. Made me proud to be an American!

So at this point in time, we are truly at the mercy of the camera manufacturer when it comes to P&S and with DSLR we do have a better choice. However, according to dpreview, the new alpha's applies NR to images before saving to RAW so what does that tell you! It tells you that there's a limit and Sony had to break some rules to overcome that limit.

I for one, welcome more megapixels if the balancing act comes out right. I love being able to crop tight and I also love seeing tiny insects at screen size. I love seeing the human eye bigger than life. I love taking one picture and being able to crop away three or four different pictures. The only way I can do this is if the camera manufacturers get it right. If they give me full control like in the H50.
 
made with P80 good light conditions and i think its a job well done by N.....

( maybe a nice one for marion to print )

as mentioned before a lot depends on the way a camera processes a shot lens quality ect.

exif of the shot is there no NR in camera used this is straight from the camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/2640283878/sizes/o/

--
  • living in harmony with nature and other beings...will create an better world for all * marti58 -2006
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/worldwidefriendship/
 
T. L. Rutter said:
2. P&S cameras did quite well up to 6mp and there were some, like the
P200 that did excellent work at 7.1mp.
Click to expand...
I don't think that the number of megapixels is the important measurement for when an image hits the wall. I think it would be reasonable to say that a small sensor can be expected to produce an image that would be accepted up to a certain output size. And that output size is quite huge. I printed shots from my H5 at 20" by 30" and they were flawless. (I have to admit here that I don't have a good eye for discovering flaws - I need someone to draw a black line around them with a felt tip marker for me.) If you add more megapixels, I don't think that you can increase the maximum output size, but maybe you can add more detail. The manufacturers are trying to make their images look good at 100% size by using noise reduction. This may in fact reduce the maximum usable output from the sensor.
T. L. Rutter said:
So at this point in time, we are truly at the mercy of the camera
manufacturer when it comes to P&S and with DSLR we do have a better
choice. However, according to dpreview, the new alpha's applies NR to
images before saving to RAW so what does that tell you! It tells you
that there's a limit and Sony had to break some rules to overcome
that limit.
Click to expand...
People got upset with Sony's cooked RAW. Sony has to try something to compete with Canon's low noise sensor - engine pipeline. Sony's sensors have different strengths but the photography establishment could be accused of focusing on their flaws because reviewers tend to come home to sleep in the Canon camp.
T. L. Rutter said:
I for one, welcome more megapixels if the balancing act comes out
right. I love being able to crop tight and I also love seeing tiny
insects at screen size. I love seeing the human eye bigger than life.
I love taking one picture and being able to crop away three or four
different pictures. The only way I can do this is if the camera
manufacturers get it right. If they give me full control like in the
H50.
Click to expand...
Hear hear, and good luck.
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
jrdu said:
working with large format or medium format cameras? They are a bit
cheaper to buy now than they used to be. Karsh, the famous Canadian
portrait photographer always used a large format camera. The output
is bound to be better than my pocket camera.
Do you think I should consider a Hassy?
Click to expand...
I have experience working with medium format film cameras. As a matter of fact, I still have my old Bronica ETRS, which is a cute 6x4.5 format.

I don't use it anymore because I have decided not to mess up with film anymore but I still keep it because I hope that one day there will be a digital back for it at a reasonable price.

You can buy now medium cameras on ebay for real cheap, sometimes even less than a small p&s but if you haven't got the experience using film, I wouldn't recommend you to start with it. They have an extremely long and expensive learning curve and unless you have the time, the patient and the money to invest in it, don't even think about it. On top of it, these cameras are very bulky and much less flexible than digital ones.

Of course, a digital Hassy is a different story, but we'll have to win the lottery to afford one.

But lets face it. I know that some pros still use them but most great portrait photographers moved to dSLRs. I think that as long as you don't do really huge enlargements, there is no reason to invest i a medium format.

On top of it, you already have a wonderful portrait camera - the R1 and now I can tell you how great it is for portraits from personal experience, because I just bought one two weeks ago.

And an the end of the line, you don't really need a super sharp lens for portraits. Lets look what Yuri ls doing. He shoots beautiful girls with an R1, which has a fantastic sharp lens that can capture every little detail, then in photo shop, he spends lots of time in order to retuche the portraits and removes all blemishes, softens skins and flattens many of these sharp details captured by this wonderful lens.... Most good portrait photographers do the same. Of course, it is nice to have a sharp lens and great detailed format but you can easily do without it.

Cheers
Moti
 
jrdu said:
There is no optimum size for a pixel. Every sensor is different.
Electronics is exciting because it keeps advancing. We are heading
for a hundred megapixels on the head of a pin.
jrdu said:
regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's been a question in my mind. Only so much time in a day to study everything so I've not found the answer, but it seems to me if the same size sensor has two differing megapixel counts then it comes down to is the individual pixel engineered to be packed at that density and still operate at it's maximum efficiency. I am uncertain how much size varies for each pixel but if an OEM can design smaller pixels that work as well as bigger ones then it would make sense they can pack more into a smaller sensor and still have quality. If "There is no optimum size for a pixel. Every sensor is different." As you say (and I tend to agree though I don't know this for certain) then there is no way anyone can compare any camera based on specifications and must rely on the experiences of others (hard due to sales motives) and the quality of the shots they see. It's kind of like wine, drink what tastes good to you. I tend to believe my own eyes more so than what someone tells me I should be seeing. I won't mention brands but I find here on dpreview I tend to like the photos of one brand vs. another, I like the color, clarity, and overall lighting better, but then the subjects always have more color in those photos vs. the other brand so I cannot truly compare those cameras/brands based on the photos. I would be nice if the same colorful subjects were used between brands.
 
Hi John,

later I'll go through the responses of our friends, so if I repeat, just yawn a while and forgive me.

I had to decide for a larger project for digitizing documents which sensors would be used during the timespan of the project. Now, this sounds a bit stupid, because now you can find all kind of them.

But the timespan of the project is 12 years. My final decision was to follow the CMOS as it seems that they will reach 50 or more MP within the next three years for semiprofesional and profesional cameras.

The results we achieved in the filming of ancient maps with the actual combination of a huge cmos sensor and the variossonar from Zeiss are outstanding. So for me, the bigger the sensor gets and the closer the objective is to it, the better.

Photography is full of thousands of very interesting needs and results. To me, there is no megapixels war, just that the more conservative way of interpretation of photography tries to avoid being just one more in the big run.

We will see Sony non-reflex systems with 50MP and more. Not too far away. The sucess stories of Sony non-reflex cameras are overwhelming in their content and number.

Other camera makers do have a long history behind them, full of those stories too.

But lately, the pictures that really make me look and look do not come from those labels.

CMOS? Yes, why not. The bigger the better? Until now, of course. Why not also in the future then. Other cameramakers still have a lot of power? Yes, and that is good. Competition is great and jobs are the biggest value in economy, at least in my opinion.

Hopy you found something interesting in my thoughts.

Kindos regardos, amigo

Miguel
--
Moving as smooth as possible on a thin skin of ice protecting me from myself
 
Call ME crazy, but I don't think I fully understand what you are saying. Why do you think sensor size is the key and not pixel size?
More directly, why do you think they are entirely unrelated?
--
'I remember when the days were long
And the nights when the living room was on the lawn:
Constant quarrelling, the childish fits,
And our clothes in a pile on the ottoman;
All the slander and doublespeak
Were only foolish attempts to show you did not mean
Anything but the blatant proof
Was your lips touching mine in a photobooth.'

my Site. Read the Blog, add me to flickr!:
http://www.instantkamera.ca
 
the more pixels you have the more details you get in the whole image.

While it's true that tiny pixels have a lower signal to noise ratio than large pixels, this has no effect on the amount of noise in the whole sensor.
You get your photo from the whole sensor.
Therefore pixel density is a bogus spec unrelated to noise or image quality.

As I pointed out above, I'm talking about the architecture of sensors and not their engineering.

If you are getting messy output from a sensor, don't blame the pixels, judge whether or not the sensor is big enough for the job you are trying to get it to do.
--
John Dunn

Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid= {8B9B811D-AD1C-4A7D-923E-A4D0930BB5EE}
 
jrdu said:
the more pixels you have the more details you get in the whole image.
While it's true that tiny pixels have a lower signal to noise ratio
than large pixels, this has no effect on the amount of noise in the
whole sensor.
Click to expand...
Sorry John, that's the point where you are wrong. Possibly it's not too easy to understand the increase of photon noise with smaller pixels. But the decrease of signal-to-noise ratio (due to nearly constant sensor read noise and less signal) should be clear to everybody.

Olaf
 
jrdu said:
the more pixels you have the more details you get in the whole image.
While it's true that tiny pixels have a lower signal to noise ratio
than large pixels, this has no effect on the amount of noise in the
whole sensor.
Click to expand...
why not? the "whole sensor" is a collection of pixel.
jrdu said:
You get your photo from the whole sensor.
Click to expand...
again, a bunch of single pixels (or photosites, i guess to be more specific.)
jrdu said:
Therefore pixel density is a bogus spec unrelated to noise or image
quality.
As I pointed out above, I'm talking about the architecture of sensors
and not their engineering.
If you are getting messy output from a sensor, don't blame the
pixels, judge whether or not the sensor is big enough for the job you
are trying to get it to do.
Click to expand...
Again, you haven't answered WHY you think these specs are unrelated.

the sensor size is an issue, sure, because it DIRECTLY EFFECTS the pixels. Specifically their size. Hence, the measurement of density to illustrate the difference between two cameras who advertise the same pixel count.

I also notice, while there has been some mention of the light collecting ability for pixels of various size and general s/n ratio talk, I think density becomes important as it also helps illustrate (at least for me) the phenomenon of cross-photosite noise (for lack of better term). The closer you are to your neighbor, the easier you can (inadvertently) pick up their conversations.

The fact that we have improved certain technical characteristics of these sensors, and definitely improved NR (both in camera and in software/raw converters) has helped the companies continue to up MP count without as much degradation as would be expected, but it's still a fact that the more photosites you squeeze onto a chip, the noisier that chip will be.

--
'I remember when the days were long
And the nights when the living room was on the lawn:
Constant quarreling, the childish fits,
And our clothes in a pile on the ottoman;
All the slander and doublespeak
Were only foolish attempts to show you did not mean
Anything but the blatant proof
Was your lips touching mine in a photobooth.'

my Site. Read the Blog, add me to flickr!:
http://www.instantkamera.ca
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top