Pixel Density is GENIUS!

Started Jul 13, 2008 | Discussions thread
Andrew dB Contributing Member • Posts: 970
Re: No really, it isn't

RRJackson wrote:

ejmartin wrote:

Better stop doing math off the top of your head. If you're going to
reduce the full frame sensor by a factor 2.5 in each direction, then
the area reduces by 2.5x2.5=6.25, and now you only get a little less
than 2MP of those big fat D3 photosites.

A 1" CCD is usually 9.6mm x 12.8mm, which is a much smaller sensor
than the D3 sensor, but that's still a pretty big sensor. Even the
2/3" 8-megapixel sensor on the old Olympus C-8080 was only dealing
with a pixel density of 14 MP/cm². I'm fairly confident that a modern
5-megapixel 1" sensor could provide a far superior image to something
like the current 10-13 megapixel 1/1.7’’ sensors, which was the point
I was trying to make, albeit with a math background that took Medical
Ethics instead of Stats on a Dyscalculia disability waiver in film

A compact with a decent sized sensor would be pretty nice. Even a 2/3 chip would be a big improvement but provided the pixel count isn't so high as to make the camera unattractively slow, we don't need to worry about pixel density.

The limiting factor on a hypothetical 20MP compact with a 2/3 sensor isn't image noise, it's that file sizes would be large and the camera might be a bit slow for the market it's being targeted at.

It would be better for DPR to try and educate buyers on the tradeoffs involved with buying a small sensor camera rather than getting bogged down in the complexity of pixel density estimates that are only tangentially related to overall image quality.

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