Pixel Density is GENIUS!

Started Jul 13, 2008 | Discussions thread
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 28,124
Re: The exaggeration of the year?

RRJackson wrote:

Which of course they are unless you scale the noise and the image
down to compensate. Which is just peachy for times when you're
shooting at 800 and you really want to share the image, but it's too
noisy at native resolution. It's a completely useless tactic for the
shot you might have been able to get at 6400, but all the teensy
sensor saw was this:

"link to colorful noise"

I could take any camera, keep the lens cap on, increase the color saturation and contrast - and I would get something similar.

In practice - the normal way to design a camera is.

First - decide on sensor size and appropriate lenses. This is the main design constraint for the system.

Second - decide on number of pixels. The more pixels the higher resolution. The more pixels the more data to handle - which take time and power.

Third - choose technology that can handle the pixel density graceful. This includes designing micro lenses to get the fill factor back to nearly 100% even for small pixels.

It is this number three we are discussing - and there exist different opinions regarding the optimum pixel density. Some claim it shall be as low as possible, some the opposite and some that there is an optimal somewhere.

Now - assuming there is an optimum (which I doubt) - can anyone state the figure? Is it 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 Mpixels per square cm?

-- hide signature --

Roland

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BJN
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow