Pixel Density is GENIUS!

Started Jul 13, 2008 | Discussions thread
RRJackson
OP RRJackson Senior Member • Posts: 2,555
Re: No really, it isn't

simpy wrote:

Is it that much noisier if you downsample both to the same
resolution? It may be, of course, but I haven't seen any evidence to
think it is. If it is, it goes on the pile of anecdotal evidence
indeed, but please forgive me in pointing out that you have also
conveniently ignored the image samples by John Sheehy that would go
on the pile of counterevidence.

I haven't seen any test charts from Mr. Sheehy. I've seen an underexposed low-contrast snapshot that he claims came from a sensor like the one in the Fuji, but refused to expound on the source of the sensor. I've also seen some underexposed crops from two captures that he claims as evidence that smaller photosites are superior to larger photosites in low light. Neither of these presentations has been particularly well documented or controlled.

Meanwhile this site is a massive repository of camera test data that anecdotally points to pixel density as a factor.

I don't have a problem with pixel density not being a factor. It's not like I build a low-pixel-density compact, or even own one. Although I gave my girlfriend a little Panasonic a couple of years ago. My only problem with it conceptually is that I haven't seen any practical evidence of it. Or at least nothing that struck me as being particularly thorough or convincing.

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