The Joy of Pixel Density

Started Jul 13, 2008 | Discussions thread
dethis New Member • Posts: 4
Re: 400D Dynamic range not sensor limited

John Sheehy wrote:

DSPographer wrote:

The shadow noise in the 400D at 100 ISO is determined by the
circuitry downstream of the large sensor pixels. This is shown by how
much lower the absolute noise is at 1600 ISO. The shadow noise at 100
ISO is also only relevant in terms of a high dynamic range image. For
an image with room to increase ISO gain without clipping problems the
400D image should have been shot at a higher ISO setting. So you are
comparing small to large pixels using a measurement of the noise from
the circuitry downstream of the pixels for images that are improperly
exposed at the wrong ISO.

That's irrelevant to this demonstration.

This was not meant to be proof of overall superiority of the small
pixels. It is to show how far off base is the notion that small
pixels ruin IQ with lots of noise, because of a lack of SNR in the
smaller pixels.

I've already done the FZ50 against a CMOS DSLR at ISO 1600, and
linked to it many times here before. The 10D had no noise benefit,
and a bit less resolution. They were normal ISO 1600 exposures,
though.

The more time I spend here replying to people who are shifting the
context and misparaphrasing me, the less likely you will see any
other related demonstrations anytime soon.

Why can't people say, "yes, I see that the FZ50 pixels render the
same absolute exposure better in base ISO shadows; what else can it
do?", instead of putting words in my mouth suggesting that I am
saying that this is proof of superiority in every IQ aspect?

Nice demonstration John !!. Thanks.

In order to normalize for the 400D's 1stop more headroom i would like the same demonstration but with ISO settings at
a) 100 for FZ50 vs 200 for 400D
b) 200 for FZ50 vs 400 for 400D

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ck3
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow