More Pixel Density

Started Jul 28, 2008 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 20,562
More Pixel Density

Well, some people requested the 400D pixels vs the FZ50 pixels at the ISO 1600 setting on the 400D, to take advantage of the high ISO advantage with Canon CMOS, so here we go. Again, the exposure is the same, the real focal length is about the same, and the 400D is set here to ISO 1600. Actual exposure index is about ISO 2000 or a little higher for both. Just RAW interpolated, with WB based on the grey fabric under the subjects. Large images are at the FZ50's native pixel resolution, and the insets are at the 400D's native pixel resolution. 400D on the left, and FZ50 on the right:

Clearly, the 400D has an edge here in read noise even at the image level.

However, I find that no consolation, as it doesn't really help us to see what's really there any better, because of the lower resolution. The FZ50 is displaying line noises here, which, combined with the WB parameters, makes for a lot of little red streaks most visible in the dark areas. These line noises are not a necessary part of a small sensor or small pixels; they're just a sloppiness in readout, which could easily be addressed in a camera with a better electronics budget.

I have viewed the FZ50 100% crop in Lab mode and applied a 3px gaussian blur to the a and b channels, and the chromatic noise disappeared, while the luminance advantage to the FZ50 image lost no ground. NR isn't going to add resolution to the 400D versions, and sharpening the 400D upsampled version to try to make it look as sharp as the FZ50 original makes it even noisier than the FZ50 original.

IMO, the FZ50 versions, even though they have more statistical read noise, have more potential.

-- hide signature --

John

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow