more pixels are better!

Started Dec 14, 2008 | Discussions thread
OP Iforgetwhat8was4 Contributing Member • Posts: 795
Re: Are those figures for "print" or "screen"? (nt)

Graystar wrote:

Les Olson wrote:

For any quantity the correct approach is to compare
first the actual value. Adjusted, normalised, or standardised values
can be compared IF they serve a purpose, and it does not matter
whether you are talking about "seasonally adjusted unemployment" or
normalised SNR. The trap, as in this case, is to use normalisations
that encode ideas about the right answer.

I agree with this completely. The question, “which sensor produces
the best image quality” should be answered by comparing the actual
values in questions... images produced by those sensors. And I
can't think of any better normalizing process that encodes the ideas
about the right answer than to compare two prints of the same size.

Actually, the OP wondered if there was a concise statement of how and why image degrades with higher pixelsite density. He now feels like a trolling slut, and while the SNR discussion is interesting, he doesn't understand it well enough to explain it to his friends that aren't as technical. But he is too lazy to read the Nikon write-up, so maybe it's his own damn fault.

The OP was wondering if a high MP compact ever could, under idea
conditions and through the use of brute megapixel power, produce a
print that would “rival a smaller count SLR” (and if not, why.) The
answer is flat out no, it can't. The simple fact is that at all
print sizes, the image from the small-sensored camera will always
appear to have more noise than the same image from the large-sensored
camera...regardless of the pixel counts of the two sensors. That's a
sensor issue. Also, diffraction places limits on how large the
small-sensored image can be enlarged. The large-sensored image will
have greater acutance. That's a sensor/lens issue. Both of these
issues, and others, combine to give the large-sensored image better
image quality all the time.

The OP is really more interested in whether a 6Mp compact will be a better all around performer than a 12Mp compact, or if this is just an artifact of other design choices made that reviewers don't like. In particular, what are the theoretical and practical limits in IQ if you downsize to 6Mp?

The OP merely speculated that greater resolution was the cheapest way to giving a compact something to brag about. The OP suspect Graystar thinks of IQ as an absolute and very closely related to "noise free".

The only way a small-sensored camera will ever produce an image that
will rival a large-sensored camera is if it's a picture of white wall.

Why? It will still be noisier than a DSLR, and it will be very hard to detect pixelization in the DSLR blowup...

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