Pixel density - can the playing field be leveled???

Started Jun 6, 2009 | Discussions thread
Steen Bay Veteran Member • Posts: 7,418
Re: Same result..

bushi wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

bushi wrote:

What the illustration shows is that reducing the pixel size from 2,2um to 2,03um in this case actually has increased the light capturing area ('aperture') of the sensor with 25,7%, since the same size sensor has 'room' for 17,5% more 2,03um pixels (than 2,2um pixels) and each 2,03um pixel has 7% larger photosensitive area. The designers could probably (with the newer technology) have increased the light capturing area of the 2,2um pixel with 25,7% instead (keeping the same pixel density), but the result would be the same in both cases, namely 25,7% larger light capturing area for the same sensor size.

Blah, blah, blah. Next time instead of juggling the numbers prepared by someone else back & forth, left & right & back (they may be wrong, they may be purposely misleading, they may be tricky, etc.), think for a couple of seconds and try to understand what I am saying, I am really putting things straight, if somebody only wants to understand.

Yeah, I can clearly see what this illustration shows. I can even see why it was put this way together by marketing dept. Looks convincing, isn't it? We have added some light capturing area, tada! Question is, can you see past this and understand the consequences of this advancement, as I've described later on, if the technological advances achieved in reducing circuitry area/well walls thickness were applied without adding more pixels to the same sensor?

There is no way, assuming the same technology , that adding more pixels to the same sensor will result in the same light sensitive area. Because each additional pixel requires some "dead" sensor area (=non light-capturing area) for his housekeeping tasks, apart from collecting the light. And the overall sensor light collecting area will be diminished by this "dead" bit. Times number of megapixels added, equals significantly less light sensing area. That sieve analogy that I came up with wasn't bad, realy. Try to imagine & understand it.

And I am not comparing the old generation sensor with the new gen one, like the marketing dept is doing for your convenience in the diagram produced. I am comparing new gen high res one, to (unfortunately) non-existing new gen one, that would use the improved technology (=less "dead" area per pixel) with the same number of pixels of prev gen sensor. Geez, is this really that hard to grasp?

What this disorder should be called, belief in number's magic causing reality blindness?

Sheesh.

Where did that come from? I just gave you the numbers you asked for!

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