CCD Size and Pixel Quality; C730UZ vs C720UZ .... etc.

There seems to be a trend that new CCDs at certain standard sizes are getting more Pixels on them. Or you can say that CCDs that could capture certain Pixels are getting smaller and smaller.

If I am not mistaken, the Olympus C720UZ has a 1/2.5"(?) 3MP CCD and could only handle 8X Zoom. The new C730UZ's 3MP CCD seems to have its size reduced to 1/2.7" and can now go back to do 10X Zoom, just like the C700 with the 1/2.7" 2MP CCD could.

I know that the new C730UZ will have Noise Reduction. Don't know or remember if C720 has that function or not.

My questions are: By squeezing more and more pixels in smaller CCDs, are the manufacturers helping us to capture more signals, or are they just exploiting the MegaPixel marketing game and inadvertently giving us much more noise along with a few extra pixels? Will built in Noise Reduction help overcome some of those extra noises?

Am I completely wrong to think that given exactly the same Megal Pixel and everything else being about the same, the digicam wtih the bigger CCD will "generally" produce better quality images than the digicam with a smaller CCD? In other words, are all Pixels "created" equal (among bigger and smaller CCDs)? I think not. Please let me know what you think.

w3 said:

There seems to be a trend that new CCDs at certain standard sizes
are getting more Pixels on them. Or you can say that CCDs that
could capture certain Pixels are getting smaller and smaller.

If I am not mistaken, the Olympus C720UZ has a 1/2.5"(?) 3MP CCD
and could only handle 8X Zoom. The new C730UZ's 3MP CCD seems to
have its size reduced to 1/2.7" and can now go back to do 10X Zoom,
just like the C700 with the 1/2.7" 2MP CCD could.

I know that the new C730UZ will have Noise Reduction. Don't know
or remember if C720 has that function or not.

My questions are: By squeezing more and more pixels in smaller
CCDs, are the manufacturers helping us to capture more signals, or
are they just exploiting the MegaPixel marketing game and
inadvertently giving us much more noise along with a few extra
pixels? Will built in Noise Reduction help overcome some of those
extra noises?

Am I completely wrong to think that given exactly the same Megal
Pixel and everything else being about the same, the digicam wtih
the bigger CCD will "generally" produce better quality images than
the digicam with a smaller CCD? In other words, are all Pixels
"created" equal (among bigger and smaller CCDs)? I think not.
Please let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

I think a larger sized ccd will allways be better as far as noise is concerned. But as technology progresses, manufacturers will be able to get away with smaller ccds. The noise reduction used by Olympus kicks in on long exposures, and will not help keeping noise down during normal shooting. I do wonder if the ca (or blooming), which was already a drawback to the c700, will be worse (or better?) with the c730 and the c5050. Hopefully Olympus will have done something about that. Some other manufacturers seem to have been succesfull in getting rid of ca.
My $0.02
Regards

What i really wonder is the quality of it....will it have more blooming and CA due to it's small pixel size?

w3 said:

There seems to be a trend that new CCDs at certain standard sizes
are getting more Pixels on them. Or you can say that CCDs that
could capture certain Pixels are getting smaller and smaller.

If I am not mistaken, the Olympus C720UZ has a 1/2.5"(?) 3MP CCD
and could only handle 8X Zoom. The new C730UZ's 3MP CCD seems to
have its size reduced to 1/2.7" and can now go back to do 10X Zoom,
just like the C700 with the 1/2.7" 2MP CCD could.

I know that the new C730UZ will have Noise Reduction. Don't know
or remember if C720 has that function or not.

My questions are: By squeezing more and more pixels in smaller
CCDs, are the manufacturers helping us to capture more signals, or
are they just exploiting the MegaPixel marketing game and
inadvertently giving us much more noise along with a few extra
pixels? Will built in Noise Reduction help overcome some of those
extra noises?

Am I completely wrong to think that given exactly the same Megal
Pixel and everything else being about the same, the digicam wtih
the bigger CCD will "generally" produce better quality images than
the digicam with a smaller CCD? In other words, are all Pixels
"created" equal (among bigger and smaller CCDs)? I think not.
Please let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

--
Daniella
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=26918
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com

Thanks for your responses.

Daniella said:

What i really wonder is the quality of it....will it have more
blooming and CA due to it's small pixel size?

Click to expand...

Corne said:

Daniella68313 said:

I think a larger sized ccd will allways be better as far as noise is concerned. But as technology progresses, manufacturers will be able to get away with smaller ccds. The noise reduction used by Olympus kicks in on long exposures, and will not help keeping noise down during normal shooting. I do wonder if the ca (or blooming), which was already a drawback to the c700, will be worse (or better?) with the c730 and the c5050. Hopefully Olympus will have done something about that. Some other manufacturers seem to have been succesfull in getting rid of ca.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Digicams with generous CCD sizes with respect to some MPs (older technology?):

Digicam ---- MP ---- CCD Size

Oly E100RS 1.3MP 1/2"
Nikon 950 1.92MP 1/1.8"
Kodak DC280 2MP 1/1.76"
Oly C2100UZI 1.92MP 1/2"
Canon S10 1.92MP 1/2"
Oly E10 3.7MP 2/3" (1/1.5")

(Don't you like to see digicams with newer Noise Reduction features while using older digicam's generous CCD sizes?)

Here are some "standard" CCD sizes which I "currently" "feel"* comfortable with up to certain MPs:

Up to 2MP 1/2"
Up to 3MP 1/1.8"
Up to 4 or 5MP 2/3" (I don't know why it is not 1/1.5")

I may very well be convinced later that with newer technologies and sharp lens, digicams with newer and smaller CCDs may be just as good or even better.

Here are some historic numbers on CCD sizes and Pixel counts on some digicams that I "randomly" selected:

Digicam ---- MP ---- CCD Size

Oly E100RS 1.3MP 1/2"
Oly C2100UZI 1.92MP 1/2"

Oly E10 3.7MP 2/3" (1/1.5")
Oly E20 4.92MP 2/3" (1/1.5")

Oly C3040Z 3.15MP 1/1.8"
Oly C4040Z 3.9MP 1/1.8"
Oly D40Z 3.9MP 1/1.8"
Oly C5050Z 4.92MP(?) 1/1.8"

Oly C700UZ 1.92MP 1/2.7"
Oly C720UZ 2.95MP 1/2.5"
Oly C730UZ 3.15MP 1/2.7"

Nikon 900 1.2MP 1/2.7"
Nikon 950 1.92MP 1/1.8"
Nikon 990/5 3.15MP 1/1.8"
Nikon 4500 3.9MP 1/1.8"
Nikon 5000 4.92MP 2/3" (1/1.5")
Nikon 5700 4.92MP 2/3" (1/1.5")

Minolta D7i 4.92MP 2/3" (1/1.5")

Canon S10 1.92MP 1/2"
Canon S20 3.15MP 1/1.8"

Canon G1 3.15MP 1/1.8"
Canon S30 3.15MP 1/1.8"
Canon G2 3.9MP 1/1.8"
Canon S40 3.9MP 1/1.8"

Canon Pro90IS 2.6MP 1/1.8"

Canon S200 1.92MP 1/2.7"
Canon S330 1.92MP 1/2.7"

Canon A30 1.2MP 1/2.7"
Canon A40 1.92MP 1/2.7"

Kodak DC280 2MP 1/1.76"
Kodak DC3600 2.1MP 1/2"
Kodak DC3900 3.1MP 1/1.8"

Perhaps I should have also found out and noted which ones with Noise Reduction features and how well they work. May be someone or I will add that later.

Daniella68313 said:

w3 said:

There seems to be a trend that new CCDs at certain standard sizes
are getting more Pixels on them. Or you can say that CCDs that
could capture certain Pixels are getting smaller and smaller.

If I am not mistaken, the Olympus C720UZ has a 1/2.5"(?) 3MP CCD
and could only handle 8X Zoom. The new C730UZ's 3MP CCD seems to
have its size reduced to 1/2.7" and can now go back to do 10X Zoom,
just like the C700 with the 1/2.7" 2MP CCD could.

I know that the new C730UZ will have Noise Reduction. Don't know
or remember if C720 has that function or not.

My questions are: By squeezing more and more pixels in smaller
CCDs, are the manufacturers helping us to capture more signals, or
are they just exploiting the MegaPixel marketing game and
inadvertently giving us much more noise along with a few extra
pixels? Will built in Noise Reduction help overcome some of those
extra noises?

Am I completely wrong to think that given exactly the same Megal
Pixel and everything else being about the same, the digicam wtih
the bigger CCD will "generally" produce better quality images than
the digicam with a smaller CCD? In other words, are all Pixels
"created" equal (among bigger and smaller CCDs)? I think not.
Please let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

w3 said:

My questions are: By squeezing more and more pixels in smaller
CCDs, are the manufacturers helping us to capture more signals, or

Click to expand...

There's a point of diminishing returns. Up to a certain point, adding more pixels in the same space will give you more information ( read: better quality photos ), but that's only up to a point. There are several factors working against miniture pixels.

w3 said:

are they just exploiting the MegaPixel marketing game and
inadvertently giving us much more noise along with a few extra
pixels? Will built in Noise Reduction help overcome some of those
extra noises?

Click to expand...

At this point, they're just playing the marketing game. Software noise reduction can help some, but hardware NR ( ie bigger pixels ) will do wonders.

Digital cameras are actually pretty simple. A lens projects an image onto a chip, which uses all it's pixels to sample/measure the image. The pixels basically capture particles of light and count them. It's not really as simple as counting -- it turns them into a charge; the more light, the stronger the charge.

So each pixel takes on measurement. The more accurate that measurement is, the better the quality is, or the more information is in each pixel.

Bigger pixels capture more light; smaller pixels capture less. If your pixels are making a weak charge because they aren't gathering much light, the camera needs to amplify that charge. Amplifying the signal adds noise. ( When you turn up the ISO, you're doubling how much you're amplifying the signal, and quadrupling the noise. )

Smaller pixels are packed in tighter, denser, closer to all their neighbors. This makes it easier for some charge to "leak" out of one pixel and into another. This can cause noise, softness, or "blooming" ( color fringing ).

Finally, big pixels can capture more photons before they spill over ( more hilight detail ) and can capture less photons without reading zero or being overcome with noise ( more shadow detail ), so they have better tonal range.

w3 said:

Am I completely wrong to think that given exactly the same Megal
Pixel and everything else being about the same, the digicam wtih
the bigger CCD will "generally" produce better quality images than
the digicam with a smaller CCD? In other words, are all Pixels
"created" equal (among bigger and smaller CCDs)? I think not.
Please let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

That's why the digital SLRs make photos that look so much better.

Hi, 1 question

Forrest41926 said:

Smaller pixels are packed in tighter, denser, closer to all their
neighbors. This makes it easier for some charge to "leak" out of
one pixel and into another. This can cause noise, softness, or
"blooming" ( color fringing ).

Click to expand...

I thought color fringing is mostly a lens (quality) issue, not a CCD's?

MennoB said:

MennoB said:

Smaller pixels are packed in tighter, denser, closer to all their
neighbors. This makes it easier for some charge to "leak" out of
one pixel and into another. This can cause noise, softness, or
"blooming" ( color fringing ).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MennoB said:

I thought color fringing is mostly a lens (quality) issue, not a
CCD's?

Click to expand...

Real, bona-fide chromatic abberation ( like in the 2100 or 700 ) is a lens issue. Blooming -- when part of a photo is overexposed, and that seeps out and overexposes other parts of the photo -- is a completely different problem.

Also, bigger sensors tend to make for sharper prints, mostly because of lens resolution.

If you make an 8x10" print from a 1/2" sensor, you're enlarging the image the lens made by 20x. Make the same print from a 2/3" sensor, and it's a 15x enlargement -- not as likely to show abberations in the lens. The OlyDak with it's 4/3" CCD would be an 7.5x enlargement, sharper still. This is the same reason medium format negatives can be enlarged so much more than 35 mm.

And the math I used is off a bit; I think 1/2" is a diagnol measurement, not width. I don't know how to convert it, though...

Corne26033 said:

I think a larger sized ccd will allways be better as far as noise
is concerned. But as technology progresses, manufacturers will be
able to get away with smaller ccds. The noise reduction used by
Olympus kicks in on long exposures, and will not help keeping noise
down during normal shooting. I do wonder if the ca (or blooming),
which was already a drawback to the c700, will be worse (or
better?) with the c730 and the c5050. Hopefully Olympus will have
done something about that. Some other manufacturers seem to have
been succesfull in getting rid of ca.
My $0.02
Regards

Click to expand...