Reading mode: Light Dark

Will a compact 15 Megapixels sensor come out anytime soon?

Go to last post
ejmartin said:
Chris59 said:
Let us conduct a thought experiment (indulge me!). Imagine I want to take an image of a star and although I know I cannot get more than a certain amount of detail, I want to see what an Airy disc looks like. How many pixels will I need to accurately image an Airy disc? Certainly more than two! Indeed I can improve the accuracy of the image the more pixels I use.
Click to expand...
You may be interested in this post by Marianne Oelund:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21952208
Click to expand...
This is exactly my point. As you increase the number of pixels you increase the resolution of the Airy discs, not necessarily more detail that you want to see. My point is simply a theoretical one, not a practical one and I accept that for all practical purposes increasing the number of pixels will not produce a worthwhile improvement in resolution for everyday images.

However, one should not forget that there are other related benefits to increasing the number of pixels including weaker AA filters, fewer deBayering effects, and less artefacts when sharpening and/or using NR.
ejmartin said:
--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
Click to expand...
 
I like your thinking about having both. I have often thought that as P&S IQ has improved so much in recent years and because the cameras are so small and light, there is no reason not to carry 2 of them with very different capabilities around all the time.

This would still be a lot lighter than lugging a DSLR system.

For instance Canon G10 plus Fuji F70. Two very different cameras with very different strengths and weaknesses that complement each other.
 
Chris59 said:
However, one should not forget that there are other related benefits to increasing the number of pixels including weaker AA filters, fewer deBayering effects, and less artefacts when sharpening and/or using NR.
Click to expand...
Good point. In fact, it's rather sad that Only Fujifilm has realized that more sensor elements can be useful for more than higher pixel count, with their EXR models delivering higher-quality 5 MP pictures from a 10 MP sensor.

A tiny 20 MP (Bayer) sensor may not have that much higher resolution than a tiny 5 MP sensor, but downsampled to 5 MP it can deliver more accurate colors and compensate for much of the blur from the AA filter. If only a manufacturer dares to make it output 5 MP by default instead of wasting most of the space on inevitable lens+AA blur just to be able to put a 20 MP sticker on it...
 
Johan Borg said:
Chris59 said:
However, one should not forget that there are other related benefits to increasing the number of pixels including weaker AA filters, fewer deBayering effects, and less artefacts when sharpening and/or using NR.
Click to expand...
Good point. In fact, it's rather sad that Only Fujifilm has realized that more sensor elements can be useful for more than higher pixel count, with their EXR models delivering higher-quality 5 MP pictures from a 10 MP sensor.

A tiny 20 MP (Bayer) sensor may not have that much higher resolution than a tiny 5 MP sensor, but downsampled to 5 MP it can deliver more accurate colors and compensate for much of the blur from the AA filter. If only a manufacturer dares to make it output 5 MP by default instead of wasting most of the space on inevitable lens+AA blur just to be able to put a 20 MP sticker on it...
Click to expand...
According to DPR's resolution test the 12mp FinePix F200EXR loses exactly the 'expected' factor 1,41 in resolution in its 6mp SN Mode (2500/2300 vs 1700/1700), which probably is because it like most/all small-sensored cameras doesn't have a AA-filter. But I agree that for example a fixed/default 20mp output (with lower noise) from a 40mp APS-C sensor (with AA-filter) would make kind of sense, because the loss of resolution in most real world scenarios would be very small.
 
Steen Bay said:
Johan Borg said:
Chris59 said:
However, one should not forget that there are other related benefits to increasing the number of pixels including weaker AA filters, fewer deBayering effects, and less artefacts when sharpening and/or using NR.
Click to expand...
Good point. In fact, it's rather sad that Only Fujifilm has realized that more sensor elements can be useful for more than higher pixel count, with their EXR models delivering higher-quality 5 MP pictures from a 10 MP sensor.

A tiny 20 MP (Bayer) sensor may not have that much higher resolution than a tiny 5 MP sensor, but downsampled to 5 MP it can deliver more accurate colors and compensate for much of the blur from the AA filter. If only a manufacturer dares to make it output 5 MP by default instead of wasting most of the space on inevitable lens+AA blur just to be able to put a 20 MP sticker on it...
Click to expand...
According to DPR's resolution test the 12mp FinePix F200EXR loses exactly the 'expected' factor 1,41 in resolution in its 6mp SN Mode (2500/2300 vs 1700/1700), which probably is because it like most/all small-sensored cameras doesn't have a AA-filter. But I agree that for example a fixed/default 20mp output (with lower noise) from a 40mp APS-C sensor (with AA-filter) would make kind of sense, because the loss of resolution in most real world scenarios would be very small.
Click to expand...
In the real world scenario, us raw users would prefer to keep the 40MP raw and do our own resampling, rather than have the camera manufacturer force their choice on us irretrievably. There would perhaps be an argument it they'd go for sensible P&S type pixel densities (200-300MP on FF) in which case the processing to get that data into memory might be hard, so a specialist downsampling processor to a more manageable data bandwidth might be a good compromise
 
ejmartin said:
I'm not sure why you're distinguishing making images of Airy disks vs resolving sources.
Click to expand...
Well, look at your second image, where you have a pixel at the maximum, the minimum, and also half-way down the slope. What I’m saying is that if you have two pixels at the max and min that are the same size as those three, then the detail level is pretty much the same. But anyways, I’ll accept this analysis and accept that you need 1/2r pixels to resolve all the detail available.

But that’s only with a perfect lens, right? So while there is a mathematical argument to go with smaller pixels, how does that relate with the practicalities of lens fabrication?

.
 
Graystar said:
I’ll accept this analysis and accept that you need 1/2r pixels to resolve all the detail available.

But that’s only with a perfect lens, right? So while there is a mathematical argument to go with smaller pixels, how does that relate with the practicalities of lens fabrication?
Click to expand...
The analysis should be valid whenever diffraction is the dominant source of image blur. The f ratios at which that is the case depend on the lens; most good lenses are diffraction limited a stop or two from wide open.

--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
ejmartin said:
The analysis should be valid whenever diffraction is the dominant source of image blur. The f ratios at which that is the case depend on the lens; most good lenses are diffraction limited a stop or two from wide open.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. So then let's come back to the original question of 15MP sensors in compacts. Considering the G10 with 14.7MP with a max aperture of f/2.8...it's my understanding that the G10 will sharpen up a tiny bit when the aperture is closed by about a stop.

So how much can the pixel density be increased before no more detail can be resolved?

I would speculate that if the lens performs its best at f/4, then the answer should be around 20MP or so?

.
 
Graystar said:
ejmartin said:
The analysis should be valid whenever diffraction is the dominant source of image blur. The f ratios at which that is the case depend on the lens; most good lenses are diffraction limited a stop or two from wide open.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. So then let's come back to the original question of 15MP sensors in compacts. Considering the G10 with 14.7MP with a max aperture of f/2.8...it's my understanding that the G10 will sharpen up a tiny bit when the aperture is closed by about a stop.

So how much can the pixel density be increased before no more detail can be resolved?

I would speculate that if the lens performs its best at f/4, then the answer should be around 20MP or so?
Click to expand...
That looks to be about right; maybe 22-23 if diffraction is the main issue.

--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
Is there any compact around which can really deliver the resolution of 14 megapixels? From my experience with DSLRs of various kinds I can say that just getting proper 10 megapixels requires proper lenses and shooting technique. And compact cameras usually have much lesser lenses. So what would a 16 megapixel compact bring?

Peter
 
For the ZS7:

2000 lines is an excellent result.
Imaging Resource said:
Image Quality. Our lab shot of the test target at ISO 80 shows excellent resolution running almost up to the 2,000-line limit both horizontally and vertically. Very little chromatic aberration (mostly on the right side) was evident.
Click to expand...
Peter Herth said:
Is there any compact around which can really deliver the resolution of 14 megapixels? From my experience with DSLRs of various kinds I can say that just getting proper 10 megapixels requires proper lenses and shooting technique. And compact cameras usually have much lesser lenses. So what would a 16 megapixel compact bring?

Peter
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider
 
Peter Herth said:
Is there any compact around which can really deliver the resolution of 14 megapixels? From my experience with DSLRs of various kinds I can say that just getting proper 10 megapixels requires proper lenses and shooting technique. And compact cameras usually have much lesser lenses. So what would a 16 megapixel compact bring?
Click to expand...
The Canon G10 (14.7 MP) at ISO 80 (base) in good natural light and when focused well can deliver extremely fine details and very good resolution!
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
 
Because smaller sensors and higher megapixels don't always mean better image quality.

I would rather shoot with my D50's larger sensor and 6MP, than my S200EXR with a small sensor and 12 MP. No question which one makes better enlargements and which is better in low light.

And if you look at the premium compacts like the ones I've mentioned, they all have a lower MP count as the people buying them have more concern for image quality than a simple bigger is better MP count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top