Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

Started Apr 26, 2009 | Discussions
Lobalobo
Lobalobo Senior Member • Posts: 2,458
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

Oly Canikon wrote:

Anastigmat wrote:

His example would be more convincing if it were true. This example
proves the opposite of what he says.The D90 is better than the D40 in
every way.

If reducing pixels would give an immediate improvement in noise and
DR one of the manufacturers would do it right now. They would have a
good market among low light shooters.

You'd think, but that's not what I've observed or what others have observed. In my view, the D90 is not superior to the D90 in every way; I like the tones from the D40 much better than any other Nikon camera--I'm not alone in this view; search the net--and I'm willing to bet it's the low pixel density that deserves the credit. There is a debate about whether down-rez of a higher megapixel camera can replicate the quality of the lower one--there's an article on DP Review that says it can't--but even if it can, you'd be spending a lot of extra money to turn My Fair Lady back into Pygmalion (to paraphrase Woody Allen).

In any case, if you think the market can give you answers, what's the explanation for the market (among pros) for MF digital backs. Are they all wrong, too? I'm far more willing to believe that consumers are misled than pros, but my opinion above is not based on the market, rather logical argument and what experts say. The posts here that disagree with OP merely assert that he's wrong, as stridently as possible, but entirely without explanation or reason (to paraphrase someone more famous even that Woody Allen) full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

chuxter Forum Pro • Posts: 21,714
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

Oly Canikon wrote:

If reducing pixels would give an immediate improvement in noise and
DR one of the manufacturers would do it right now. They would have a
good market among low light shooters.

It's increasing the SIZE of the photosites that is the predictor of good low-light performance. That's why Nikon did the D3. It's a stellar low-light performer because it has BIG photosites. The D3x is not for low-light...it's for applications where the light is good and resolution is the name of the game...like landscapes.

BOTH approaches are good, but for different reasons. Why is that so hard to understand?

-- hide signature --

Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I'm from Texas. We have meat in our vegetables.' Trenton Doyle Hancock

 chuxter's gear list:chuxter's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 DC HSM Art +2 more
VincentJ Senior Member • Posts: 2,262
Preaching to the choir

Now all we can hope for is a sudden outbreak of common sense among camera manufacturers who think we all need 20 megapixels on a credit card sized toy camera, whose owner would probably never print anything larger than 5x7".

Oly Canikon
Oly Canikon Senior Member • Posts: 1,278
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

chuxter wrote:

Oly Canikon wrote:

If reducing pixels would give an immediate improvement in noise and
DR one of the manufacturers would do it right now. They would have a
good market among low light shooters.

It's increasing the SIZE of the photosites that is the predictor of
good low-light performance. That's why Nikon did the D3. It's a
stellar low-light performer because it has BIG photosites. The D3x is
not for low-light...it's for applications where the light is good and
resolution is the name of the game...like landscapes.

BOTH approaches are good, but for different reasons. Why is that so
hard to understand?

-- hide signature --

The trouble with making these camera model comparisons is that its not a controlled experiment. Many factors besides the MPx change. There are other design parameters that can be optimized for noise or DR. This leads to false assumptions.

I remain unconvinced. Time will tell.

oly

Oly Canikon
Oly Canikon Senior Member • Posts: 1,278
Re: Preaching to the choir

VincentJ wrote:

Now all we can hope for is a sudden outbreak of common sense among
camera manufacturers who think we all need 20 megapixels on a credit
card sized toy camera, whose owner would probably never print
anything larger than 5x7".

My first digital was 1.3 MPx and it would print a respectable 5x7. But that's not the point. The assertion that larger pixels produce lower noise has not been proven. The choir assumes that this is true but where is the proof?

Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,196
I like 12mp for an 8x10...

PhotoGo wrote:

From ABC News.

I'll throw in with the others who said "not a respected source".

Not necessarily, says Amit Gupta, founder of Photojojo.com, an online
newsletter for camera tips and projects.

And another "not respected" source...

My own personal experience...

6mp makes a fairly decent 8x10. But it's effectively 250 dpi (8x12 cropped to 8x10). That wouldn't be too bad, except that's from a Bayer sensor and there's a sqrt(2) resolution effect, so we're really down to 175dpi. Fine for big prints at a distance, but not for small prints close up.

The average person won't notice this, until you put that print down side-by-side with a 12mp 8x10. I've done this, before, and surprisingly, even lay people notice the difference. Is a difference that only really shows in side-by-side comparisons important? I'm not sure.

But I typically shoot and print to my quality levels (unless I get a client who wants something even better) and I can see the difference, so that's how I prefer to work.

(then again, I'm nuts enough to go to a 9 shot stitch in an 8x10, because it has a look you only normally get from a view camera contact print).

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D2X Nikon D90 Nikon D100 Nikon Z7 +45 more
Ralfs Regular Member • Posts: 187
Re: 8x10...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

(then again, I'm nuts enough to go to a 9 shot stitch in an 8x10,
because it has a look you only normally get from a view camera
contact print).

Even if you have a very high resolution original, are any of the digital printing techniques capable to come close to the crispness you get form an 8x10 contact print?

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: hardly an authoritative source.

Lobalobo wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

PhotoGo wrote:

A high-megapixel count doesn't always equate to better image quality.
Actually, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a
small camera, it can have the opposite effect.

When will people stop peddling this big lie?
--
Bob

Hard to answer your question, Bob, considering that he's right and
you are wrong.

That's your first mistake. You got that the wrong way round.

As this site explains carefully and persuasively, all
else equal, pixel density is an enemy of quality. Increasing
megapixels can increase resolution, but at a price of lost dynamic
range, lost tonal quality, and noise in general.

That's your second mistake, taking as truth the extended campaign of a web developer who's happened to start a successful photography web site, even when it flies in the face of physicists, electronic engineers, optical system designers and the fellow who actually invented the active pixel sensor and is completely unsupported by any practical eveidence. You are not in a position to judge who is 'correct' and who isn't unless you've been through the detailed discussions of the workings of photosensors and have the background to do that. I have, and I'm convinced. Many others with better qualifications and more extended expertise than me have also, and agree that the 'pixel density is an enemy of quality' line is BS. And there is no evidence whatever to support it, at all. Still people like you propagate the lie. It is incredible how a myth can spread, unsupported by theory and evidence, on the back of a few self-appointed, so-called 'experts'.

This is why Mamiya
and Hasselblad get pros to pay $20,000 or more for large sensors;
they frequently need both the resolution of many megapixels and the
image quality of low pixel density, and there is no free lunch.

You are confusing the benefits of large sensors with large pixels. Big sensors are better than little ones. Little pixels are better than big ones. Big sensors with little pixels are the best of all.

So you're not right, but at least you're very loud.

Someone needs to be, with DPR, you and all the other acolytes spreading this lie.

-- hide signature --

Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: All true essentially

misha marinsky3 wrote:

Except that the new high MP cameras seem to outperform, in general,
the old lower MP cameras. Annoying when the truth gets in the way of
a good myth, isn't it
--
Bob

The latest Canon G10 is fine at its base ISO, but above 400, yuck.

True of all digicams, due to a small sensor, not small pixels. most tellingly, the G10 outperforms the previos model at higher iSO's.

I have a Lumix L1. The chip went down from 8MP to 7.5MP, to reduce
the noise without affecting resolution. Excellent camera.

As if 0.5 MP would actually be significant, even if the effect you put forward were true (which it isn't).

The smaller the diode, the higher the amplification.

Complete nonsense. Learn some microelectronics, then look at how the things actually work. Then you'll know that is rubbish. Hint: Find out where the photocharge actually accumulates, investigate the process by which it gets converted to a voltage to be read by the ADC. Second hint: Read some of the papers Daniel Browning liked to.

DPReview lists pixel density in their database; it is significant.

It's significant in that it illustrates DPR's agenda on this, which is mainly to never, ever admit that Phil Askey has ever made a mistake. He has made a big one here because he simply didn't understand the technology well enough, and now DPR continues to propagate this myth to defend that position.

-- hide signature --

Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: hardly an authoritative source.

fldspringer wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

When will people stop peddling this big lie?

I like examples. They are tough to come by on an apple to apple
comparison. I'll do the best I can.

I'll start with the Canon 1DIII (1.3 crop and an older sensor) to the
latest 1DsIII full frame. Check out the "dynamic range" button.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 289%7C0 (appareil2) 291%7C0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Canon (brand2) Canon

Press the 'print' tab so you're not doing a pixel by pixel comparison, and see what result you get.

Second choice is the Nikon D3 (older sensor) to the latest and
greatest and much more expensive D3x. Once again, click the "Dynamic
Range" button.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 297%7C0 (appareil2) 287%7C0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Nikon (brand2) Nikon

Press the 'print' tab so you're not doing a pixel by pixel comparison, and see what result you get. This was a very bad example for you to choose, the D3x is the highest DR 35mm camera (Fuji hack aside) there is.

It is clear the curves of the lower pixel count cameras are clearly
above the newer high density sister camera.

It's clear that you don't know how to read DxO tests.

In the case of the
Canon, its a smaller sensor to boot. In both cases there were
additional optional ISO choices available for the lower pixel cameras.

Why would they do that???

The excellent high ISO performance of the 5DII (far above the Mk 1) gives the lie to your argument.

Maybe, just maybe there is more truth in the lie than your willing to
admit.

There's probably 100 or even 1000000 times the truth, because anything times zero is still zero. Repectully, I'd wonder why you fell the nee to hang on to the lie, even though there is no supporting evidence or theory.

-- hide signature --

Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

Lobalobo wrote:

Oly Canikon wrote:
You'd think, but that's not what I've observed or what others have
observed. In my view, the D90 is not superior to the D90 in every
way; I like the tones from the D40 much better than any other Nikon
camera

So we'll pitch your view about the 'tones' against quantitative measurements taken by experts and the subjective opinions of may professional photographers. Right.

There is
a debate about whether down-rez of a higher megapixel camera can
replicate the quality of the lower one--there's an article on DP
Review that says it can't--

In a deeply flawed article that was immediately discredited. But since Phil Askey can never be wrong, he didn't have the courtesy either to discuss its failings with his critics or to pull the article. It just sits there, continuing to misinform the gullible.

but even if it can, you'd be spending a
lot of extra money to turn My Fair Lady back into Pygmalion (to
paraphrase Woody Allen).

Where is the extra money spent? Moreover, a 15 or 24 MP image properly downsampled to 6MP is better in virtually every respect than a native 6MP image, with higher high spatial frequency contrast and potentially better noise control, in that the additional information can provide for smarter NR algorithms.

In any case, if you think the market can give you answers, what's the
explanation for the market (among pros) for MF digital backs. Are
they all wrong, too?

MF backs have bigger sensors. Bigger sensors have more DR, whatever the pixel size. You have made the very common mistake of attributing the effect of sensor size to pixel size. In any case, MF is dying as we speak. So much for the market.

I'm far more willing to believe that consumers
are misled than pros, but my opinion above is not based on the
market, rather logical argument and what experts say.

Zero logical argument and very poor choice of 'experts'. Why would you choose the opinion of a web developer over the fellow who invented the active pixel sensor?

The posts here
that disagree with OP merely assert that he's wrong, as stridently as
possible, but entirely without explanation or reason (to paraphrase
someone more famous even that Woody Allen) full of sound and fury and
signifying nothing.

I think Daniel Browning made a pretty good fist of the arguments. There are many, many detailed threads which go through all the arguments, here and elsewhere. When people post bogus facts without supporting evidence, I think it's their responsibility to back up what they say, not the person who disputes it.
The problem is, that their whole position is based on two basic flaws:
i) making assessments at the pixel rather than image level.

ii) Doing theoretical assessments at the pixel level and failing to analyze the way in which pixels aggregate to form an image.

All the people capable of rational discussion abandoned the 'small pixels bad' position long ago. the ones who are left are incapable of moving past this stage.

-- hide signature --

Bob

boels069 Contributing Member • Posts: 553
Re: hardly an authoritative source.

fldspringer wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

When will people stop peddling this big lie?

I like examples. They are tough to come by on an apple to apple
comparison. I'll do the best I can.

I'll start with the Canon 1DIII (1.3 crop and an older sensor) to the
latest 1DsIII full frame. Check out the "dynamic range" button.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 289%7C0 (appareil2) 291%7C0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Canon (brand2) Canon

Did you click on the "Print" tab?

 boels069's gear list:boels069's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM DxO Optics Pro Elite +2 more
Lobalobo
Lobalobo Senior Member • Posts: 2,458
Re: I like 12mp for an 8x10...

The average person won't notice this, until you put that print down
side-by-side with a 12mp 8x10. I've done this, before, and
surprisingly, even lay people notice the difference. Is a difference
that only really shows in side-by-side comparisons important? I'm not
sure.

There are other tests that reach exactly the opposite conclusion, one published in the NY Times by David Pogue.

Lobalobo
Lobalobo Senior Member • Posts: 2,458
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

bobn2 wrote:

MF backs have bigger sensors. Bigger sensors have more DR, whatever
the pixel size.

Yeah? Why exactly? Larger pixel sites can absorb more light before clipping, so with larger pixels it's possible to expose for shadow detail without maxing out on the highlights, thus greater dynamic range. Simple and intuitive. What's your explanation for larger sensors having greater dynamic range. I'm interested in arguments and willing to be educated, but my general bias is that posters who are condescending and dismissive (or at least those who start that way) don't know what they are talking about. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, though. (And I accept that there is a debate about whether down rez can replicate the benefits of lower pixel density--and Fuji now has an algorithm to do just that, but this is a separate point.)

Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

Most non serious photo folks I know print at 6x4" maybe 7x5", and not a lot else, in fact I know more than a few who don't even print anyway!

It's not hard to argue that this silly 14mp+ compact camera nonsense is aimed purely at selling cameras, and not because folks need to make massive prints.

And I agree big numbers do not indicate decent image quality.

I see nothing wrong with the article at all, it is true that some high mp cameras have worse IQ than lower ones. I bet 3mp would do the vast majority of folks who don't print that big, that get's you a decent A4 print..how many consumers print much bigger? Not that many

Richard Butler
Richard Butler dpreview Admin • Posts: 2,661
Re: All true essentially

It's significant in that it illustrates DPR's agenda on this, which
is mainly to never, ever admit that Phil Askey has ever made a
mistake. He has made a big one here because he simply didn't
understand the technology well enough, and now DPR continues to
propagate this myth to defend that position.

It's in the database to give a more intuitive way of understanding the differences in sizes of sensors, as much as anything else. We started providing the area of the sensors at the same time. Furthermore, we have always stressed that it should not be used as a predictor of images quality.

Which begs the question: 'Who is it with the agenda?'

Richard - dpreview.com

VTL Regular Member • Posts: 118
Re: [2/2] Noise power is a function of spatial frequency

By and large, I agree with you, but I think that there's a compelling case to be made for capping resolutions.

Daniel Browning wrote:

It is not
the small pixels that cause the noise, but small sensors.

This (the problem of small sensors) is key, and also in ways other than noise.

As one increases the resolution, it gets harder and harder to reach theoretically-attainable levels of performance. Now, image quality isn't limited by the "weakest link in the chain", but rather is a "multiplicative" quantity. Thus there's always some gain to be had in quality by increasing resolution (assuming things like noise stay constant on a per-image-area basis).

But, the returns diminish as one increases sensor resolution and one gets further and further away from resolution being the main limiting factor in image quality.

Producing optics of sufficiently high quality becomes increasingly difficult and expensive; by the time one reaches 20 Mp, very few lenses "match" the sensor's resolution when shot wide-open.

Diffraction becomes a serious factor (which means, ironically, that one mustn't stop down too much). If one needs greater depth of field and has to stop down, one begins to lose any resolution advantages. (Indeed, P&Ss are often close to "diffraction limited" wide open, meaning that stopping down decreases IQ because of diffraction. But in a fair comparison with DSLRs, one must note that P&Ss start out with a great DoF.)

Stability becomes an issue. Not having vibration be a serious limiting factor gets harder and harder (despite image stabilization, which can only do so much). Shooting handheld can become a major factor in limiting IQ. Even on a tripod, the exact set-up and technique (e.g., using mirror lock-up) is needed.

Focus accuracy comes into play, whether one is using autofocus or manually focusing. If one misses focus even by the slightest margin with a high-resolution sensor, this seriously degrades IQ.

Manufacturing tolerances, and general alignment issues, become problematic. Optics must be properly aligned, lens mounts and flanges must be aligned (consistently with one another), the sensor must be properly aligned, the focusing screen (and/or AF sensors -- this is an advantage for contrast-detect AF) must be properly aligned, etc. Moreover, the alignment has to be maintained in different conditions, and through regular "wear and tear".

Higher pixel densities require bigger files, slower workflow, longer
processing times, higher magnification for telephoto/macro. For me
this is not a factor, but it may be important to some shooters. Lower
pixel densities result in smaller files, faster workflow, and lower
magnification.

For "average" shooters, using relatively inexpensive equipment and not especially good technique, who print to only "normal" sizes (if at all), there simply is no advantage to super-high resolutions. For their needs, one simply doesn't need more than 6-8 Mp -- higher resolutions only make the workflow more painful.

Moreover, for P&Ss, the tiny sensors (and consequently exceptionally small tolerances required) and relatively low prices mean that the gains in IQ above 8 Mp are very small.

For crop-frame DSLRs, the gains in IQ seriously diminish above 12-15 Mp. Sure, with enough effort (and money), one can still gain IQ above that, but people who want that are typically going full-frame. The primary limitations become ones of cost: one can design and build better lenses (and better-aligned bodies, etc.), but the cost becomes prohibitive.

The full-frame DSLRs, gains in IQ fall above 20-24 Mp. At the top end, it's already rather difficult to maximize IQ, and those seeking to measure and compare set-ups run into serious quality-control issues.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, technological advances mean that increasing sensor resolution can be done for little increased cost. But there aren't corresponding advances for the other (larger, more "physical") components. Without such advances, it becomes rather pointless to increase sensor resolution. (And, of course, there's no getting around diffraction and other physical limitations.)

No doubt we'll see P&Ss with 15 Mp which cost $100 (currently they cost a little more), but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea -- the extra pixels will consist in large proportion of essentially redundant information. Even for DSLRs, 15 Mp (let alone more) provide little quality advantage over 8 Mp most of the time (for most people).

Oly Canikon
Oly Canikon Senior Member • Posts: 1,278
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Most non serious photo folks I know print at 6x4" maybe 7x5", and not
a lot else, in fact I know more than a few who don't even print
anyway!

It's not hard to argue that this silly 14mp+ compact camera nonsense
is aimed purely at selling cameras, and not because folks need to
make massive prints.

And I agree big numbers do not indicate decent image quality.

I see nothing wrong with the article at all, it is true that some
high mp cameras have worse IQ than lower ones. I bet 3mp would do the
vast majority of folks who don't print that big, that get's you a
decent A4 print..how many consumers print much bigger? Not that many
--

Barry

The thing I see wrong with the article is that he states that high pixel count can cause reduced IQ.

It is certainly possible to create a high MPx p&s camera with poor image quality. And there is a point of diminishing returns that can easily be passed. All true, but the author confuses the cause and perpetuates the myth.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: Too many megapixels? Six is enough for an 8x10.

Lobalobo wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

MF backs have bigger sensors. Bigger sensors have more DR, whatever
the pixel size.

Yeah? Why exactly? Larger pixel sites can absorb more light before
clipping, so with larger pixels it's possible to expose for shadow
detail without maxing out on the highlights, thus greater dynamic
range. Simple and intuitive.

and wrong.

What's your explanation for larger
sensors having greater dynamic range.

Lets deal with this in one go. Ignore pixel sizes for the moment. If you have two sensors, for the sake of argument one scaled by two linearly from the other. To take the same picture, the larger sensor needs a 2x FL multiple. At the same exposure setting (same f-number) its aperture has twice the diameter and four times the area. That is four times the amount of light hitting the sensor. The other end of the DR equation is the read noise, which is a per pixel quantity. Lets assume that the two sensors are made using exactly the same pixel design. The small sensor has, say 6M, the large sensor 24MP. Assume the pixel design gives a read noise of, say, four electrons. If we now compare the DR of an equal portion of the image, for the sake of simplicity, 1 6MP pixel's worth. The single pixel of the small sensor collects, say, 64000 electrons. Its DR is 64000/4 = 8000. The four pixels from the big sensor collect 256000 electrons. the combined read noise from them is sqrt(4*16) = 8 elecrons, the DR = 256000/8 = 16000. So without changing the pixel size we have increased the DR of the sensor by one stop by having a 2x sensor. Therefore Dr is not dependent on pixel size, it is dependent on sensor size.

On the clipping question, imagine we take two sensors the same size, but one with four times the pixel count. Each quarter size pixel has a quarter the capacity, but since it occupies a quarter of the sensor area, for the same illumination, one quarter of the photons will hit it. Therefore it clips at exactly the same illumination as the bigger pixel.

I'm interested in arguments
and willing to be educated, but my general bias is that posters who
are condescending and dismissive (or at least those who start that
way) don't know what they are talking about.

I'm only 'condescending and dismissive' to people who post condescendingly and dismissively in the first place. You entered this discussion with 'Hard to answer your question, Bob, considering that he's right and you are wrong.' Is that not condescending and dismissive? Given the fact that I am right, how do you expect me to respond, apart from pointing out that you are actually wrong. If you are biassed against condescending and dismissive posters, be biassed against yourself.

I'd be happy to be
proven wrong here, though. (And I accept that there is a debate about
whether down rez can replicate the benefits of lower pixel
density--and Fuji now has an algorithm to do just that, but this is a
separate point.)

If you know that, why did you post 'this site explains carefully and persuasively, all else equal, pixel density is an enemy of quality. Increasing megapixels can increase resolution, but at a price of lost dynamic range', knowing it to be wrong? Please be consistent. BTW, many people have an 'algorithm to do just that', including Canon who build it into their cameras in the shape of 'sRAW'.
--
Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: All true essentially

R Butler wrote:

It's significant in that it illustrates DPR's agenda on this, which
is mainly to never, ever admit that Phil Askey has ever made a
mistake. He has made a big one here because he simply didn't
understand the technology well enough, and now DPR continues to
propagate this myth to defend that position.

It's in the database to give a more intuitive way of understanding
the differences in sizes of sensors, as much as anything else.

Surely giving the sensor size gives a more direct and intuitive way of understanding the differences in the size of sensors.

We
started providing the area of the sensors at the same time.
Furthermore, we have always stressed that it should not be used as a
predictor of images quality.

What is the point of it, then? Why is it that so many people on DPR are doing just that?

Which begs the question: 'Who is it with the agenda?'

DPR, it is quite clear. Why has Phil never responded to the criticism of his ludicrous 'downscaling doesn't reduce noise' blog? Why is it still there, even though it's been completely discredited?

-- hide signature --

Bob

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads