Updated product pages: Why not pixel density ?

[Lee Jay]

Pixel pitch is much better than pixel density in my opinion, as mentioned in the link

and I wouldn't mind seeing it there as a readily accessible factoid for a particular camera. I understand there is already a lot of info to manage in the database and it is freely accessible. Can't complain about that! Thanks DPR.

Sadly pixel pitch isn't widely available for enough of the cameras in our database for us to be able to include it in anything like a comprehensive manner.

What's wrong with dividing horizontal sensor dimension by horizontal pixel count? Yes, the "inactive pixels" and rounding error in the sensor sizes can be a small accuracy issue, but it sure gets you close. I believe you have those two numbers for virtually every camera in your database.

My S3IS is listed at 5.744mm and 2816 pixels, giving a pixel pitch of 2.0398 microns. Sony's data sheet lists it at 2.04 microns.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_s3is

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

I bet they bitterly regret ever publishing that!
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Torkil]

Sadly pixel pitch isn't widely available for enough of the cameras in our database for us to be able to include it in anything like a comprehensive manner. The information does become available (through sources such as Sony's semiconductor newsletter), but the chances of us being able to reliably find it anywhere near camera launch is very small. The chances of us being able to find it for all the existing products is still smaller.

We were hoping pixel density would work as a rough proxy for pixel pitch and, crucially, would provide an easier way of thinking about sensors than the rather opaque 1/2.3" terminology (which helps obscure just how big the differences between sensor sizes of compacts and DSLRs/Mirrorless cameras are).

Richard - dpreview.com

Seems the question of this thread remains unanswered:
Why not maintain the pixel density information (in lack of pixel pitch data) ?

 

[Richard Butler]

I bet they bitterly regret ever publishing that!

I hadn't realised we had. We'll correct it.

Richard - dpreview.com

 

[Lee Jay]

Sadly pixel pitch isn't widely available for enough of the cameras in our database for us to be able to include it in anything like a comprehensive manner. The information does become available (through sources such as Sony's semiconductor newsletter), but the chances of us being able to reliably find it anywhere near camera launch is very small. The chances of us being able to find it for all the existing products is still smaller.

We were hoping pixel density would work as a rough proxy for pixel pitch and, crucially, would provide an easier way of thinking about sensors than the rather opaque 1/2.3" terminology (which helps obscure just how big the differences between sensor sizes of compacts and DSLRs/Mirrorless cameras are).

Richard - dpreview.com

Seems the question of this thread remains unanswered:
Why not maintain the pixel density information (in lack of pixel pitch data) ?

You can also derive the pixel pitch data directly from the pixel density data - 1/100*sqrt(pixel density).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

I bet they bitterly regret ever publishing that!

I hadn't realised we had. We'll correct it.

Richard - dpreview.com

That statement is considered by some to be the origin of the more pixel density = more noise myth.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[igb]

I bet they bitterly regret ever publishing that!

I hadn't realised we had. We'll correct it.

Richard - dpreview.com

It's fun because it must be one of your first full fledged reviews. Also amusing is thatr, at the time of the first bobn's ban, some other guy posted the same the same plus other links to reviews stating basically the same.

Guy got banned, thread pulled, maybe you realise that.

 

[Richard Butler]

It's fun because it must be one of your first full fledged reviews.

No, actually. My name is on the masthead because I wrote the preview (1st half of the review).

Also amusing is thatr, at the time of the first bobn's ban, some other guy posted the same the same plus other links to reviews stating basically the same.

We don't, as a rule, discuss the reason for people being banned - it wouldn't be very professional for me to criticise our users. People don't get banned for criticising us - there are plenty of threads explaining exactly how incompetent, biased and corrupt we apparently are. Being abusive, attacking other posters and just trying to start arguments will, usually after a warning, get you banned.

Richard - dpreview.com

 

[bobn2]

It's fun because it must be one of your first full fledged reviews.

No, actually. My name is on the masthead because I wrote the preview (1st half of the review).

Also amusing is thatr, at the time of the first bobn's ban, some other guy posted the same the same plus other links to reviews stating basically the same.

We don't, as a rule, discuss the reason for people being banned - it wouldn't be very professional for me to criticise our users.

You have my full permission to do so in my case. At the time, what I saw was DPR using bans to support its editorial policy. Of course, your motives were not exactly clear because you give such cryptic ban notices and the 'incident number' isn't actually traceable back to an event - so it gets hard to work out exactly what one did to merit a ban, but it seemed to me that what I was doing was going on about Phil Askey's line on pixel density, then about what I saw as a contradictory attitude to 'glamour', and then use of bans to support editorial policy. I got 2 one week bans, then a permanent one, the ban notice suggesting that while you (collectively) felt I had made a technical contribution, you found me an annoyance.

However, I had a fair idea it was coming. Joe James emailed me to say if I went on the way I was (i.e. criticising editorial policy) I would likely be banned permanently, and so it occurred.

People don't get banned for criticising us -

maybe irritating you, rather than criticising you. Of course, as I said above, people would understand a lot more about why they'd been banned if the banning notices were linked to some identifiable posts and if the mods took the trouble to explain (and politely would be nice) the reasoning behind the ban. To be honest, in my long history of being banned, I have found the tone of the ban notices about as abusive as anything one might get banned for on the forums.

there are plenty of threads explaining exactly how incompetent, biased and corrupt we apparently are.

All that shows is that you don't always ban if someone criticises you. I see a lot of inconsistency from mod to mod and forum to forum.

Being abusive, attacking other posters and just trying to start arguments will, usually after a warning, get you banned.

again, difficult to see that as consistently true. The consistently most abusive poster on DPR seems to get away with just a few slaps on the wrist. A frequent pattern seems to be that a victim of abuse who argues back ends up being the one banned, while the original abuser gets off scot free. And anyhow isn't 'starting arguments' what forums are for - it depends on the argument, surely? I think I got a ban for asking someone 'what do you mean by correct exposure' - the post was pulled and the ban notice referred to a pulled post. But honestly, the way you operate it, it's hard for anyone to see the rhyme or reason.
--
Bob

 

[Lee Jay]

But honestly, the way you operate it, it's hard for anyone to see the rhyme or reason.

I was once banned (I think) for about 10 days with no warning and no explanation. I hadn't been in any recent arguments so I figured it was a mistake or a technical glitch. However, none of the 10 or 20 emails and feedbacks I sent were ever answered so I still have no idea why I was unable to post for that period.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[domk275]

Of what possible use is the pixel density figure?

That's not even the question. It is a very small piece of information that you could give just to make someone happy. There are so many other items where you could ask "of what possible use is it?".

DPReview is for extremist pixel peepers (see their reviews and their widgets) and pixel peepers might be fact peepers who want to know the pixel density. Some don't want to know it, maybe even a majority, including domk275, but they can simply ignore that line in the table, just as you definitely ignore many other pieces of information in the product tables.

I know that some companies don't want to officially state a pixel densitiy for a given camera model. In that case, and if DPReview doesn't want to count and measure the pixels on the sensor themselves, the required line in the camera database could be called like "sensor area divided by megapixels is" (i'm a non-native speaker and a non-mathematician). The result gives you a good idea, even if the number shown might be very slightly wrong.

Actually, the pixel density could be a criteria for listing cameras in a certain order or for selecting cameras.

Some people may want to know the chemical formula of all the plastics used in the camera's body, or the percentage composition of magnesium in a magnesium-alloy body. That doesn't mean that DPR should include them in the database. Pixel Density tells us nothing useful about the camera, so there's no reason for it to be there.

--

Message me and I'll tell you how to get any lens/camera/phone/whatever for FREE

 

[Eric Fossum]

I understand there is already a lot of info to manage in the database and it is freely accessible. Can't complain about that! Thanks DPR.

I don't know if my poorly worded post was understood, but what I meant was that I am not about to complain given that this is a free site and already has a lot of useful information to me as a camera user, and sometimes as a sensor technologist. And for that I am thankful.

Sadly pixel pitch isn't widely available for enough of the cameras in our database for us to be able to include it in anything like a comprehensive manner.

Yes, this is sad and true.

We were hoping pixel density would work as a rough proxy for pixel pitch and, crucially, would provide an easier way of thinking about sensors than the rather opaque 1/2.3" terminology (which helps obscure just how big the differences between sensor sizes of compacts and DSLRs/Mirrorless cameras are).

Yes, I also really dislike the 1/2.3" etc. diagonal terminology. In fact, I don't know anyone who likes it. It just has enough nasty momentum that we can't kill it no matter how many times we try.

 

[Richard Butler]

I understand there is already a lot of info to manage in the database and it is freely accessible. Can't complain about that! Thanks DPR.

I don't know if my poorly worded post was understood, but what I meant was that I am not about to complain given that this is a free site and already has a lot of useful information to me as a camera user, and sometimes as a sensor technologist. And for that I am thankful.

It was both understood and appreciated. We all work for this site because we're passionate about photography and the technology that underpins it. The site benefits greatly from the input of people such as yourself so I hope we can continue to provide something you find useful and interesting.

Sadly pixel pitch isn't widely available for enough of the cameras in our database for us to be able to include it in anything like a comprehensive manner.

Yes, this is sad and true.

We were hoping pixel density would work as a rough proxy for pixel pitch and, crucially, would provide an easier way of thinking about sensors than the rather opaque 1/2.3" terminology (which helps obscure just how big the differences between sensor sizes of compacts and DSLRs/Mirrorless cameras are).

Yes, I also really dislike the 1/2.3" etc. diagonal terminology. In fact, I don't know anyone who likes it. It just has enough nasty momentum that we can't kill it no matter how many times we try.

Let us know if you have any suggestions - we'd quite happily support any attempt to demystify sensor size descriptions.

Richard - dpreview.com

 

[tko]

I haven't seen a single concrete example of what people would use this number for. Who cares? What would you use it for?

More people would misuse it than would use it.

If you're smart enough to use pixel density in a meaningful way, then you're smart enough to calculate it on your own.

 

[antoineb]

for years, DPReview seemed to hold the view that, the higher the pixel density, the lower the IQ.

this was, and possibly still is, true at a given point in time

however technology advances, and today you might, say, get better IQ with a sensor that has, say, 3x the pixel density of a sensor of 5 years ago. So that piece of data becomes pointless.

the other thing DPreview still need to understand, and get rid of, is that ridiculous concept of "resolution per pixel", because a pixel cannot include resolution.

AND, they should start providing crops that have the same physical size in the real world, not the same pixel size. Their current - erroneous - method will lead them to posting ever smaller crops, and hide the technological advances that have taken place.

They may be the biggest camera review site, but they sure do learn slowly. Or maybe, it's because they are the biggest, that they start behaving like all big corporations.

P.S. I'm aware of, and happy about, all the good things at DPReview. But clearly there are some things they sure do take ages to understand.

 

[Le Kilt]

I don't know what's the point in omitting this piece of technical data (and why writing it with capital initials). I believe, in economics if you'd like to know the income per head you don't quote a country's income and let them divide it by the number of inhabitants. I'd love to see this piece of information in the sensor section. I understand it might be difficult to gather in certain situations, but then you could write "unknown".

I agree!!

It was one of the most useful technical data of the entire database. I want it again!!

No it wasn't. Of what possible use is the pixel density figure?

It is an important consideration in the 'reach' you will get and IQ.

 

[Le Kilt]

is one factor

 

[Le Kilt]

I understand there is already a lot of info to manage in the database and it is freely accessible. Can't complain about that! Thanks DPR.

I don't know if my poorly worded post was understood, but what I meant was that I am not about to complain given that this is a free site and already has a lot of useful information to me as a camera user, and sometimes as a sensor technologist. And for that I am thankful.

It was both understood and appreciated. We all work for this site because we're passionate about photography and the technology that underpins it. The site benefits greatly from the input of people such as yourself so I hope we can continue to provide something you find useful and interesting.

I'll echo Eric's sentiments, whilst no site is perfect, this one rocks and is soooo useful, thank you for being there !

Sadly pixel pitch isn't widely available for enough of the cameras in our database for us to be able to include it in anything like a comprehensive manner.

Yes, this is sad and true.

We were hoping pixel density would work as a rough proxy for pixel pitch and, crucially, would provide an easier way of thinking about sensors than the rather opaque 1/2.3" terminology (which helps obscure just how big the differences between sensor sizes of compacts and DSLRs/Mirrorless cameras are).

Yes, I also really dislike the 1/2.3" etc. diagonal terminology. In fact, I don't know anyone who likes it. It just has enough nasty momentum that we can't kill it no matter how many times we try.

Let us know if you have any suggestions - we'd quite happily support any attempt to demystify sensor size descriptions.

Richard - dpreview.com

 

[bobn2]

I don't know what's the point in omitting this piece of technical data (and why writing it with capital initials). I believe, in economics if you'd like to know the income per head you don't quote a country's income and let them divide it by the number of inhabitants. I'd love to see this piece of information in the sensor section. I understand it might be difficult to gather in certain situations, but then you could write "unknown".

I agree!!

It was one of the most useful technical data of the entire database. I want it again!!

No it wasn't. Of what possible use is the pixel density figure?

It is an important consideration in the 'reach' you will get and IQ.

hard to see how directly you can get the 'reach' from it without the sensor size also, and if you have the sensor size, then the pixel count (or better, pitch) gives you the reach information more directly. As for IQ, not really, at all. Again, you need the sensor size with it, and then pixel count is what you want to know, and that's better given directly.

--
Bob

 

[igb]

It's fun because it must be one of your first full fledged reviews.

No, actually. My name is on the masthead because I wrote the preview (1st half of the review).

Also amusing is thatr, at the time of the first bobn's ban, some other guy posted the same the same plus other links to reviews stating basically the same.

We don't, as a rule, discuss the reason for people being banned - it wouldn't be very professional for me to criticise our users.

People don't get banned for criticising us -

unless they're right, one has to presume.

there are plenty of threads explaining exactly how incompetent, biased and corrupt we apparently are. Being abusive, attacking other posters and just trying to start arguments will, usually after a warning, get you banned.

Richard - dpreview.com

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html