Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end
  

Archive 2013 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?
  
 
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


retrofocus wrote:
..... But what practically happens is that especially those who say they don't need higher MP are the first in line to go for the new higher MP cameras when available. ......


I am not sure about being first in the line but yes I would spring for newer cameras even though I am in the "I don't need more pixles" camp. And there are two reasons for that - one is that the new sensors still improve on other sensor parameters that I want like cleaner high-iso and more DR etc. The second reason is that the new camera might have some features that I want like better AF or better body etc. The higher MPs just comes a an unavoidable part of the package. I would prefer if I have the option to get all the other improvements without an increase in MP because of the increased storage and processing requirements. Sure you could get more storage and upgrade your system but for me it is a waste since I will end up having to upgrade even though I am making no use of the increased MPs. I think that at the very least the ultra high MP cameras should implement binning as a standard option for smaller RAW files.



Mar 27, 2013 at 06:51 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


curious80 wrote:
I think that at the very least the ultra high MP cameras should implement binning as a standard option for smaller RAW files.


The high-MP cameras typically do offer some "sRAW" binned RAW function.

However, because of the Bayer-filtered sensor structure, there's not much gain in file size until you drastically reduce the resolution. Full RAW data = 1 ~12-bit sample per pixel. Bin together groups of 4 pixels (for a quarter the pixel count) but keep full 3-component color at each pixel site, and you now need 3x12-bits for each of 1/4 of the original pixels (3/4 of the full RAW data size). In other words, file size goes down by only 25% to keep a "good" 9Mpx RAW image from a 36Mpx sensor. You can further reduce the file size if you bin beyond this point --- but how much less than 9Mpx would you be really happy with?



Mar 27, 2013 at 06:58 PM
rafa1981
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


The higher the pixel count, the softer the lowpass optical filter, to the point that when the pixel count is high enough there is no need for lowpass filter.

As the digital filters have way better response than the optical ones, the ideal would be to have a sensor with enough pixel count to negate the need for an optical lowpass and then filter digitally when resampling.

So for me it would be better to have a pixel count enough to outperform any optic paired with a very fast DSP filter with configurable final resolution.

Both things are related.



Mar 27, 2013 at 07:22 PM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


mpmendenhall wrote:
The high-MP cameras typically do offer some "sRAW" binned RAW function.


Nikon doesn't do any binning in its 36MP D800


However, because of the Bayer-filtered sensor structure, there's not much gain in file size until you drastically reduce the resolution. Full RAW data = 1 ~12-bit sample per pixel. Bin together groups of 4 pixels (for a quarter the pixel count) but keep full 3-component color at each pixel site, and you now need 3x12-bits for each of 1/4 of the original pixels (3/4 of the full RAW data size). In other words, file size goes down by only 25% to keep a "good" 9Mpx RAW image from a 36Mpx sensor. You can further reduce the file size if you bin
...Show more

I agree that binning is hard in bayer structure. What you have described is really pretty much like doing the demosaicing and then keeping RGB data so not really binning in RAW. I am not really sure if there is a right way to do it But the point is that its a huge waste to have to store and process 36MP RAWs if all you need is say 8-10MPs. If the future is all ultra-megapixels then there should be a way where you could choose to have a smaller resolution while still keeping the benefits of a RAW file.

Also I am not completely convinced on the "more pixels always lead to improved performance" paradigm. Yes it is true that sensors have been improving overall even with the increased MPs. However it is possible that if instead of spending all the technology on making higher-MP sensors work well if the same technology is used for improving the parameters of a lower MP sensors, the final performance in terms of things like DR, noise etc might be even better. Nikon did that with the 12MP sensor in D3s when they opted IQ over higher MPs. D3s sensor despite being much older is still better than D800 at high ISOs, the same is true for the 16MP D4 sensor. If Sony's advancements in sensor tech were applied to a D3s/D4 like sensor, the results could have been even better than what we get with D800.

Maybe at some point in future we will get bodies with swappable sensor modules and then manufacturers might be more willing to build different sensors with different priorities.



Mar 27, 2013 at 08:27 PM
mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


This is a sincere question: Why would you want more DR than today's cameras can deliver?


Mar 27, 2013 at 08:39 PM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


rafa1981 wrote:
The higher the pixel count, the softer the lowpass optical filter, to the point that when the pixel count is high enough there is no need for lowpass filter.

As the digital filters have way better response than the optical ones, the ideal would be to have a sensor with enough pixel count to negate the need for an optical lowpass and then filter digitally when resampling.

So for me it would be better to have a pixel count enough to outperform any optic paired with a very fast DSP filter with configurable final resolution.

Both things are related.


It is really all about how much resolution you need. There is no such sensor resolution at which you don't need the AA filter. Even if you have a 200MP sensor, you could find a subject which will cause aliasing. When you say that the sensor doesn't AA, what you are really saying is that I am not likely to shoot a subject which has more details then what the sensor can capture.

A 36-MP sensor with AA filter is already going to give more resolution than say a 12MP sensor without AA. So what you should really care about is whether you are getting the resolution you need or not, regardless of whether the sensor has AA or not.



Mar 27, 2013 at 08:46 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


mortyb wrote:
This is a sincere question: Why would you want more DR than today's cameras can deliver?


What about to be able to expose for the sky a sunny day and be able to lift shadows in a dark alley to more reflect the experienced light? Or the opposite for that matter.

(sincere answer)



Mar 27, 2013 at 08:46 PM
mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


wfrank wrote:
What about to be able to expose for the sky a sunny day and be able to lift shadows in a dark alley to more reflect the experienced light? Or the opposite for that matter.

(sincere answer)


But this can be done today, at least with the Nikons/Sonys?



Mar 27, 2013 at 08:51 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


wfrank wrote:
What about to be able to expose for the sky a sunny day and be able to lift shadows in a dark alley to more reflect the experienced light? Or the opposite for that matter.


Aren't the current-generation Sony sensors (also used by Nikon) pretty much there already, aside from alleys with 800-foot-high black-painted walls? It would be nice to get this level of performance in Canon bodies, too, but I think the best of the current generation of sensor tech is already up to handling most situations that would once have been written off as "uncapturable."

Edit: MortyB beat me to it.



Mar 27, 2013 at 08:52 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


mortyb wrote:
But this can be done today, at least with the Nikons/Sonys?


Well. Sony is better than Canon no doubt. But with a careful exposure you can get by even with a Canon sensor (9/10). Good thing with Sony is that you can be a little more careless. Point is, I think, is that not all situations in real life allows for 10 sec of settings and exposure planning. At least not the way I want to shoot.

For a tripoded still-life/landscaper I guess "we're" almost there with Sony. Still, a little more wouldnt hurt.



Mar 27, 2013 at 08:59 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Sure it wouldn't hurt?


Mar 27, 2013 at 09:03 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


For the poll my answer isnt there, I want something like 20-24MP for FF, 12 is too little and 36 more than I need for any print I am likely to do even if the lens copes with the resolution.

For a square 36mm sensor 36MP would be fine.



Mar 27, 2013 at 09:05 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Agreed! The only reason I own a D800 is that the Nikon 24MP I want doesn't exist. The D600 is too low-end and the D3x is too large and is missing some newer features, like video. Even 16-18MP would be fine, but up to 24MP is good.


Mar 27, 2013 at 09:11 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


mortyb wrote:
This is a sincere question: Why would you want more DR than today's cameras can deliver?


I have already posted my answer to this on the previous page:

"I would love 20 stops of DR, but only if the manufacturers would stop delivering linear files, and would encode it to achieve gentle highlight rolloff, a-la film. "



Mar 27, 2013 at 09:12 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


carstenw wrote:
Agreed! The only reason I own a D800 is that the Nikon 24MP I want doesn't exist. The D600 is too low-end and the D3x is too large and is missing some newer features, like video. Even 16-18MP would be fine, but up to 24MP is good.


Funny - I am normally in the Canon camp and would love to see a camera like the D800 there, while you are on the Nikon side and would love to see a camera like the 5D MkIII on the Nikon side . Anyway, I can live with my 5D MkII well for a while to come since excellent AF performance is no requirement for my style of shooting (not doing sports/wedding/event photography).



Mar 27, 2013 at 09:22 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


carstenw wrote:
I have already posted my answer to this on the previous page:

"I would love 20 stops of DR, but only if the manufacturers would stop delivering linear files, and would encode it to achieve gentle highlight rolloff, a-la film. "


they try to do that, they call them jpegs. only fuji seems to be really good at it.

the point of the raw file is that you can apply any tone curve you want even one that simulates film. turns out most people don't actually like shadows as dark as they are on film judging from how most people process their raws. it's possible to get nice film like highlight rolloff with todays (sony) sensors, just don't blow your highlights and then apply a nice film like tone curve to the raw.



Mar 27, 2013 at 09:23 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


rafa1981 wrote:
The higher the pixel count, the softer the lowpass optical filter, to the point that when the pixel count is high enough there is no need for lowpass filter.

As the digital filters have way better response than the optical ones, the ideal would be to have a sensor with enough pixel count to negate the need for an optical lowpass and then filter digitally when resampling.

So for me it would be better to have a pixel count enough to outperform any optic paired with a very fast DSP filter with configurable final resolution.

Both things are related.


Excellent point - many don't know that the current AA filters reduce the max sensor resolution about 20-30% depending on camera manufacturer and camera. I saw myself the increase in resolution when the AA filter was removed for my IR-converted FF camera - the difference is huge!



Mar 27, 2013 at 09:25 PM
mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Agree about the highlight rolloff, the A900 is pretty good at that. I guess we all have different taste in tonality and look of photos, personally I think for the most time photos with a lot of DR are boring. I usually prefer fat shadows, decent midtone contrast and gentle HL rolloff. Film-like, I guess.


Mar 27, 2013 at 09:29 PM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


mortyb wrote:
Agree about the highlight rolloff, the A900 is pretty good at that. I guess we all have different taste in tonality and look of photos, personally I think for the most time photos with a lot of DR are boring. I usually prefer fat shadows, decent midtone contrast and gentle HL rolloff. Film-like, I guess.


The gentle HL rolloff is possible precisely because the sensor has high DR



Mar 27, 2013 at 09:36 PM
mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Of course. But it's not like it's not possible today.


Mar 27, 2013 at 09:43 PM
1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password