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

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of curious80's message #11085301 « silly inverse square law question. »

  

curious80
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: silly inverse square law question.


BrianO wrote:
curious80 wrote: When you move away from the subject, the light reaching from the subject to the camera of course goes down as per the inverse square law.

Nope.

curious80 wrote: ...Thus the amount of light falling per pixel remains the same. So the exposure remains the same.

If that were true, an 8Mp camera and an 18Mp camera would need different aperture and shutter speed settings to get the same exposure using the same lens, light, and distances.

Re-read PeterBerressem's explaination; he has it correct.


And 18Mp camera indeed does get less light per pixel. The smaller pixels require more gain in hardware to bring the berightness to the desired level. This is why the smaller pixels are noisy.

What I have described is completely correct and there is no doubt about that. It followes simply from physics laws. I didn't completely follow PeterBerressem's explanation but I think he is just saying what I am saying in a different way.



Nov 02, 2012 at 12:37 AM



  Previous versions of curious80's message #11085301 « silly inverse square law question. »