brainiac wrote:
...forget the assumptions: one BIG error has been made. Two 10% inaccurate pixels are significantly more accurate than one 10% inaccurate pixel. So smaller pixels can afford to be less accurate by some margin, in order to produce the same result. "This is physics". These days this means that added resolution has very very little downside. The "keep the pixels few" crowd are not just ignoring the technological advances, they are also not doing their arithmetic correctly.
If you're going to say things like "this is physics", it would be a good idea to actually get your statistical analysis right, otherwise it's not physics, it's fantasy. I'm afraid that Etadam is still offering a per pixel analysis which fails to take into account the macroscopic effect. Colour accuracy is not a distinct problem. ...Show more →
Considering the same technology:
- A 1 pixel occupying the space (sum of sites areas) of 2x2 pixels will be likely to have less noise than the sum of the noise of the 4 pixels. This is particle physics (and mathematics).
- Inversely a 2x2 matrix of pixels scaled to the size of 1 pixel will have a fair probability to yield a noise similar to the one of the pixel of the size of the 2x2, because the noise is random and is likely to be reduced during the scaling process.)
So Two 10% inaccurate pixels are significantly more accurate than one 10% inaccurate pixel. Assuming the 2 pixels are twice the size of the "one" pixel this is
- either wrong
- or they're the same size implying that the 2p and 1p are not from the same technology, and this is another problem
If they are from the same technology, the noise/electrons being 10% for the 1x1 case, would be less for the 2x1 pixel.
Downscaling an image reduces the noise? Yes, it was in my initial post. So what is the point?
Buying many pixels to be able to downscale for the noise? Why not - many pixels have other advantages (big prints where not only noise but also resolution matters).
Personally In this case, with the same sensor technology, I'd prefer purchase less and bigger pixels, [I don't need 20MP]: same noise rendering and faster processing, backups, less disk/cards etc...
If by chance the "new" camera isn't what some are wishing for at least you will now be able to have ZEOS fun with the new Carl Zeiss ZE range of lenses made for the EOS mount. So far 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 announced.
My small contribution to get this thread to 100 pages.
john_edwards wrote:
If by chance the "new" camera isn't what some are wishing for at least you will now be able to have ZEOS fun with the new Carl Zeiss ZE range of lenses made for the EOS mount. So far 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 announced.
My small contribution to get this thread to 100 pages.
John
Thank you John. I already feared I would have to do it on my own.
Yes. Great they thaught about offering their lenses to the biggest market, finally.
Thats german
" or they're the same size implying that the 2p and 1p are not from the same technology, and this is another problem "
I think this is the core issue here.
Brainiac is talking about this "another problem", you are not. If you both are honestly wrong about this, or one of you are trying to out-define the opponent.. well, who knows
I don't buy this: first you said that bigger pixels will not get you more DR. Now you say MF has more DR because the sensor is bigger
Two 35mm full frame sensor stitched together would magically have more DR?
They would just have twice the pixels than a single one and need a bigger image circle.
Conversely, should you cut a MF sensor in half and stick it in a DSLR, would it have less DR? It would have the same, just half the pixels.
But as someone else wrote, in a couple of days we should know what the new cam is and we'll forget about all this and move on
eosfun wrote:
I can't repeat it often enough: there is no substitute for megapixels! Go ahead, to the 100MP camera asap!
Have EOSfun
You mean there's no substitute for pixels. Megapixels just means millions of them but the photo sites are pixels not megapixels. Megapixels has become a commonly misused term. I know you know this but I'm just having a little EOS you know what.
brunobarolo wrote:
a 60mp FF sensor is MTF50 diffraction limited at f5.6.
This is as rediculous as saying that an exceedlingly fine grain film like EFKE-25 (or Pan-X for you old timers) is diffraction limited. Diffraction is a function of the lens aperture, folks, not the sensor (or film) resolution. A higher resolution sensor may be able to reveal the effects of diffraction better than a lower resolution sensor, but that is no different than a higher resolution sensor being able to reveal a lack of sharpness (or other optical imperfections) of any given lens better than a lower resolution sensor.
Etadam wrote:
So . Assuming the 2 pixels are twice the size of the "one" pixel this is
- either wrong
Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. Imagine that the two pixels together take up the same area as the one pixel, and the micro-lenses are practically gapless. The two pixels should do no worse, in forming an image with low noise, and specifically, accurate colour, than the one pixel. In itself, each of the smaller pixels may be less accurate than the one larger one, but once the two smaller pixels are combined together as an average, for instance by an eye at a normal viewing distance, their combined accuracy should be more or less the same as that of the one larger pixel. The individual inaccuracy of each of the two pixels cancels out somewhat, since the randomness of each of their two noise contributions is independent of the other pixel. That is what I mean by 'smaller pixels can afford to be more noisy in order to deliver the same pictorial result'.
That is why it is a fallacy to equate per pixel noise, or colour accuracy (call it what you will), with the effect of noise on the overall image, as you did. Today there is little practical loss of colour accuracy when doubling the number of pixels from say 12 million to 24 million even though each of the individual pixels of the higher density file is less accurate. That is why your statement "Given a technology, the smaller the pixel, the more likely noise will bias the color accuracy - this is physics" is quite misleading. The higher noise in each pixel DOES NOT NECESSARILY 'bias' the colour of the image more, under the laws of physics. Today's DSLR sensors are quite close to the idealised sensor, in which there is no noise/colour accuracy penalty for cramming in more pixels, except at the per pixel level, which is relevant only in inverse proportion to the ratio of the number of pixels.
So it is not necessarily the case that "the smaller the pixel, the more likely noise will bias the colour accuracy". That dogma is not physics, but a myth whose popularity derives from the widespread failure to view crops at equal magnification. Physics done wrong through a failure to multiply.
d_chiesa wrote:
I don't buy this: first you said that bigger pixels will not get you more DR.
I'll precis what I said:
1) I don't know whether or why pixel size affects dynamic range
2) my 21 megapixel full frame camera doesn't suffer from drastically less DR than my 13 megapixel full frame cameras, but it's a later generation
> Now you say MF has more DR because the sensor is bigger
Do you accept that point&shoots generally have less good dynamic range than DSLR's? Considering that we have many examples of sensors of a particular size with different densities but similar dynamic range, and a tendency for larger sensors to show more of it, what makes more sense: to attribute dynamic range to pixel density or to sensor size?
I might be adding rubbish here, but wouldn't more pixels mean better colour accuracy anyway?
This is my reasoning: Current CMOS is laid out in a bayer pattern: i.e. Red-Green-Blue-Green (so mostly green). Then the real colours are interpolated so that the missing is guessed. So, from my own logic, higer resolution equals more R-G-B-G and therefore less guessing for finer detail.... Does that make any ounce of sense?
Come on 100 pages....
While I'm at it, come on Canon! I was excited, but now I am just plain bored. Not only do I have to wait for the press conference, I've also got to wait for the product to hit the shelves... I've waited enough already... bored bored bored...
While I'm at it, come on Canon! I was excited, but now I am just plain bored. Not only do I have to wait for the press conference, I've also got to wait for the product to hit the shelves... I've waited enough already... bored bored bored...
Geofn wrote:
This is as rediculous as saying that an exceedlingly fine grain film like EFKE-25 (or Pan-X for you old timers) is diffraction limited. Diffraction is a function of the lens aperture, folks, not the sensor (or film) resolution. ..................
The term "limited" is unfortunate, but the aperture number is still useful to know. In landscape were usually looking for a lot of DOF and max details for enlargement. It certainly shows why lens movements may be important.
Considering the same technology:
