HopeIsEternal wrote:
I really dislike this claim of \"But unless you\'re viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn\'t matter\"
This might have been true in the Film days when the normal viewing medium was a fixed size print. But today, images are frequently viewed/used at 100% or close to it especially when performing image processing/editing/cropping functions.
If the claim were really true that per-pixel performance did not matter as much as finished print size, the manufacturers would be selling cameras labelled by the print size. But they don\'t. They sell them by how many megapixels they have. Consumers have a right to expect the same or better per-pixel noise/acuity performance between camera upgrades even if the newer cameras have increased resolution.
Jman13 wrote:
Lower MP sensors may have improved noise PER PIXEL. But unless you\'re viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn\'t matter. Higher resolution means that pixel of noise grain is smaller in the final image, regardless of what size you print at.
That\'s a straw-man argument. Yeah, you actually see it at 100% from time to time, but do you ever display it at 100%? Um....no. Do you honestly purchase new gear because it looks better to you while you\'re editing it? Even if it provides absolutely no benefit in the final image?
The output medium is still a size other than 100% pixel view, whether it be on screen slide show (usually 1980 pixels wide or so), web use (1000 pixels wide or lower), or print. In all three cases, you are going to smoosh the file, regardless of resolution, to a designated output size, and thus the higher resolution output will have each individual pixel make up a smaller part of that final image. If you\'re comparing cameras with different resolutions, and you\'re trying to make the same print, if they have the same per-pixel noise, the final print will have finer grained noise, that will be less apparent, with the higher MP image.
If you\'re doing, say, an HD slide show, and you reduce a 16 MP 5000 pixel wide image, to HD width, you\'re binning 2.6 pixels into one. If you are using a 10 MP image, at 4000 pixels wide, you\'re binning just about 2 pixels into one. The higher MP image can have 25% more noise at the pixel level and the exact same output will be seen on the screen.
HopeIsEternal wrote:
I really dislike this claim of \"But unless you\'re viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn\'t matter\"
This might have been true in the Film days when the normal viewing medium was a fixed size print. But today, images are frequently viewed/used at 100% or close to it especially when performing image processing/editing/cropping functions.
If the claim were really true that per-pixel performance did not matter as much as finished print size, the manufacturers would be selling cameras labelled by the print size. But they don\'t. They sell them by how many megapixels they have. Consumers have a right to expect the same or better per-pixel noise/acuity performance between camera upgrades even if the newer cameras have increased resolution.
Jman13 wrote:
Lower MP sensors may have improved noise PER PIXEL. But unless you\'re viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn\'t matter. Higher resolution means that pixel of noise grain is smaller in the final image, regardless of what size you print at.
That\'s a straw-man argument. Yeah, you actually see it at 100% from time to time, but do you ever display it at 100%? Um....no. The output medium is still a size other than 100% pixel view, whether it be on screen slide show (usually 1980 pixels wide or so), web use (1000 pixels wide or lower), or print. In all three cases, you are going to smoosh the file, regardless of resolution, to a designated output size, and thus the higher resolution output will have each individual pixel make up a smaller part of that final image. If you\'re comparing cameras with different resolutions, and you\'re trying to make the same print, if they have the same per-pixel noise, the final print will have finer grained noise, that will be less apparent, with the higher MP image.
If you\'re doing, say, an HD slide show, and you reduce a 16 MP 5000 pixel wide image, to HD width, you\'re binning 2.6 pixels into one. If you are using a 10 MP image, at 4000 pixels wide, you\'re binning just about 2 pixels into one. The higher MP image can have 25% more noise at the pixel level and the exact same output will be seen on the screen.
HopeIsEternal wrote:
I really dislike this claim of \"But unless you\'re viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn\'t matter\"
This might have been true in the Film days when the normal viewing medium was a fixed size print. But today, images are frequently viewed/used at 100% or close to it especially when performing image processing/editing/cropping functions.
If the claim were really true that per-pixel performance did not matter as much as finished print size, the manufacturers would be selling cameras labelled by the print size. But they don\'t. They sell them by how many megapixels they have. Consumers have a right to expect the same or better per-pixel noise/acuity performance between camera upgrades even if the newer cameras have increased resolution.
Jman13 wrote:
Lower MP sensors may have improved noise PER PIXEL. But unless you\'re viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn\'t matter. Higher resolution means that pixel of noise grain is smaller in the final image, regardless of what size you print at.
That\'s a straw-man argument. Yeah, you actually see it at 100% from time to time, but do you ever display it at 100%? Um....no. The output medium is still a size other than 100% pixel view, whether it be on screen slide show (usually 1980 pixels wide or so), web use (1000 pixels wide or lower), or print. In all three cases, you are going to smoosh the file, regardless of resolution, to a designated output size, and thus the higher resolution output will have each individual pixel make up a smaller part of that final image.
If you\'re doing, say, an HD slide show, and you reduce a 16 MP 5000 pixel wide image, to HD width, you\'re binning 2.6 pixels into one. If you are using a 10 MP image, at 4000 pixels wide, you\'re binning just about 2 pixels into one. The higher MP image can have 25% more noise at the pixel level and the exact same output will be seen on the screen.
In print, the same applies.
Jan 27, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #10286218 « A Digital OM? »
