Cableaddict wrote:
Brainaic, That is absolutely not true, and someone with your extensive experience & general knowledge should know better. Photosite size has a significant effect on noise levels and dynamic range. -almost by definition. This information is easy to find online. Photosite technology is no doubt better now than 3 years ago, but you specifically wrote \"of the same technology.\"
Photosite size has a significant effect on PER PIXEL NOISE. You\'re right: it is easy to find this information online. Sites like DPReview and Luminous Landscape assess cameras by zooming to 100% and making pronouncements about PER PIXEL NOISE, ignorantly, and wallet-toting photographers avidly read those reviews which inform their opinions. The whole thing is a mass delusion - the blind leading the blind. PER PIXEL noise should only be compared between cameras in the ratio of the number of megapixels. A D3 needs to have much better PER PIXEL noise characteristics than a 1Ds3, JUST IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH IT, because in any given print the 1Ds3 pixels will be much smaller, and therefore the noise is far less destructive to the image, since noise averages out.
Never have an opinion based on comparing 100% crops unless the two files have first been resized to the same numbers of pixels. Otherwise a myth develops, and that myth is: \"per pixel noise gives a consistent insight into per picture noise, and larger pixels are therefore better\".
> I must admit that all the tech stuff I read did not relate to gapless micro lens sensors.
Perhaps Brainiac is correct after all, though only for the very newest sensors, and if so I apologize!
-But I want to read more about this before I fully commit to the idea. I get the basic idea though- If there are no gaps (are these photosites square?) then there\'s no accumulated area loss.
-----------------------
-note, though, that it is still wrong to call the other poster\'s info \"a myth,\" since it is correct regarding all older sensors..
The myth is even wronger for the newest sensors, but it is also a myth for older sensors. We can see this by trying to pick two cameras with sensors of the same size from the same manufacturer in which the higher resolving camera has worse PER PICTURE noise. There are remarkably few examples, if any, and many counter-examples. The reason that pixel size has never had a huge effect is that for a long time now the great majority of the sensor area has been harnessed, and the gaps have been very small. For that reason one would have to make a dramatic difference to density in order to see a significantly detrimental effect.
How did the myth grow up? People looked at 100% crops from different cameras with different numbers of megapixels, and failed to notice that they were comparing sections from images at different magnifications. This always handicaps the higher resolving camera. The benefits of increasing the number of megapixels are underestimated.
Sep 15, 2008 at 05:28 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
Re: Canon 5DII rumors thread
Cableaddict wrote:
Brainaic, That is absolutely not true, and someone with your extensive experience & general knowledge should know better. Photosite size has a significant effect on noise levels and dynamic range. -almost by definition. This information is easy to find online. Photosite technology is no doubt better now than 3 years ago, but you specifically wrote \"of the same technology.\"
Photosite size has a significant effect on PER PIXEL NOISE. You\'re right: it is easy to find this information online. Sites like DPReview and Luminous Landscape assess cameras by zooming to 100% and making pronouncements about PER PIXEL NOISE, ignorantly, and wallet-toting photographers avidly read those reviews which inform their opinions. The whole thing is a mass delusion - the blind leading the blind. PER PIXEL noise should only be compared between cameras in the ratio of the number of megapixels. A D3 needs to have much better PER PIXEL noise characteristics than a 1Ds3, JUST IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH IT, because in any given print the 1Ds3 pixels will be much smaller, and therefore the noise is far less destructive to the image, since noise averages out.
Never have an opinion based on comparing 100% crops unless the two files have first been resized to the same numbers of pixels. Otherwise a myth develops: per pixel noise gives a consistent insight into per picture noise, and larger pixels are therefore better.
> I must admit that all the tech stuff I read did not relate to gapless micro lens sensors.
Perhaps Brainiac is correct after all, though only for the very newest sensors, and if so I apologize!
-But I want to read more about this before I fully commit to the idea. I get the basic idea though- If there are no gaps (are these photosites square?) then there\'s no accumulated area loss.
-----------------------
-note, though, that it is still wrong to call the other poster\'s info \"a myth,\" since it is correct regarding all older sensors..
The myth is even wronger for the newest sensors, but it is also a myth for older sensors. We can see this by trying to pick two cameras with sensors of the same size from the same manufacturer in which the higher resolving camera has worse PER PICTURE noise. There are remarkably few examples, if any, and many counter-examples. The reason that pixel size has never had a huge effect is that for a long time now the great majority of the sensor area has been harnessed, and the gaps have been very small. For that reason one would have to make a dramatic difference to density in order to see a significantly detrimental effect.
How did the myth grow up? People looked at 100% crops from different cameras with different numbers of megapixels, and failed to notice that they were comparing sections from images at different magnifications. This always handicaps the higher resolving camera. The benefits of increasing the number of megapixels are underestimated.
