In article <MPG.24add311cd9d594e98c042@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I see your point, but before further increasing the pixel counts they
> should make full colour pixels. That alone would boost the effective
> resolution substantially.
actually the resolution increase would be much less than 'substantial',
the sensor will have more noise and at least right now, more difficult
to manufacture.
bugbear wrote:
> ribbit wrote:
>> You are talking to the deaf mate.
>> Not long ago a Wedding photography client complained to me that the
>> pictures from my S5 Fuji Pro showed all the skin blemishes on his new
>> wife's arms but his $150 Olympus P&S didn't.
>>
>> He thought the lack of detail from his P&S was an Olympus feature! How
>> many proponents of P&S being as good as a DSLR have the same belief?
>
> Built in "glamour retouch"! Splendid!
>
John Navas wrote:
> Many have decried the "megapixel race" that has resulted in ever smaller
> photosites, not just for compact digital cameras, but also for dSLR
> cameras, but I think this is not being borne out in real world
> performance -- images from current high megapixel sensors in both
> compact digital cameras (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ28) and dSLR cameras are
> unquestionably better than images from earlier comparable sensors with
> lower megapixel counts (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ8).
>
> The reasons are that sensors are better and that image quality has come
> to be dominated by in camera processing, especially as faster and more
> powerful processors have become available.
>
> I personally see no reason not to increase the sensor resolution as long
> as in camera processing keeps pace -- I've seen some interesting
> (non-public) papers on how smaller photosites can be aggregated to
> produce better results than larger photosites, in part because of Bayer
> issues.
>
> I think it's quite possible we might see (say) 16 MP sensors aggregated
> down to (say) 8 MP output that produce better results than comparable
> 8 MP sensors, especially for everyday shooting.
>
At some point the number of photons/photoelectrons captured during a
typical exposure will become so low that photon noise WILL become an
issue. At any reasonable exposure there are only so many photons
striking each square micron of detector surface area. We may not be
there yet, in spite of warnings, but we cannot go TOO small without
running into this problem. We cannot cut pixel size indefinitely
without ending up with cameras with a very low ISO sensitivity.
Ofnuts wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> ribbit wrote:
>>> You are talking to the deaf mate.
>>> Not long ago a Wedding photography client complained to me that the
>>> pictures from my S5 Fuji Pro showed all the skin blemishes on his new
>>> wife's arms but his $150 Olympus P&S didn't.
>>>
>>> He thought the lack of detail from his P&S was an Olympus feature!
>>> How many proponents of P&S being as good as a DSLR have the same belief?
>>
>> Built in "glamour retouch"! Splendid!
>>
>
> As usual, the SLR world has an edge:
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Canon-135mm-Softfocus-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WK#moreAboutThisProduct>
>
Remember the fad over the "Lomo Effect", and reproducing it in Gimp/Photoshop?!
Don Stauffer wrote:
> At some point the number of photons/photoelectrons captured during a
> typical exposure will become so low that photon noise WILL become an
> issue. At any reasonable exposure there are only so many photons
> striking each square micron of detector surface area. We may not be
> there yet, in spite of warnings, but we cannot go TOO small without
> running into this problem.
Can any passing astronomers comment on this - I strongly
suspect photon calculations are meat and drink in that
sphere.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:55:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<cbF0m.47241$OO7.19349@text.news.virginmedia.com >:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
>> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from a
>>> P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of course
>>> you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>>
>> Nope. Sorry.
>
>I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the difference was
>quite obvious.
Then, and with all due respect, you're pixel peeping, or need to learn
how to properly use your compact camera, or need a better compact
camera.
I do such comparisons frequently, and both prints and viewed images from
my compact camera are often better than comparable pictures taken with a
dSLR camera.
To be clear, I'm talking real world use of real world images, not
"ultimate quality" under controlled conditions.
At a yacht club after a regatta last year I made my usual offer to add
my images to the projector showing pro dSLR images of the event. The
pro objected. In the past too many people had commented on how my
images were better.
A camera is just a tool, and a great photographer with a good camera
will tend to produce better images than a good photographer with a great
camera.
"The best camera is the one you have with you."
"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches
behind it." ~Ansel Adams
"A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into." ~Ansel Adams
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good
photographs." ~Ansel Adams
Your Camera Doesn't Matter, by Ken Rockwell
<http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm>
"Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon
owner." ~Author Unknown
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:19:33 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net>
wrote in <93J0m.51989$lB7.32317@newsfe19.iad>:
>I am beginning to feel that lens quality is probably at least as
>important to image quality as MP and sensor size (within limits of
>course).
>
>In strong sunlite, a good Leica lens with a small (1/2.5" 4MP
>sensor)can yield a better image than a mediocre lens with a larger
>(APS-C, 8 MP sensor).
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:32:21 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.24add311cd9d594e98c042@news.supernews.com>:
>I see your point, but before further increasing the pixel counts they
>should make full colour pixels. That alone would boost the effective
>resolution substantially.
When pixel count is increased, chrominance (color) resolution increases
as well, which is part of why the 16 MP sensor might well produce a
better 8 MP image than an 8 MP sensor.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:55:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
> in <cbF0m.47241$OO7.19349@text.news.virginmedia.com >:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
>>> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from
>>>> a P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of
>>>> course you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>>>
>>> Nope. Sorry.
>>
>> I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the
>> difference was quite obvious.
>
> Then, and with all due respect, you're pixel peeping, or need to learn
> how to properly use your compact camera, or need a better compact
> camera.
No, looking at the full image on a 1.9MP 20-inch display, as I already
said elsewhere. Specifically /not/ pixel peeping. The compact camera was
correctly used. A "better" compact camera than the Panasonic TZ3 (of the
same era) would no longer be "compact".
On 2009-06-24 08:25:30 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> said:
> The reasons are that sensors are better and that image quality has come
> to be dominated by in camera processing, especially as faster and more
> powerful processors have become available.
>
Uh, no. In-camera processing cannot recover information that was never
recorded or which was destroyed by the sensor. You don't get something
from nothing. It is not reasonable to say that a system that first
damages a photo and then makes cosmetic adjustments to "fix" it is
"better."
However, even RAW files have been showing some improvement. These are
not processed in-camera. The improvements have come from better
microlenses and other physical improvements to the sensors. But those
improvements are in spite of the increase in the number of photosites,
not because of them.
Re: Future of the megapixel race 
Linear Mode
