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.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:25:30 -0700, 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
You don't see any reason because there's no direct comparison. If you
build a 6 MP APS-C sensor with current technology, you can use much
larger and better photosites than in the days of 6 MP-DSLRs. And if you
use current processing techniques afterwards, the image will get even
better.
I'm not saying that less is better, but you can't claim that more is
better either. As I said, there's no comparison available.
In article <a929$4a424974$5469b618$2444@cache60.multikabel.ne t>,
Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote:
> You don't see any reason because there's no direct comparison. If you
> build a 6 MP APS-C sensor with current technology, you can use much
> larger and better photosites than in the days of 6 MP-DSLRs. And if you
> use current processing techniques afterwards, the image will get even
> better.
>
> I'm not saying that less is better, but you can't claim that more is
> better either. As I said, there's no comparison available.
Robert-
If you apply the same pixels (density) of the 6 MP APS-C sensor, to a
24mm X 36mm sensor, you would have about 13.5 MP. Comparing same-size
prints, they should be better because less magnification is required.
Or, are you claiming that 6 MP APS-C is "good enough"? While that may
be true, it isn't the issue!
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:11:18 -0400, Fred McKenzie wrote:
> In article <a929$4a424974$5469b618$2444@cache60.multikabel.ne t>,
>> I'm not saying that less is better, but you can't claim that more is
>> better either. As I said, there's no comparison available.
>
> If you apply the same pixels (density) of the 6 MP APS-C sensor, to a
> 24mm X 36mm sensor, you would have about 13.5 MP. Comparing same-size
> prints, they should be better because less magnification is required.
_That's_ not the issue. John and I were talking about differing numbers
of pixels on a single sensor size.
In message <nsg445hsf9nnitng6a59r8mgv9dauav740@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes
[Clip]
>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).
It's a truism that newer components tend be better than older
components; if they were worse then there would be no point in designing
and building new ones.
>
>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'd like to see wider dynamic range for existing smaller sensor devices
rather than specifically increasing pixel density. One way to do this
might be to increase the number of filter channels -- a six-channel
filter, say instead of the traditional 3-channel RGB filtering process.
Printing technology went this way some years back with the Hexachrome
process replacing older 4-colour CMYK print lines, and some high-gamut
LCD monitors and displays are starting to appear on the market with
five-colour filters rather than the conventional three-channel RGB
system that is a hangover from the old colour TV set CRT.
Increasing useful pixel density on existing small-surface sensors will
require improvements in lens quality and there isn't a lot of slack in
that process these days -- even cheap lenses are being built to function
at close to their theoretical optimum performance.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
The battle goes on.
I can guarantee that no one can distinguish an 8.5x11 inch print made from a
D70, a D200 or a D300 of an image made under identical circumstances.
Observers may distinguish subtle differences but that is not the same thing
as being able to tell which sensor made which image.
One reason too many of you forget is that the inkjet printing process, both
the software driver and the physical properties of the medium, are the great
levelers of print image quality. In fact the particular printer type and
paper used will have more of an effect on the final printed image than the
dSLR image sensors listed.
There is no denying that viewing magnified sections of an image on a
computer monitor will easily distinguish specific sensor characteristics.
However that act is in no way comparable to viewing a finished ink jet
print.
For most advanced amateur purposes the megapixel race is illusory and
diverts attention from the persistent Achilles heel of digital image
capture: restricted dynamic range.
trouble wrote:
> The battle goes on.
> I can guarantee that no one can distinguish an 8.5x11 inch print made
> from a D70, a D200 or a D300 of an image made under identical
> circumstances. Observers may distinguish subtle differences but that is
> not the same thing as being able to tell which sensor made which image.
> One reason too many of you forget is that the inkjet printing process,
> both the software driver and the physical properties of the medium, are
> the great levelers of print image quality. In fact the particular
> printer type and paper used will have more of an effect on the final
> printed image than the dSLR image sensors listed.
> There is no denying that viewing magnified sections of an image on a
> computer monitor will easily distinguish specific sensor
> characteristics. However that act is in no way comparable to viewing a
> finished ink jet print.
> For most advanced amateur purposes the megapixel race is illusory and
> diverts attention from the persistent Achilles heel of digital image
> capture: restricted dynamic range.
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?
I used Noise Ninja at high levels to remove all the detail from the
photo. He asked me why I hadn't done that in the first place.
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.
--
With age come a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, **** and pee all at the same time!
On Jun 24, 1:40*pm, "trouble" <fac_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The battle goes on.
> I can guarantee that no one can distinguish an 8.5x11 inch print made from a
> D70, a D200 or a D300 of an image made under identical circumstances.
It depends on the subject matter. Some subjects are going to produce
a large amount of moiré pattern with the D70 that would not show up on
the D300. In this case even a 4x6 print can show the difference.
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.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
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.
>
Sure, but at some point the sensor sites will become so small that the
signal to noise ratio approaches 0, which would be a 'point of
diminishing returns', literally. There are physical realities in this
case, photons, and electrons, and they have finite sizes. Where is the
limit? Who can say, but the commercial feasibility is what governs this
issue, not the physical/electronic limitations. We might make sensors
that have more pixels, but would the cost rise faster than the improved
quality.
Future of the megapixel race 
Linear Mode
