LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 07 Jun 2009 (Sunday) 22:20   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

In other words, this is all hypothetical. ;)

Post #61, Jun 11, 2009 14:04:18


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it hereexternal link. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

cdifoto wrote in post #8091504external link
In other words, this is all hypothetical. ;)

Since most of what makes a good image is subject, lighting and focus, I would say it is all pretty silly to worry about. Especially since all recent Canon SLR cameras perform very well in a variety of conditions. Good enough, anyway, that it rarely comes down to the sensor or pixel size.

Post #62, Jun 11, 2009 14:08:04


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Yeah that's my take on it as well.

Post #63, Jun 11, 2009 14:09:43


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it hereexternal link. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!

LOG IN TO REPLY
tdodd
Goldmember
tdodd's Avatar
Joined Jun 2006
3,729 posts
Essex, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8091472external link
The large pixels of the 1D3 will always blur the image so much that it's impossible to see the motion blur underneath it. The 50D makes it possible to see what was always there.

Personally, I want to make sure my sensor never adds more blur than the other parts of the system.

There we differ, sort of. I'd rather store and process 10MP/14MB image files that look good, than store and process 15MP/21MB image files that don't. Who wants to store and process noise and blur? Not me.

But sure, I don't want the sensor to be the weak point in the system. There's just no point in it being so good that it far exceeds the capabilities of (a number of) other parts of the image recording chain.

Bottom line (in simple terms) - if it moves, use the 1D3; if it doesn't, use the 50D. The 40D is for people that shoot both types of subject but only have one camera :)

Post #64, Jun 11, 2009 14:12:20




LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2008
1,199 posts
Vancouver, WA
[MORE/SHARE]

Good point about file size. In the future there may be software solutions for that, but until then your point stands.

[REDCODE is one example of having the benefits of smaller pixels without the penalty of larger files / slower processing. Hopefully software like that will eventually make it to the Japanese Giants.]

Post #65, Jun 11, 2009 14:19:01 as a reply to tdodd's post 6 minutes earlier.


Daniel

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
PIXmantra
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2008
1,193 posts
Florida, U.S.A.
[MORE/SHARE]

This, unfortunately, is not true...

...Simply because increasing head-room for brights (well-depth), and cleaning up the darks (read noise and other garbage), at the same time, beats everything else, even if you use LESS pixels with such formula.

What happens is that you are describing a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy which is nothing else than the product of being inexorably bounded to physics and dynamics of ever shrinking sensels-surface, which is the only choice left with smaller and smaller sensels (for now).

It is your own rationalization of defeat (no pun intended).

And for that, my friend, I have a demonstration of the opposite dynamics of what you describe, with an ACTUAL image:

(40D on the left, and 50D on the right, both converted with LR, and NO further noise-reduction nor sharpening applied, just the crude conversion+color mapping):

http://www.pbase.com .../image/113052992/or​iginalexternal link
http://www.pbase.com .../image/113052997/or​iginalexternal link


And want to know what happens when you do your very best on the NR department? (much better than DiGiCIV)?

Well, you lose. You lose at the entry of the workflow (above), therefore you lose at the exit too (NR):

http://www.pbase.com .../image/113053006/or​iginalexternal link

Check the red-cloth, which is an inmensely valuable area for establishing overall image integrity before-and-after and what happens when you go "too far" when trying to pull out similar results to, say, 40D's reference.

Love,

PIX

Post #66, Jun 11, 2009 21:41:11 as a reply to Daniel Browning's post 7 hours earlier.


Click here for FlexNR-Professional Noise Reduction for EOS 1D3
CPS Member/ 2x1DMKIII/ 70D/ Pentax MX
300mm f/2.8 L II IS/ 24mm f/1.4 L II/ 35mm f/2.0 IS/ 17-40 f/4 L/ 24-105 f/4 L IS / 70-200 f/4 L IS
270EX/ 580EX/ 580EX II/ ST-E2/ CP-E3
HP Z800 x2 XEON, x12 Core/ EIZO CG241W/ Viewsonic VP930b

LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
lungdoc's Avatar
Joined May 2006
2,101 posts
St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

WOW, this is a GREAT thread. Thanks Daniel!

Post #67, Jun 11, 2009 22:05:41


Mark
My Smugmugexternal link Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2008
1,199 posts
Vancouver, WA
[MORE/SHARE]

PIXmantra wrote in post #8094056external link
And for that, my friend, I have a demonstration of the opposite dynamics of what you describe, with an ACTUAL image:

Hey, come on now; the OP has "actual" images too! :)

PIXmantra wrote in post #8094056external link
(40D on the left, and 50D on the right, both converted with LR, and NO further noise-reduction nor sharpening applied, just the crude conversion+color mapping):

The flaws in your comparison include at least unequal spatial frequencies and unequal processing.

Specifically, you cropped smaller portion of the 50D, it's missing much of the text on the wine bottles. A correct comparison requires the crops (or the entire file) to be the same size and have the same content.

Furthermore, you used Lightroom, which applies different processing to each camera, and also performs averaging-based noise reduction even when noise reduction is set to "off".

What follows is a correctly-executed comparison of the 50D and 40D by Emil Martinec. They are the same size and contain the same content. They were generated from the RAWs posted at Imaging-Resource using DPP with NR off:

40D test imageexternal link

50D test imageexternal link

Post #68, Jun 12, 2009 00:10:17


Daniel

LOG IN TO REPLY
PIXmantra
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2008
1,193 posts
Florida, U.S.A.
[MORE/SHARE]

Talk about a self-inflicted distortion of reality...

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8094777external link
Specifically, you cropped smaller portion of the 50D, it's missing much of the text on the wine bottles. A correct comparison requires the crops (or the entire file) to be the same size and have the same content.

They are irrelevant. These images speak VOLUMES in three (3) very important areas: the multi-colored cloth surfaces (esp. deel purple, green and red), the black mug and the black (folded) cloth-edges underneath it, as well as the deeper shadow casts and darker parts of the bottles. THERE is where you learn about the truth.

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8094777external link
Furthermore, you used Lightroom, which applies different processing to each camera, and also performs averaging-based noise reduction even when noise reduction is set to "off".

Lightroom did not apply any such differentiated processing. In fact, LR is pretty unforgiving when NR & Sharpness set all to ZERO/OFF, and don't make me post the RawAnalyzer vis-a-vis samples, because they just confirm what Lightroom is reporting. In short, your claim in this example is FALSE.

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8094777external link
What follows is a correctly-executed comparison of the 50D and 40D by Emil Martinec.

That is HARDLY a correctly "executed" outcome, from a professional image processing point of view. It is well executed and dressed around the academic argument in hand (e.g. trying to do something with a larger buch of noisier sensels), but, rest assured, it has little resemblance to the what you would deliver to a client, though. :cool:

Cheers,

PIX

Post #69, Jun 12, 2009 07:19:57


Click here for FlexNR-Professional Noise Reduction for EOS 1D3
CPS Member/ 2x1DMKIII/ 70D/ Pentax MX
300mm f/2.8 L II IS/ 24mm f/1.4 L II/ 35mm f/2.0 IS/ 17-40 f/4 L/ 24-105 f/4 L IS / 70-200 f/4 L IS
270EX/ 580EX/ 580EX II/ ST-E2/ CP-E3
HP Z800 x2 XEON, x12 Core/ EIZO CG241W/ Viewsonic VP930b

LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

I don't know about spatial frequency and all of that, but I do know what my eyes tell me.

Post #70, Jun 12, 2009 08:20:11


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it hereexternal link. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2008
1,199 posts
Vancouver, WA
[MORE/SHARE]

PIXmantra wrote in post #8095892external link
They are irrelevant.

It's interesting that you find spatial frequency to be irrelevant. Do you think it matters for MTF? If so, would you kindly explain how MTF is different than noise power?

PIXmantra wrote in post #8095892external link
...don't make me post the RawAnalyzer vis-a-vis samples, because they just confirm what Lightroom is reporting.

Rawnalyze would certainly address the "unequal processing" objection.

PIXmantra wrote in post #8095892external link
It is well executed and dressed around the academic argument in hand (e.g. trying to do something with a larger buch of noisier sensels), but, rest assured, it has little resemblance to the what you would deliver to a client, though.

You're saying that a realistic comparison must have a 50D crop that is 22% smaller in each dimension than the 40D crop. I have a hard time imagining how that resembles what I would deliver to a client.

Does it reflect the idea that you will always print the 50D 22% larger than the 40D? 36.6x24.4 for the 50D instead of 30x20 for the 40D? 10x12 instead of 8x10?

Or does it resemble your professional technique in that when you crop the image, if at all, you will always crop the 50D 22% smaller? Headshot on the 50D instead of head-and-shoulders on the 40D? ECU on the 50D instead of a headshot on the 40D?

Since I don't do any of the above, I find that cropping the same portion of the image out of both cameras resembles what I give to a client.

Post #71, Jun 12, 2009 12:01:29


Daniel

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

What I give to my client is what resembles what I give to my client. That's why looking at 100% crops (without measurbating them to death) is the only way to compare cameras and their sensors. It gives you a worst-case scenario. That's why the 40D crop PIXmantra posted is smaller than the 50D crop he also posted.

Post #72, Jun 12, 2009 12:11:40


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it hereexternal link. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

A client is going to order a specific sized print, regardless of what camera you took the image with. So the output size is going to be the same - say 8x10 or 11x14, etc. Yoru picture will also contain the same subject and details regardless of what camera you took the image with. So normalizing the output sizes when making IQ comparisons seems fair, unless you plan to print everything 50% larger when moving from a 40D to a 50D, etc.

Post #73, Jun 12, 2009 12:21:59


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
cdifoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
34,036 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

To my mind there's no point in comparing "normalized" images. If you're gonna do that, there's no sense in upgrading equipment in the first place. Might as well just use what you have. If you're comparing because you're upgrading, you probably want to know how much MORE you can get out of the new kit. Thus, 100%.

In other words, if my gear is already great for the sizes I print and I know I won't be printing any bigger than I already do, I'm not going to buy more pixels.

Post #74, Jun 12, 2009 12:23:34


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it hereexternal link. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!

LOG IN TO REPLY
hairy_moth
Goldmember
hairy_moth's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
3,736 posts
NJ
[MORE/SHARE]

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8091472external link
Personally, I want to make sure my sensor never adds more blur than the other parts of the system.

This is an interesting point. So what you are saying is you want your lens to add more blur than your sensor. (okay.. maybe you didn't say that exactly..)

But the concept is interesting:

What should be the weakest point in the system?

There are a few answers that come to mind.

1. The "photographer should be the weakest.." You should not want to be limited by your equipment, your equipment should be limited by you.

2. In terms of equipment, the most expensive piece to upgrade should be the weak link. But that changes based on focal length.

Post #75, Jun 12, 2009 12:43:47


7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
16,095 views & 0 likes for this thread
Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00103 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
846 guests, 687 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Blueme

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.