Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Sharing Knowhow' section > Talk About Photography > General Photography Talk
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th of June 2009 (Thu)   #61
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
 
cdifoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,868
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

In other words, this is all hypothetical.
__________________
Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!
cdifoto is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 11th of June 2009 (Thu)   #62
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 23,921
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdifoto View Post
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.
__________________
Taylor
Galleries: Flickr
60D | EOS M | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s
tkbslc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of June 2009 (Thu)   #63
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
 
cdifoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,868
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

Yeah that's my take on it as well.
__________________
Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!
cdifoto is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 11th of June 2009 (Thu)   #64
tdodd
Goldmember
 
tdodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 3,675
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning View Post
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

Last edited by tdodd : 11th of June 2009 (Thu) at 14:41.
tdodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of June 2009 (Thu)   #65
Daniel Browning
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 1,199
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

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.]
__________________
Daniel
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of June 2009 (Thu)   #66
PIXmantra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,183
Thumbs down 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/feharmat/image/113052992/original
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/113052997/original


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/feharmat/image/113053006/original

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
__________________
Click here for FlexNR-Professional Noise Reduction for EOS 1D3
2x1DMKIII/60D/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
EIZO CG241W / Viewsonic VP930b / HP Z800 x2 XEON, x12 Core

Last edited by PIXmantra : 11th of June 2009 (Thu) at 21:43.
PIXmantra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of June 2009 (Thu)   #67
lungdoc
Goldmember
 
lungdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,065
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

WOW, this is a GREAT thread. Thanks Daniel!
__________________
Mark
My Smugmug Eos 7D, 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,
lungdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #68
Daniel Browning
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 1,199
Default Re: This, unfortunately, is not true...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIXmantra View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIXmantra View Post
(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 image

50D test image
__________________
Daniel
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #69
PIXmantra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,183
Smile Talk about a self-inflicted distortion of reality...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning View Post

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning View Post
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.


Cheers,

PIX
__________________
Click here for FlexNR-Professional Noise Reduction for EOS 1D3
2x1DMKIII/60D/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
EIZO CG241W / Viewsonic VP930b / HP Z800 x2 XEON, x12 Core

Last edited by PIXmantra : 12th of June 2009 (Fri) at 09:19.
PIXmantra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #70
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
 
cdifoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,868
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

I don't know about spatial frequency and all of that, but I do know what my eyes tell me.
__________________
Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!
cdifoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #71
Daniel Browning
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 1,199
Default Re: Talk about a self-inflicted distortion of reality...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIXmantra View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIXmantra View Post
...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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIXmantra View Post
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.
__________________
Daniel
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #72
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
 
cdifoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,868
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

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.
__________________
Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!
cdifoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #73
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 23,921
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

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.
__________________
Taylor
Galleries: Flickr
60D | EOS M | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s
tkbslc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #74
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
 
cdifoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 33,868
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

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.
__________________
Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here. Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid!
cdifoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2009 (Fri)   #75
hairy_moth
Goldmember
 
hairy_moth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,654
Default Re: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning View Post
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.
__________________
7D | 300D | G1X (new) | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr
hairy_moth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It could always be worse Jpatten General Photography Talk 11 3rd of January 2009 (Sat) 10:36
Which is Worse? Pixel Peeping or Chimping? Tee Why General Photography Talk 43 1st of April 2007 (Sun) 10:56
In House Performance (First Attempts and Performance Photography) aacmckay Performing Arts 14 14th of February 2007 (Wed) 13:42
Pixel Density / Pixel Size Question BTBeilke Canon EOS Digital Cameras 19 29th of August 2005 (Mon) 09:28
Dead Pixel, Hot Pixel, or Just a JPEG Anomaly???? ruettgers Canon EOS Digital Cameras 11 12th of June 2005 (Sun) 21:02


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.