Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 21 Aug 2009 (Friday) 10:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Pixel density ??

 
450newb
Member
81 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Way to far south
     
Aug 21, 2009 10:14 |  #1

With the rumored 7D being FF @ 12.1 MP I was wondering what effect that would have on enlargements. Meaning, is 12.1 MP going to provide enough pixel density with a FF sensor to produce enlargements with good IQ? I'm a rookie so please pardon my ignorance on the subject.


1D MARK IV, G9, Canon 8-15 4L USM, Canon 24-70 2.8L USM, Canon 400 5.6L USM, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, Canon 50mm 1.2L, Canon 16-35 2.8L II, Slik Pro 700 DX Tri-Pod
Nothing or nobody is safe from my hack-kneed photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,568 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Aug 21, 2009 10:21 |  #2

It wasn't long ago that 12.1 MP would have been considered an amazing amount of resolution. To answer your question, that much resolution is capable of producing amazing enlargements. It could spit out 20x30's with wonderful detail quite easily.

That said, I've heard nothing about a rumored 7D, so my above comment is generic and has nothing to do with a rumored camera :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
450newb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
81 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Way to far south
     
Aug 21, 2009 10:26 |  #3

jra wrote in post #8499038 (external link)
It wasn't long ago that 12.1 MP would have been considered an amazing amount of resolution. To answer your question, that much resolution is capable of producing amazing enlargements. It could spit out 20x30's with wonderful detail quite easily.

Thanks for the reply! I've made numerous enlargements with my XSI, all the way on up to poster size and they came out fantastic. But thats a crop sensor and in my understanding this gives it more pixel density which is better for enlargements. I guess I was curious if keeping that same resolution but switching to a FF sensor would have any noticeable effect on IQ.


1D MARK IV, G9, Canon 8-15 4L USM, Canon 24-70 2.8L USM, Canon 400 5.6L USM, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, Canon 50mm 1.2L, Canon 16-35 2.8L II, Slik Pro 700 DX Tri-Pod
Nothing or nobody is safe from my hack-kneed photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Detrimental
Senior Member
303 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Florida, USA
     
Aug 21, 2009 10:28 |  #4

PIxel Density has nothing to do with enlargements, megapixels do.


5D Mark II w/grip
85L f/1.2 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elwood58
Senior Member
Avatar
319 posts
Joined Dec 2004
Location: RSM California
     
Aug 21, 2009 11:17 |  #5

Detrimental wrote in post #8499079 (external link)
PIxel Density has nothing to do with enlargements, megapixels do.

A somewhat inaccurate statement. Pixel density does have an overall impact due to noise introduced by the close proximity of pixels to each other. FF bodies always seem to produce a cleaner image, and hold up very well to enlargement, with much lower noise levels in the finished image.

That said, Canon is certainly getting better at cramming pixels very close together without the historical levels of noise seen in the past. Combine this with their improved on camera processing, and you can create some amazing enlargements from their entire line.


50D and a bunch of lenses (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
450newb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
81 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Way to far south
     
Aug 21, 2009 11:21 |  #6

elwood58 wrote in post #8499337 (external link)
A somewhat inaccurate statement. Pixel density does have an overall impact due to noise introduced by the close proximity of pixels to each other. FF bodies always seem to produce a cleaner image, and hold up very well to enlargement, with much lower noise levels in the finished image.

That said, Canon is certainly getting better at cramming pixels very close together without the historical levels of noise seen in the past. Combine this with their improved on camera processing, and you can create some amazing enlargements from their entire line.


Thank you!


1D MARK IV, G9, Canon 8-15 4L USM, Canon 24-70 2.8L USM, Canon 400 5.6L USM, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, Canon 50mm 1.2L, Canon 16-35 2.8L II, Slik Pro 700 DX Tri-Pod
Nothing or nobody is safe from my hack-kneed photography.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Aug 21, 2009 11:26 |  #7

Detrimental wrote in post #8499079 (external link)
PIxel Density has nothing to do with enlargements, megapixels do.

Lets print a 16x20 from a Canon SD960 and a Canon 5D and see if that theory holds up.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Aug 21, 2009 13:54 |  #8

There will always be a greater enlargement of the optical imperfections from the lens using a crop vs a FF camera when making a print of a given size. A 16x24 print from a FF is only a ~16x physical enlargement, while a 16 x 24 from a 1.6 crop will be a ~25x enlargement, totally regardless of the number of pixels.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
1,199 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
     
Aug 21, 2009 15:11 |  #9

elwood58 wrote in post #8499337 (external link)
A somewhat inaccurate statement. Pixel density does have an overall impact due to noise introduced by the close proximity of pixels to each other.

Noise caused by "close proximity of pixels" is called electronic crosstalk, and it is immeasurably small at pixel sizes larger than 1.7um+. The only time that high pixel density causes higher noise when the sensor designers cannot scale read noise with pixel size. Fortunately, they have indeed scaled read noise in just that way in most common circumstances.

elwood58 wrote in post #8499337 (external link)
FF bodies always seem to produce a cleaner image, and hold up very well to enlargement, with much lower noise levels in the finished image.

That is conflating pixel size with sensor size. Any correlation between the two is completely arbitrary. For example:

* Small sensors have smaller pixels than large sensors.
* Small sensors have more noise than large sensors.
* Therefore smaller pixels cause more noise.

The logical error is that correlation is not causation. The reality is that it is not the small pixels that cause the noise, but small overall sensor size.

A digicam-sized sensor (5.6x4.15mm) sensor with super-large pixels (0.048 MP) will not have superior performance to a 56x41.5mm sensor with super-tiny pixels (48 MP). Even the size of the lens points to this fact: the large sensor will require a lens that is many times larger and heavier for the same f-number and angle of view, and that lens will focus a far greater quantity of light than the very tiny lens on a digicam. When they are both displayed or used in the same way, the large sensor will have far less noise, despite the smaller pixels.

elwood58 wrote in post #8499337 (external link)
That said, Canon is certainly getting better at cramming pixels very close together without the historical levels of noise seen in the past. Combine this with their improved on camera processing, and you can create some amazing enlargements from their entire line.

On-camera processing doesn't enter into it for a raw photographer.

I started a thread to discuss my view on these topics:

Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance


Daniel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Replaces
Goldmember
Avatar
1,079 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
     
Aug 21, 2009 15:13 |  #10

12.1mp on a FF sensor would be super clean lol
i'd love to see that happening; Canon's "D3"
i love that rig.


"If you don't walk today, you have to run tomorrow."
Nikon, then Canon, then Nikon again. But I still love POTN over NikonCafe. :p

Nikon D90, MB-D80, Nikon D600, MB-D14, Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
1,199 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
     
Aug 21, 2009 15:15 |  #11

450newb paraphrased by Daniel wrote:
="450newb paraphrased by Daniel"]Is 12.1 MP enough to produce enlargements with good IQ?

Yes. The IQ will be great. Detail will be higher with 21 MP, but 12 MP will still be great.


Daniel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Aug 21, 2009 15:21 |  #12

Daniel,

I follow and agree with your logic, but can we get away from calling the receptors on a sensor pixels? Your phrase "smaller pixels" means smaller receptors (or whatever the official word for them is). The problem with calling them pixels is that an awful lot of people confuse them with the real thing and think that some pixels ARE actually smaller, and have less IQ, than others.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
1,199 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
     
Aug 21, 2009 15:27 |  #13

Lowner wrote in post #8500509 (external link)
I follow and agree with your logic, but can we get away from calling the receptors on a sensor pixels?

I don't have a problem if someone else wants to use a different word (e.g. photosite), but as for myself, I prefer to use the correct term, "pixel", that has been in use for 30+ years in image sensors. It's the same word that is used by the technologists that create image sensors.

Lowner wrote in post #8500509 (external link)
Your phrase "smaller pixels" means smaller receptors (or whatever the official word for them is).

Pixel is the official word.

Lowner wrote in post #8500509 (external link)
The problem with calling them pixels is that an awful lot of people confuse them with the real thing and think that some pixels ARE actually smaller, and have less IQ, than others.

When someone is confused about vocabulary, I would prefer to explain the correct definition to them than change to a different word.


Daniel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,564 posts
Likes: 97
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Aug 21, 2009 15:27 |  #14

But anyway, the truth is...larger sensors enlarge better, especially if they have the same resolution. (I.e, a 12MP full frame will enlarge better than a 12MP crop body...and in many cases, a 12MP full frame will enlarge better than a 15MP crop body...though there comes a point where the extra resolution will overtake the lower enlargement factor, provided that the pixels are actually providing clean data).


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)
---------------
Canon EOS R5 | R6 | RF 24-105mm f/4L IS | RF 35mm f/1.8 | RF 50mm f/1.8 | RF 85mm f/2 | RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | Sigma 12-24mm f/4 | Sigma 135mm f/1.8 | Tamron 35mm f/1.4 | TTArtisan 11mm Fisheye

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,564 posts
Likes: 97
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Aug 21, 2009 15:30 |  #15

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8500533 (external link)
I don't have a problem if someone else wants to use a different word (e.g. photosite), but as for myself, I prefer to use the correct term, "pixel", that has been in use for 30+ years in image sensors. It's the same word that is used by the technologists that create image sensors.

Pixel is the official word.

When someone is confused about vocabulary, I would prefer to explain the correct definition to them than change to a different word.

Technically, a pixel is the recorded picture element in the image FILE, not in the imaging hardware. Pixels have no size, which is why the original post criticized the use of the term in that context. Photosites also are not 1:1 with pixels in a direct hardwired manner, as the Bayer array of most digital cameras is then demosaiced to create the pixels in the final image (for instance, there are more Green photosites than blue or red).


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)
---------------
Canon EOS R5 | R6 | RF 24-105mm f/4L IS | RF 35mm f/1.8 | RF 50mm f/1.8 | RF 85mm f/2 | RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | Sigma 12-24mm f/4 | Sigma 135mm f/1.8 | Tamron 35mm f/1.4 | TTArtisan 11mm Fisheye

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,651 views & 0 likes for this thread
Pixel density ??
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kubo456
828 guests, 246 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.