Pixel Size / Resolution

So we have all heard and/or know that a bigger pixel is a better pixel but at what quantity?

Why not just have a 35mm sensor with a giant Red, Green, and Blue pixel? What would that look like/do? Just be a blur?

If you had one RGB pixel then you would see three colors, RGB, at different intensities when blown up on your screen. If you kept it at todays typical viewing sizes you would see a spec of the average color captured by the camera over its field of view.

Completely useless in other words.

So what is the minimum number of pixels on a 35mm sensor that will render a suitable picture? What about maximum?

A good rule of thumb would be 300ppi/dpi (whatever) for a print, so an 8 x 10

2400 x 3000 or 7.2mpixels.

No up-sizing would be necessary. There are arguments to suggest that more than that could yield finer detail, even though the image would be downsized to fit an 8 x 10 but this would be highly dependent on the resizing algorithm and probably, luck.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13436191
So we have all heard and/or know that a bigger pixel is a better pixel but at what quantity?

Why not just have a 35mm sensor with a giant Red, Green, and Blue pixel? What would that look like/do? Just be a blur?

There is such a thing as a pixel that is too small. There is also such a thing as a pixel that's too big. Then there's the "Goldilocks" pixel, that's just right. How big you want to print and how much detail you want (for a given amount of noise visibility) will determine the actual numbers.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13437671
So what is the minimum number of pixels on a 35mm sensor that will render a suitable picture? What about maximum?

You aren't looking for the "God particle" equivalent of DSLRs are you?

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13437671
So what is the minimum number of pixels on a 35mm sensor that will render a suitable picture? What about maximum?

I recall the D30 creating suitable pictures and it was only 3.1 megapixels.

Keep in mind the D30 was released in 2000 and replaced by the Canon D60 in 2002

Here is link to one image from a Canon D30 .......
( WARNING: It is a low light image )

Stage performer .......

http://masters.galleri​es.dpreview.com.s3.ama​zonaws.com …elQ6tHyb8myHnHm​2Uf5dm4%3d

And yet another ......

http://masters.galleri​es.dpreview.com.s3.ama​zonaws.com …a2Q%2fmTv01vPyS​7E2ZDKM%3d

Suitable...... subjective. That should be worth a few pages of comments

bohdank wrote in post #13438029
Suitable...... subjective. That should be worth a few pages of comments

Did you look at the stage performer image from the D30.

Considering the time period, over 10 years ago I'd say it did a more than suitable job.

At least looking at it on my notebook.

There are more on this page ... http://www.dpreview.co​m …30-second-opinion-samples

.

Link doesn't work.

bohdank wrote in post #13438054
Link doesn't work.

Yeah it died for me.

Try the link in my last post.

It should take you to a page of images.

You can select the image from there.

I believe it is on the top row .... female singer.

TRY THE LINK AGAIN - I reposted it.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13436191
So we have all heard and/or know that a bigger pixel is a better pixel but at what quantity?

Bigger pixels are better so long as the sensor is bigger too (and provided we have the focal length we need and are not cropping).

Imagine a 1" x 1" sensor with 10 million pixels vs. a 2" x 2" sensor with 10 million pixels. Both give the same resolution in print, but the latter sensor has pixels that are four times the size and so it will give four times the light gathering abilty.

Now imagine a 1" x 1" sensor with 10 million pixels vs. a 1" x 1" sensor with 40 million pixels. Now the latter sensor offers twice the resolution with the exact same light gathering area. And while each pixel in the second sensor is only 1/4 the area of the pixels in the first sensor, the higher S/N ratio of the individual pixels is averaged over more pixles per area and so noise is a wash.

To sum up = higher pixel densities on equal size sensors yields higher resolution with no increase in noise. Same pixel densities on larger sensors yields equal resolution with less noise.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13438104
Imagine a 1" x 1" sensor with 10 million pixels vs. a 2" x 2" sensor with 10 million pixels. Both give the same resolution in print, but the latter sensor has pixels that are four times the size and so it will give four times the light gathering abilty.

I recall this coming up when the D60 was announced to replace the D30.

The fear was the smaller pixels needed to get to 6 megapixels versus 3 would make the D60 less sensitive to light.

At that time I was nowhere near being convinced to go digital so I can only speak from recollection of articles I read.

My first DSLR was the EOS 10D .... we've come a long way since then

harcosparky wrote in post #13438083
Yeah it died for me.

Try the link in my last post.

It should take you to a page of images.

You can select the image from there.

I believe it is on the top row .... female singer.

TRY THE LINK AGAIN - I reposted it.

It doesn't look as sharp as it could be and it is downsized.

Now, sharpness isn't everything but for that type of image it is important, imo.

bohdank wrote in post #13438135
It doesn't look as sharp as it could be and it is downsized.

Now, sharpness isn't everything but for that type of image it is important, imo.

Well it is 10+ year old technology.

I guess for comparison we could look at the Canon EOS D60 - 6 megapixel

http://www.dpreview.co​m …on-eos-d60-review-samples

Maybe a better comparison would be to look at Canon's PRO DSLR from that era. The 4 Megapixel EOS 1D

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/canoneos1d/p​age26.asp