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 General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 27 Feb 2018 (Tuesday) 08:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

When will we get better pixels instead of just more ?

 
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,443 posts
Likes: 349
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Mar 02, 2018 10:53 |  #31

This is why I like to have extra pixels.

Image 1 is uncropped. Image 2 cropped to what I wanted.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 02, 2018 11:02 |  #32

Wilt wrote:
So the noise at base ISO is not so relevant in the discussion and other factor increase in importance? So area able to collect more impinging photons striking a pixel to cause it to generate 'signal' vs. noise is improved by greater area?

John Sheehy wrote in post #18575078 (external link)
What? What?

I was referring to the fact that a larger pixel area allows a single pixel to capture more photons (per unit of time) than a smaller pixel, so at high ISO (not at base ISO) which we use when impinging photons are much fewer in number, the signal strength of the larger-area pixel is stronger, better overcoming inherent circuit noise.

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/SNR%20pixel%20size_zpsqjpelnsl.jpg

For the same area, we see three pixels vs. two pixels. Identical photon distribution for both cases. The highest photon capture count is 3 in the case of the larger-area pixel, vs. only 2 for the smaller-area pixel, (and even more importantly) one of the pixels sees only ONE photon for a very low SNR. Assuming both circuits have the same fundamental circuit noise, the SNR is better with the larger-area pixel sensor.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,301 posts
Likes: 247
Joined Jan 2010
     
Mar 02, 2018 12:28 |  #33

Wilt wrote in post #18575915 (external link)
I was referring to the fact that a larger pixel area allows a single pixel to capture more photons (per unit of time) than a smaller pixel, so at high ISO (not at base ISO) which we use when impinging photons are much fewer in number, the signal strength of the larger-area pixel is stronger, better overcoming inherent circuit noise.

QUOTED IMAGE

For the same area, we see three pixels vs. two pixels. Identical photon distribution for both cases. The highest photon capture count is 3 in the case of the larger-area pixel, vs. only 2 for the smaller-area pixel, (and even more importantly) one of the pixels sees only ONE photon for a very low SNR. Assuming both circuits have the same fundamental circuit noise, the SNR is better with the larger-area pixel sensor.

You can't assume that as a given for the future or even the past. An argument could be made that the only reason that a 6 micron pixel from 2018 has a little less less read noise at high ISOs than 9 2 micron pixels from 2018 resampled to one is that the 6 micron pixels are in expensive cameras, with a better budget for quality electronics. 2018 compact sensor cameras have lower high-ISO read noise per unit of sensor area than 2008 DSLRs. There are already 1.1 micron pixels with no read noise, although they are still far from the consumer market. Any ability for the largest pixels to get slightly less high-ISO read noise now is a temporary situation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by Wilt.
     
Mar 02, 2018 12:38 |  #34

John Sheehy wrote in post #18575969 (external link)
You can't assume that as a given for the future or even the past. An argument could be made that the only reason that a 6 micron pixel from 2018 has a little less less read noise at high ISOs than 9 2 micron pixels from 2018 resampled to one is that the 6 micron pixels are in expensive cameras, with a better budget for quality electronics. 2018 compact sensor cameras have lower high-ISO read noise per unit of sensor area than 2008 DSLRs. There are already 1.1 micron pixels with no read noise, although they are still far from the consumer market. Any ability for the largest pixels to get slightly less high-ISO read noise now is a temporary situation.

But then why are folks still voicing concern about high ISO invariance when pushing underexposed images, if the noise is apparently so negligible so to be of no concern to the 'bigger pixels is inherently less noisy than the smaller pixel' (all else being equal) storyline (which I illustrated) which has been present for the past 15+ years in digital imaging?


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,584 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4869
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 02, 2018 13:16 |  #35

Wilt wrote in post #18573808 (external link)
I agree with the crazy spin toward more pixels, when we were told that what we really needed was wider dynamic range. Now we have cameras with 13+EV of dynamic range, and good ISO invariability (ability to 'push' underexposure). so do we need more megapixels?

With the A9 we have about 25MP, the 5DIV has 30MP, the 5DS has 50MP, even the lowly T7i has 24MP. With the A9 we could shoot 100 images in 5 seconds and fill up our buffer with 47MB per image. Transfer to harddrive, and we consumed almost 5GB. So with 50MP images, now we're consuming 10GB per 5 seconds of shooting. Oh joy. Yes, storage is cheap, but now when we need to migrate data from old outdated storage hardware to the new current hardware which obsoleted the old stuff, it takes 2-4X as long as it did for the same volume of images. Oh joy.

maybe revise your workflow. My keeper rate is very low compared to actuation rate. Discard the non keepers, yes, erase the RAWS! In my case, I dont even import a good chunk in the first place. There's also a free dng conveter by adobe when you dont need the megapixels. I definitely take advantage of that.

These days, I cull in camera since it's mostly non critical shooting. Tends to be much faster to review the image in camera than wait for the import and do it on PC.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,301 posts
Likes: 247
Joined Jan 2010
     
Mar 02, 2018 14:18 |  #36

Wilt wrote in post #18575974 (external link)
But then why are folks still voicing concern about high ISO invariance when pushing underexposed images,

An ISO setting of 6400 that needs a push of 3 stops in conversion is actually an ISO 51200 image. The problem is not "under-exposure"; it is "low exposure" for a very clean image.

if the noise is apparently so negligible so to be of no concern to the 'bigger pixels is inherently less noisy than the smaller pixel' (all else being equal) storyline (which I illustrated) which has been present for the past 15+ years in digital imaging?

You would get responses quicker by taking your time and asking more coherent questions, which do not rely on telepathy on the reader's part. I have no idea what you're asking there. While you're at it, make it clear wehter you are talking about sensor area noise or pixel-level noise. It is impossible to have a conversation, otherwise.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 02, 2018 14:24 |  #37

Charlie wrote in post #18576000 (external link)
maybe revise your workflow. My keeper rate is very low compared to actuation rate. Discard the non keepers, yes, erase the RAWS! In my case, I dont even import a good chunk in the first place. There's also a free dng conveter by adobe when you dont need the megapixels. I definitely take advantage of that.

These days, I cull in camera since it's mostly non critical shooting. Tends to be much faster to review the image in camera than wait for the import and do it on PC.

Nevertheless, assuming someone who already uses a workflow which gets rid of non-keepers, 50MP files fill up available storage twice as fast as the same number of 25MP files,
it takes twice as long to copy/move files from storage place to storage place when you need to migrate data simply to keep it 'accessible' as technology changes -- which is inevitable.
And then there is the fact that if you're storing images at twice the rate per second, there are twice as many files to sort thru to determine which few to keep!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,584 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4869
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 02, 2018 15:10 |  #38

Wilt wrote in post #18576039 (external link)
Nevertheless, assuming someone who already uses a workflow which gets rid of non-keepers, 50MP files fill up available storage twice as fast as the same number of 25MP files,
it takes twice as long to copy/move files from storage place to storage place when you need to migrate data simply to keep it 'accessible' as technology changes -- which is inevitable.
And then there is the fact that if you're storing images at twice the rate per second, there are twice as many files to sort thru to determine which few to keep!

Sure, it'll still fill up twice as fast, but I calculated my rate some while back, and it'll take me well over a decade to fill up 4TB of data. So while the rate is doubled technically, it's still very much tolerable. I'de say I can even tolerate 200mp files


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by Wilt. (11 edits in all)
     
Mar 02, 2018 15:13 |  #39

John Sheehy wrote in post #18576032 (external link)
You would get responses quicker by taking your time and asking more coherent questions, which do not rely on telepathy on the reader's part. I have no idea what you're asking there. While you're at it, make it clear wehter you are talking about sensor area noise or pixel-level noise. It is impossible to have a conversation, otherwise.


John, many times your replies are so embedded in engineering jargon that not even a photographic hobbyist can be t expected to know what you are talking about, they are so incomprensible. My earlier deliberately elliptical reply to you was the polar opposite of what we often endure with your responses. :cry: And I say that in spite of an entire work career working closely with the engineers in developing high tech products in a variety of end user applications in CAD/CAM and medical capital equipment. KISS and aim your responses to be appropriate to the audience here...we all are not graduate level engineers, I bet some may have not yet finished high school.

BTW, our recent interchange was, in my mind, not a debate and challenging you, but an effort by me to LEARN from you...I have thus far failed to increase my level of comprehension of the underlying technology or its recent evolution. Sad.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,301 posts
Likes: 247
Joined Jan 2010
     
Mar 03, 2018 08:25 |  #40

Wilt wrote in post #18576070 (external link)
John, many times your replies are so embedded in engineering jargon that not even a photographic hobbyist can be t expected to know what you are talking about, they are so incomprensible.

You seem to have a problem understanding how ineffective your writing is. Maybe lots of people are content to assume they know what you mean when you write, but not me. I am not talking about you not using "technical jargon" correctly; I am talking about you consistently writing sentences chock full of punctuation omissions (which change meaning), extra words or single letters like your "can be t expected". How in the world am I supposed to know what you mean with a phrase like that? It seems that every time you ask me a question or make a statement in reply to something I wrote, you have enough errors in your grammar as to render your words meaningless. This is not just about "engineering jargon"; it is about basic English. You grossly overestimate your ability to communicate.

BTW, our recent interchange was, in my mind, not a debate and challenging you, but an effort by me to LEARN from you...I have thus far failed to increase my level of comprehension of the underlying technology or its recent evolution. Sad.

What is sad is your assumption that after quickly typing in an excited state, that you have asked a coherent question, or made a coherent statement. You don't even seem to read them over and see if they make any sense. You seem to assume that they do. You change the subject when confronted about it, like your "engineering jargon" complaint here.

Again, I am NOT telepathic.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,838 posts
Likes: 1036
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by bobbyz.
     
Mar 03, 2018 08:45 |  #41

Folks chill. This is just a photographic forum. We all are just trying to learn from each other. Wilt's been here for long time. We may disagree sometimes but he knows quite a bit on photography side of things.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,622 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2335
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Mar 04, 2018 10:02 |  #42

Charlie wrote in post #18576067 (external link)
Sure, it'll still fill up twice as fast, but I calculated my rate some while back, and it'll take me well over a decade to fill up 4TB of data. So while the rate is doubled technically, it's still very much tolerable. I'de say I can even tolerate 200mp files

Lucky you. In 6 years my wife and I have used a combined total of 6TB. And the more we video the more it goes up.

Looking at building a NAS and having a 24TB. I estimated this to last 10 years before upgrading lol.


My entire hobby of gear lust has temporarily been shifted into overload. Please be patient while my mind tries to get back onto the road to recovery. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause....
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,584 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4869
Joined Sep 2007
Post edited 3 months ago by Charlie.
     
Mar 04, 2018 12:08 |  #43

Video is a touchy subject, and it can fill up your hard Drive space very fast. I’d like to truncate my videos to very small clips/time lapses/compilations , if it’s worth watching then it’s worth keeping, if it’s not, then I will trash it.

I only produce maybe a dozen worthwhile videos a year, mostly under 3 minutes.

Do plan to up my game this year, Zhiyun crane on the way

Talley wrote in post #18577274 (external link)
Lucky you. In 6 years my wife and I have used a combined total of 6TB. And the more we video the more it goes up.

Looking at building a NAS and having a 24TB. I estimated this to last 10 years before upgrading lol.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,282 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 220
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
Post edited 3 months ago by kf095.
     
Mar 20, 2018 10:47 |  #44

I see more and more fake counts for pixels. Most of P&S and mobile phones are now with fake MP counts. For example Kodak has their 21 MP phone on sale at BH now.
I looked at examples and it is nothing but false statement. Here is no image in pixels at 100% crop, instead it is gobble and smear. And it is what I mostly see now with most of the phones and P&S. Something like 2.1 of sensor's MP interpolated by fw to 21 MP. Gauging in the word for MP world these days.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,301 posts
Likes: 247
Joined Jan 2010
     
Mar 20, 2018 11:58 |  #45

kf095 wrote in post #18590098 (external link)
I see more and more fake counts for pixels. Most of P&S and mobile phones are now with fake MP counts. For example Kodak has their 21 MP phone on sale at BH now.
I looked at examples and it is nothing but false statement. Here is no image in pixels at 100% crop, instead it is gobble and smear. And it is what I mostly see now with most of the phones and P&S. Something like 2.1 of sensor's MP interpolated by fw to 21 MP. Gauging in the word for MP world these days.

The only MPs there are, are the number of photosites or the number of microlenses (if more than one photosite is under each of them). They are all real.

What you are looking at is firmware noise reduction, which manufacturers overdo because people are sissies about the reality of noise and would rather see something that looks like a coarse painting than see even a hint of noise at low ISOs.




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

2,233 views & 11 likes for this thread
When will we get better pixels instead of just more ?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
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 brotherbear86
871 guests, 378 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.