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 04 Sep 2009 (Friday) 04:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The understated utility of smaller pixels

 
Daniel ­ Browning
Goldmember
1,199 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
     
Sep 04, 2009 04:02 |  #1

Most statements about megapixels understate their usefulness. For example, it is often stated that when you're only printing an 8x12, it's impossible to tell the difference between an 8 MP camera and a 15 MP camera. But in many common circumstances, the difference is striking.

That is not to say that high MP is necessarily a requirement for a good photo. I have enjoyed beautiful 20x30 prints that were made with less than 2 MP. Most film theaters only achieve resolution equivalent to 0.9 MP (some digital ones are up to 2.4 MP), yet people sit close to the 50 foot screens and enjoy the cinematography anyway.

At what point does additional resolution contributes no discernible improvement to the displayed photograph? The answer depends on many factors:

* Display size

Given the same resolution per area, a larger display can benefit from more megapixels than a small display (e.g. 20x30 vs 4x6).

* Display resolution

Given the same display size, a high resolution display can benefit from more megapixels than a low-resolution display (e.g. 300 ppi vs 72 ppi).

* Cropping for aspect ratio

An 8x10 at 360ppi is 10.37 MP. But a DSLR has a different aspect ratio than 8x10: 2:3 vs 4:5. After you crop a 10.37 MP DSLR to 8x10, it only has 8.64 MP left. A 12.44 MP DSLR, cropped to 8x10, results in a 360 ppi file.

* Cropping for viewfinder inaccuracy

Most photographers cannot afford a DSLR viewfinder that is 100% accurate. And all DSLR can get out of tolerance or miscalibrated. The image seen through the viewfinder will be slightly differen than the raw file. The difference may contribute a few extra percent to the amount an image is cropped. Cropping just 3% off of two sides of the photo turns a 6 MP image into 5.6 MP and a 21 MP image into 19.8 MP.

* Cropping for composition

This is of course the most well-known benefit of more megapixels, but I think many people don't realize just how much resolution is lost by cropping even small amounts. For example, cropping just 10% off each side cuts 15 MP down to 9.6MP. I always strive to get the composition just right before I snap the shutter, but I still find myself cropping by more than 10% on a routine basis. I change my mind many times after the photo enters the darkroom, and I try a variety of crops.

* Increase contrast from the OLPF

The OLPF (optical low pass filter) reduces aliasing artifacts. One unfortunate side effect is that is also reduces contrast. Ideally, the megapixels will be so high that the contrast-reducing effects of the OLPF are completely gone.

Contrast is one of the most important and striking factors in image quality. If you compare the 8x12 of an 8 MP camera vs an 8x12 of a 15 MP camera, the increase in contrast from the OLPF is easily seen.

[The technical reason for this is that smaller pixels have Nyquist at a higher frequency, and the MTF curve of the OLPF is designed realtive to Nyquist, so even if it has the same curve, it will affect higher spatial frequencies than what is seen in the final display. Generally, most of the contrast-reducing effect of the OLPF can be negated by increasing spatial resolution by about 30%.]

* Reduce aliasing artifacts

The OLPF, or Anti-Alias filter, usually blurs the image enough to reduce most (but not all) luma aliasing; however, it does not blur the image enough to reduce chroma aliasing. This can result in artifacts.

As the number of megapixels are increased, aliasing artifacts move to higher and higher spatial frequencies. That is, they get smaller and smaller for a given print size. At some point, they will mostly cease to be visible. That is another benefit of higher megapixels.

Aliasing artifacts are explained in this metaphor. In real life, when you pour two liters of water into a one liter container, water spills out and makes a mess. But camera design is different: when you pour two liters of water into a one liter container, the water folds back on itself and corrupts the entire container. The amount of water is the level detail (spatial frequency), and the volume of the container is the number of megapixels in the camera. Aliasing is the corruption. Anti-aliasing filters reduce detail down to a level that can fit within the pixel resolution.

Aliases are a certain kind of image artifact; they can be described as jaggies, stair-stepping, unwanted sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, bands, patterns, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, or false detail. Some photographers desire aliasing artifacts and describe them with positive terms such as ”crunchiness”, ”sharpness”, etc. Other photographers perceive the artifacts as an unnatural, unwelcome ”digital” look. The only aliasing artifact that is universally disliked by all photographers is moiré.

Here is an image that demonstrates aliasing artifacts, created by John Sheehy:

http://www.pbase.com …age/93229983/or​iginal.jpg (external link)

One can see how the anti-aliased images are more blurry, with no sharp contrast from one pixel to another. The non-AA images, on the other hand, have more contrast at the pixel level (Nyquist).

Here is an example of moiré, which is the worst kind of aliasing artifact:

http://www.wfu.edu …Photog/alias/ar​tifact.jpg (external link)

It is from this web site with a good explanation of aliasing:

http://www.wfu.edu/~ma​tthews/misc/DigPhotog/​alias/ (external link)

Aliasing is also described in this SD9 review:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD9​/SD9A12.HTM (external link)


* Fewer de-Bayer artifacts

De-Bayer artifacts such as mazing occur with some combinations of demosaic algorithms and images, and are usually exacerbated by aliasing. You can see examples of it here:

http://www.rawtherapee​.com/RAW_Compare/ (external link)

As the number of megapixels are increased, such artifacts become less and less of a problem.

* Color resolution

Bayer cameras sample chroma (color) at half the resolution of luma. This can be clearly seen in charts and test shots, but does not have a noticeable effect in most real life images. Some images, however, will have high frequency color detail that can be noticed with full chroma sampling. To get that level of color resolution with Bayer requires four times the megapixels.

For example, if you think 2.16 MP is just right for a 4x6, then to get full color resolution in the 4x6 (both red and blue) would require 8.64 MP. Foveon proponents think getting full color resolution is very important.

* Horizon correction (rotation)

We strive to get the horizon level at the time of the shot, but sometimes an image still requires this correction, especially in fast-paced shooting. But even a slight rotation causes the image to blur or the addition of a lot of artifacts. Having more megapixels to start with allows this correction to occur without any negative effects on image quality of the final display.

For example, say you have two 12 MP images: one that is level already, and one that was slightly off and then corrected in post. If you print both at 4x6, they may look the same. But print both at 12x18 and the one that was corrected in post will look worse (softer or more artifacts) than the one that was already level.

* Aberration correction: CA, PF, distortion, deconvolution

There are many types of lens aberrations that can be corrected in post processing:

  • Barrel distortion
  • Pincushion distortion
  • Wavy-line distortion
  • Lateral Chromatic Aberration
  • Purple Fringing
  • Other aberrations that are deconvolved with a defined PSF
The more megapixels you have, the better these aberrations can be corrected. See this URL for a demonstration:

http://www.dxo.com …tics_geometry_c​orrections (external link)

* "Shift lens" correction, changing projection, fisheye
  • It's possible to reproduce the same effect as costly "shift" lenses in software. It removes the keystoning (external link) in the image.
  • Another popular technique is to fix distorted subjects near the edge of the frame caused by the normal rectilinear projection of a lens. Volume Anamorphosis correction (external link).
  • It's also possible to change to and from circular fisheye distortion.
* Diffraction deconvolution

In some circumstances, more megapixels will encounter diminishing returns due to diffraction: there will be a loss of contrast. When the noise is not too high, normal sharpening techniques can help increase that contrast, but a specialized algorithm such as Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution does much better.

This technique gives higher megapixels a great advantage.

* Faster demosaic algorithms

The reason why current de-Bayer interpolation algorithms are so slow is that they attempt to extract the maximum possible amount of detail through time-consuming context analysis and other techniques. But if the resolution of the camera is increased sufficiently so that it is more than needed for post-processing and display, then a different demosaic method can be used, particularly for regular factors (2X linearly).

It's actually *faster* to demosaic 24 MP into a 6 MP RGB than to demosaic a native 6 MP itself, and the quality is higher. If the resolution of the camera is sufficiently higher than what's needed, then those types of algorithms can be used, resulting in faster post-processing times.

* Film-like storage formats

Most software for storing digital images is not very advanced. Our cameras rely on using a relatively small number of pixels with very high bit depth per pixel (e.g. 14-bits). Film is made of billions of 1-bit "pixels". Individually, they don't look like much, but taken together they store a lot of good image data. In the same way, higher resolutions allow for much more advanced compression systems. REDCODE is one current example: it stores 9.5 MP raw files in just 2 MB.

* Future Proofing

There is also the benefit of having a high resolution original to come back to years later, like a film negative. Whatever size, crop, or post-processing you happen to be using today, in the future you may want to revisit the photograph and do something different.

* Printer input resolution

The native input resolution of prints varies, e.g. 300ppi, 360ppi, or 720ppi. The actual resolution (lw/mm) after it is printed to paper is often lower than the theoretical maximum of the native input resolution.

* Paper resolution

Different types of paper affect resolution as well. On some papers, the ink spreads over a wider area, and so has lower resolution.

* Viewing distance, environment, and visual acuity

Viewing a print or display from across the room will reduce the effectiveness of higher resolutions compared to close inspection from just a few inches. A viewer that is not wearing their glasses will not get the same benefit from higher megapixels as the one that has 20/20 vision. Also, acuity tends to get worse in dim viewing environments.

* Diminishing returns

There are many factors that can cause diminishing returns. Camera shake, subject motion, lens aberrations, diffraction, etc. The full benefit of additional pixels will not be realized unless these are avoided. It's also possible that smaller pixels will have too much noise, although I think that most views about that are exaggerated:

Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

* Examples

To help illustrate the concept, let's examine a few scenarios and see how many megapixels are needed to reach the ideal.

* 8x10

The way most people see prints is that anything over 250ppi makes no difference, so any camera over 5 MP is overkill. It isn't.

* Different 8x10 print example

Here are the conditions for this example:
  • A quality paper/printer combination that can achieve a true 360ppi resolution.
  • A viewer that has 20/20 vision good enough to see that 360ppi.
  • 100% viewfinder, so what he saw was exactly what was recorded to file.
  • Ultra precise composition, so that not even 1% had to be cropped.
  • The photographer doesn't mind aliasing artifacts and de-Bayer artifacts
  • Full color resolution is not needed: there's no small color details.
  • Very careful horizon leveling, so no rotation in post was required.
  • No aberration correction needed because the $5,000 lens is completely perfect.
  • No "shift lens" effect needed for this shot.
  • F-number was wide enough that diffraction could not be measured.
  • The photographer has a brand new computer, so speed/size benefits aren't needed.
  • Future proofing is not something the photographer cares about: pass.
  • A tripod was used to avoid diminishing returns.
Now to examine how many megapixels it takes before their effect is unseen:
  • [10.4 MP] 8x10 @ 360ppi
  • [12.4 MP] Cropping for aspect ratio
  • [21.0 MP] 30% increase in resolution to remove OLPF blur
This is precisely the circumstance I found myself in when I upgraded from the 5D to the 5D2. Even when I did absolutely no cropping, the 5D2 prints still came out with a lot more contrast. The reason is the anti-alias filter.

What if some of the conditions were slightly different?
  • 95% viewfinder, so what he saw was off by 3% from what was recorded to file.
  • Good composition, but the shot would benefit greatly from a 10% crop on all sides.
  • Horizon was slightly askew, a small rotation in post is required.
  • The lens is only $2,000, and has many aberrations that benefit from software correction.
Here is the effect:
  • [10.4 MP] 8x10 @ 360ppi
  • [12.4 MP] Cropping for aspect ratio
  • [13.2 MP] 3% crop for the 95% viewfinder that didn't match the file.
  • [19.0 MP] 10% crop on all sides for a better composition.
  • [32.1 MP] 30% increase in resolution to remove OLPF blur.
  • [42.8 MP] Sufficient resolution for ideal rotation/aberration correction and OLPF contrast
Now we're up to 42.8 MP just for an 8x10! But wait, there's more. What if the photographer wanted to have the same color resolving power as a 19 MP Foveon for a photograph with lots of detailed color? Here's what he would need:
  • [76.0 MP] Resolution needed for full color resolution (to match Foveon).
Personally, I think very few real-life images benefit from full color resolution. In this example, if I actually got the math right, then I would draw the line at 42.8 MP. You can extrapolate for a 14x19, or even just a 1920x1080 display.

* Conclusion

Resolution is not the most important aspect of a photograph, but if you want to get the maximum contrast and resolution, the optimal number of megapixels might be higher than you think.

Daniel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Sep 04, 2009 04:42 |  #2

Nice compilation, thanks !!


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
prinspaul
Senior Member
475 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Holland
     
Sep 04, 2009 05:09 |  #3

The bad thing is...we only benefit from that at the lowest ISOs and properly exposed pictures.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,726 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 395
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Sep 04, 2009 05:36 |  #4

prinspaul wrote in post #8581571 (external link)
The bad thing is...we only benefit from that at the lowest ISOs and properly exposed pictures.

That's the way it's always been. Gee, a craft that requires craft.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cedm
Senior Member
628 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2008
Location: KL, Malaysia
     
Sep 04, 2009 07:03 as a reply to  @ RDKirk's post |  #5

Very informative. Thanks!


My gear: EOS 60D | EF-S 10-18 STM | Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 | EF-S 24 STM | EF 50 F/1.8 | EF-S 55-250 IS | EF 100 F/2.8 macro | 430EX.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JC4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,610 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Columbus, Ohio
     
Sep 04, 2009 07:18 as a reply to  @ cedm's post |  #6

So, you're saying we better buy bigger PC's because the MP's are coming? :)

Excellent write-up. Thanks for the effort!


John Caputo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Sep 04, 2009 07:29 |  #7

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8581445 (external link)
* Diminishing returns

There are many factors that can cause diminishing returns. Camera shake, subject motion, lens aberrations, diffraction, etc. The full benefit of additional pixels will not be realized unless these are avoided.

We could add to this list - focusing accuracy and DOF (or the lack thereof).

When I evaluate the technical quality of my images, I rarely come to the conclusion that more pixels would have made them better. Some people forget that the camera's sensor is just one part of a complicated optical system, and making pictures involves a plethora of real-world limitations beyond that system.

We have reached the point that higher resolution sensors are not making better pictures for those who buy the kit lens, shoot their son's nighttime football game in [green box] mode, and take their CF card to Wal*Mart to order 4x6 prints. Yet the megapixel wars continue, even in consumer-level equipment.


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Sep 04, 2009 07:59 |  #8

I am starting to realize that Daniel is really, really smart. Thanks for this superb post.


Mark
My Smugmug (external 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
jacobsen1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,629 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Mt View, RI
     
Sep 04, 2009 08:10 as a reply to  @ lungdoc's post |  #9

great writeup as usual Daniel.


My Gear List

my sites:
benjacobsenphoto.com (external link) | newschoolofphotography​.com (external link)
GND buyers FAQ

FOR SALE: 5Dii RRS L-bracket, 430II, 12mm macro tube PM ME!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Sep 04, 2009 10:51 |  #10

So...why isn't there anyone besides Sigma pushing for Foveon?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drdiesel1
Goldmember
Avatar
3,833 posts
Gallery: 53 photos
Likes: 495
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NorCal
     
Sep 04, 2009 11:06 as a reply to  @ toxic's post |  #11

Thanks for taking your time to enlighten us......bw!


Nikon D810 Nikon 50F/1.4G - Nikon 70-200F/2.8II
Canon 5DMKIII - Canon 24-105F/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dave92029
Member
40 posts
Joined Oct 2003
     
Sep 04, 2009 11:19 as a reply to  @ drdiesel1's post |  #12

Thank you! Clear and well written

I understood most of what you wrote and I'm confident by the third or forth reading I might really get it! I'm saving your post as a reference tool

Much appreciated.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
woos
Goldmember
Avatar
2,221 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Dec 2008
Location: a giant bucket
     
Sep 04, 2009 11:24 |  #13

toxic wrote in post #8583155 (external link)
So...why isn't there anyone besides Sigma pushing for Foveon?

Because the Foveon sensor has many other problems. One is that the top layer(s) block some of the light from reaching the lower ones. So the sensor will have worse low light/high iso performance.

Another is that it isn't NEARLY as simple as the pictures make it seem. If you look at the PR pictures you'd think well you've got one red sensitive layer, one blue sensitive layer, one green sensitive layer, then you just combine them and voila!

However the reality is much, much, different. Instead you've got one layer that mostly picks up red--but also picks up a little bit of other colors. Then the next layer down picks up some of its target color but also obviously picks up a little non-intended colors because the filtering isn't perfect. Also it's getting a little bit less light, so that must be accounted for as well. And so on and so on. When all is said and done the processing requirements to create a decent image are *worse* than for Bayer sensors.

Not that the technology doesn't have any merit. It's a reasonably logical idea and I don't think the general working principle will go away--it will just need really good manufacturing and really refined processing to be perfect--when it works it works great though.


amanathia.zenfolio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arkphotos
Senior Member
455 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Plano, Texas
     
Sep 04, 2009 13:33 |  #14

Just when I get comfortable in my ignorance, Daniel comes along and tells me megapixels are good!

Thanks for the write ups.


1.6 crop & some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AllenF
Member
231 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Sep 05, 2009 17:25 |  #15

Canon in the 7D has the exposure chip iFCL 63 zone dual layer in a hybrid Foveon type with two layers and sensing two colors per layer. Would this be a method to help minimize losses in 3 layer chips? I know you may not know but to me it looks like Canon is taking baby steps here that could in fact lead to a new chip design for them.

Just curious what you think Daniel ?


7D, 20D, G10, T90, A-1, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L, Canon 100-400L, Canon 500D, 2 ea Canon 580 ex, Canon ST-E2, Velbon El Carmagne 630 Carbon fiber tripod with an Acratech Ultimate Ballhead, Acratech Leveling Base, Velbon Carbon Fiber SHERPA PRO POD NEO POD 8, Tons of RRS plates and quick release mounts, and flash stands diffusors and back drops, ETC...

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

9,559 views & 3 likes for this thread
The understated utility of smaller pixels
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 brotherbear86
804 guests, 245 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.