Medium Format vs. DSLR

jdizzle wrote in post #10601618
^Thanks for posting that Wilt. For the regular Joe that buys prints from me, they will never see the difference.

I don't dispute your statement. And given that the typical user never printing larger than 13x19", it is no wonder about the truth of that statement. Having done weddings for a long time, I experienced that the number of 20x24 print orders or larger is a small one. Even the two-page center spread shots are only 16x20 or so!

At the same time, though, given the number of people to claim to make really huge enlargements from even APS-C 'at high quality', like 30x40, those folks would definitely see the difference, since we are at <100ppi original pixels on the final print and pixel replication makes no information available which did not previously exist in the original capture!

Perhaps unrelated but, does anyone know for sure that n photosites = n pixels? Or is the megapixel count simply how tight the "grid" is after the bayer interpolation gets to it?

Rad

Radtech1 wrote in post #10601776
Perhaps unrelated but, does anyone know for sure that n photosites = n pixels? Or is the megapixel count simply how tight the "grid" is after the bayer interpolation gets to it?

Rad

Are you referring to the question if medium format pixel definition is different than typical APS-C/FF pixel definition. We know, for APS-C/FF that four diodes (red, blue, two green) make up a single location that is collectively referred to as a 'pixel'.

Wilt wrote in post #10601821
Are you referring to the question if medium format pixel definition is different than typical APS-C/FF pixel definition. We know, for APS-C/FF that four diodes (red, blue, two green) make up a single location that is collectively referred to as a 'pixel'.

Interesting. I did not know that. So, for example, my 5dMkII - a 22 megapixel camera has 88 million individual photosensitive wells, 22m red, 22m blue and 44m green, bundled together into 22 million rbgg "foursomes". Right?

I always assumed - without any evidence - that if there indeed was a correlation between the photosites (the individual wells) and the pixel count it was 1 to 1; that my camera has 22 million wells corresponding to 22 million pixels, each starting off as either red, blue, green or green and then depending on the intensity and color of the neighboring wells, the color was then adjusted per the Bayer algorithm.

Interesting stuff, thanks.

Rad

EDIT: Oh, and sorry for the tangent - carry on.

EDIT 2: for discussion assuming Mega = 10^6 (million), and not the binary 2^20.

Wilt wrote in post #10601821
Are you referring to the question if medium format pixel definition is different than typical APS-C/FF pixel definition. We know, for APS-C/FF that four diodes (red, blue, two green) make up a single location that is collectively referred to as a 'pixel'.

Huh? With the Bayer sensors, each diode becomes one pixel, through interpolation. With Foveon sensors, there are three diodes per pixel, one R, one G, one B.

tonylong wrote in post #10612105
Huh? With the Bayer sensors, each diode becomes one pixel, through interpolation. With Foveon sensors, there are three diodes per pixel, one R, one G, one B.

The issue is improper terminology usage by most folks, and dual definitions by industry! A pixel is generally thought of as the smallest single component of a digital image. The definition is highly context-sensitive. Is the context a photo element (a grid of pan-color elements called 'pixels' that we manipulate in Photoshop or Windows Paint), or is the context a photo sensor with a collection of points each of which are sensititive to one primary color (in the case of the Bayer array)? The problem is the dual definition of 'pixel'...which i,s in some industries, called 'subpixel' when they are one-color sensitive sites on sensor which collectively refer to one photo site 'pixel' that we see with Photoshop.

The Foveon is somewhat analogous to film...each position is sensitive to all three primary colors, so one small location in the photo is a 'pixel' per the vernacular. But 'pixel' in this case is a 3D element because three layers are stacked to make the site sensitive to all color, and a 3D stack is properly termed a 'voxel'.

The Bayer array sensor has each position sensitive on one color and each site can be called a 'pixel' by the sensor maker, but 2D four sites spread over a tiny 2D area combine to make a single photo element (aka 'pixel' in the vernacular) which the camera maker puts in the specs. So the problem is one of terminology, since we have single-color 'pixels' on sensor, aka 'subpixel', which collectively are used to create pan-chromatic sites that we refer to one photo site as 'pixel' that we see with Photoshop.

Heh! that was more than a mouthfull, Wilt!

tonylong wrote in post #10612775
Heh! that was more than a mouthfull, Wilt!

I was deliberately trying to avoid addressing the points raised by Rad in post 34 paragraph two, but you forced me into it!

Wilt wrote in post #10612263
The Bayer array sensor has each position sensitive on one color and each site can be called a 'pixel' by the sensor maker, but 2D four sites spread over a tiny 2D area combine to make a single photo element (aka 'pixel' in the vernacular) which the camera maker puts in the specs.

It was my impression that the sites are overlapped, giving a higher pixel count than you'd expect.

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/c​amera-sensors.htm

-js

number six wrote in post #10612944
It was my impression that the sites are overlapped, giving a higher pixel count than you'd expect.

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/c​amera-sensors.htm

-js

Now we're getting too literal in what is said vs. actuality! I referred to a collection of 1 Red, 1 Blue, 2 Green photosites = 1 pixel on photo. I didn't state that the one red site belonged only to one pixel in an exclusive arrangement. You're diving into how the Bayer demosaicing works, which I didn't try to dive into, as i don't understand that sufficiently.

Speaking of medium format...it's now a great time to buy a used film camera. Bargains galore!