[biz-engineer]

I was going to ask if you had made it to Graz for that event.

Yes, since the exhibition was right next to the Covid vaccination center, it would have been hard to miss it two times (after the first and second injections).

[Owltown]

I wouldnt believe anyone who would contradict this.

The "standard assumed" viewing situation is that of "seeing through our FA 43mm limited on FF" or "distance equals image diagonal". For that you need 6 MPx maximum (less than 4k resolution) as your eyes wont see more details/noise.

And few normal people will go that close to watch a photo - because you usually want to experience the complete photo as per its composition. I usually see people actually taking a step back from large prints, so yes, 2x to 3x that "standard assumed" is more like it.

In the general discussion on this topic I find it quite amusing that there are self-proclaimed "enthusiasts" not understanding that a 1px FF sensor shows the exact same noise as a 100Mpx FF sensor. LOL. Those kids seem completely unable to understand the basics of photography and where even a smartphonecamera seems a waste on such users.


Next to that you get the simpletons who proclaim that the single determining factor is "sensor size". LOL. Again, we experience people who seriously lack basic education.

You ain't seen nothin' until you ask these same folks about analog photography: Grain, grey scales, DOF, use of filters, et al. Most of them are clueless. Those of us who've been at it for 50 to 60 years owe the youngsters time, patience with their "easy peasy" attitude to tech education, and training, all to prevent them becoming discouraged and thereby hastening the end of the understanding of photographic science.

[jeffdrew]

Which is bigger? Which is better? Smell this! Comparisons, choices, compromises; it’s what humans & cultures do! Like many others, I enjoy talking & listening about all of it with you. Thanks for sharing! Cheers! 😊

[Rax]

So many people pointed out the big problem with that kind of conclusions but let say mho as well:


1.Comparing different tech from different era is wrong! its like saying a 1.5L HP modern engine in 2021 cars producing more power than a 4l old design from 1960 so the size doesn't have an effect at all!


2.SNR is a tricky thing! you can resize picture from a 48mp sensor to 12mp and get the same level of SNR as a 12MP sensor on the same sensitivity. but its a generally not gonna work in most situations! specially on low light! when you dont have enough photons to hit the sensor you cant compensate that with super-sampling! so even capturing movies with high MP sensor and super-sampling is not completely out of the water! astro photography is a good example! most of the high MP sensors can suffer in that kinda work! some lose colors (becuz of physical limitation on bayer and other kind of filters for re-producing colors) and some lose crucial details! even large low MP sensors are the same without enough light! there is some limitation in physics you cant compensate with sensor technology alone.


3.this one is connected to last one. using CMOS fabrication process for sensors in modern camera's has a big downside! you cant improve snr in extreme low light situation that well compare to good old CCDs! again, look at high-end professional cameras in serious labs. they are mostly CCDs. its the same with astro (although they mostly has no color filter in the sensor aka monochrome, but most of them are ccds anyway) and so many other feild of application that actual data is main concern. you cant reproduce the data with AI or better processors and at the same time CMOS are not helping either. if somebody thinks AI and processing is good enough i think smartphone's camera is more than enough for most general purposes.

[Steve Beswick]

You ain't seen nothin' until you ask these same folks about analog photography: Grain, grey scales, DOF, use of filters, et al. Most of them are clueless. Those of us who've been at it for 50 to 60 years owe the youngsters time, patience with their "easy peasy" attitude to tech education, and training, all to prevent them becoming discouraged and thereby hastening the end of the understanding of photographic science.

I’m 46 years old. Considering the rise of film photography in the last couple years, I’d say you are more likely to find someone half my age that is technically literate in regards to film photography than people my age. I tell people my age that I hope for an opportunity to get back in a darkroom and they look at me like I’m nuts. I tell 23 year old people the same thing and I get “What’s a darkroom? Can I try it?”

You might want to check yourself with that ageism. Otherwise you might start yelling at those damn kids to get off your lawn.

[tibbitts]

I wouldnt believe anyone who would contradict this.

The "standard assumed" viewing situation is that of "seeing through our FA 43mm limited on FF" or "distance equals image diagonal". For that you need 6 MPx maximum (less than 4k resolution) as your eyes wont see more details/noise.

And few normal people will go that close to watch a photo - because you usually want to experience the complete photo as per its composition. I usually see people actually taking a step back from large prints, so yes, 2x to 3x that "standard assumed" is more like it.

In the general discussion on this topic I find it quite amusing that there are self-proclaimed "enthusiasts" not understanding that a 1px FF sensor shows the exact same noise as a 100Mpx FF sensor. LOL. Those kids seem completely unable to understand the basics of photography and where even a smartphonecamera seems a waste on such users.


Next to that you get the simpletons who proclaim that the single determining factor is "sensor size". LOL. Again, we experience people who seriously lack basic education.

I must be one of the self-proclaimed "enthusiasts" because I don't understand why, within the same generation/technology of sensor, less density and larger pixel size won't produce less noise. Until somewhat recently photography didn't even include the concept of "pixel" so I'm not sure why you'd expect everyone to suddenly understand the nuances of sensor noise and resolution.

[biz-engineer]

Modulo some cultural tendencies. I have to admit, not being German, when I moved in the German engineering world, sometimes I was shocked. It's not all bad: rigid, inflexible, "can't be wrong" attitude can be the byproduct of rigorous engineering. It has pros and cons. Pros is , more often than not, they are right. Cons is , for example, it took 3 weeks of providing strong evidence for a German engineer to finally admit he made a mistake, the same mistake which would have immediately been recognized by an Italian who wouldn't mind being wrong once in a while. I have also worked on projects with Italians, and what I perceived as total mess within my cultural frame of reference, was considered as normal by Italian coworkers. At time some cultural differences can be shocking, but we can also laugh about it, sometimes it's very funny.

---

Last edited by Parallax; 08-19-2021 at 07:05 PM. Reason: Quoted a post that was subsequently deleted

[MJKoski]

Being able to produce a super detailed large print and look at it at very close distance is one of the reasons for modern separate cameras to even exist this very day.

[BigMackCam]

Being able to produce a super detailed large print and look at it at very close distance is one of the reasons for modern separate cameras to even exist this very day.

I'd happily bet it's a minority of ILC users who print large, and a majority who print either at smaller sizes or not much at all...

[biz-engineer]

Being able to produce a super detailed large print and look at it at very close distance is one of the reasons for modern separate cameras to even exist this very day.

I'd agree. At the same time, there is a problem of camera versatility vs enlargement potential. With full frame already, I encounter situations where I bump into a depth of field / aperture / shutter speed limit where more pixels (or larger sensor) wouldn't help. At the extreme is large format 4x5 or 8x10 , only usable for static scenes because apertures are very small, shutter speeds slow, not suitable for moving subjects. I think that's why most if the digital camera market revolves around full frame which is still versatile enough for most shooting situations.

[Class A]

Hummm another question stick to my mind: why would anyone buy a higher resolution camera and print at the same size as if it were a lower resolution camera?

Everytime I have my pictures printed at a shop, they tell me "We know you ordered 8x10 prints, but your files had so many pixels, we had to print them at 16x20, some of them even larger.".


Not.

OK, that was just fun, but every time I want to look at my images on a monitor, it only shows images from my K100D. Any K-5 II images or K-1, a text appears stating. "Cannot display image in full, as too much downsampling would occur. You have to zoom into this image to view part of it. Please select your crop now."


Not.

To answer the question:
One buys a higher-resolution camera to have the option to sometimes exploit the higher resolution. However, when there is not need to exploit the higher resolution, one enjoys the benefits of downsampling, i.e., pays no noise penalty compared to a lower resolution sensor.

Higher resolution cameras have other benefits, such as

• more cropping potential.
• less Bayer-AA filtering required (less chance of moiré occurring).
• finer noise patterns.

[normhead]

My use of the term "obsessed" wasn't intended negatively. Perhaps if I'd described a "tendency" or "predilection" for examining details rather than appreciating a picture as a whole, that might have been more appropriate...

You weren't implying OCD? Good for you.

[mlag]

It’s all a question of the era of the sensors,

I agree.

The theory that a larger pixel catches more light and COULD perform better makes some sense, it follows a bit the film era logic of high ASA filmrol with larger 'grain' chemicals. But in reality the electronics sensor design and technology (generation) matter more.

The problem is that in chip and sensor design one can not scale the pixel size and pixel count by just in-/de-creasing the physical size of the electronic components like ’pixels'. On the sub micron level of electronics , size influences timing of signals, noise, cross talk... and much more. None of them scale linear with the size of the components on the chip.

It just becomes a new design if you have different, higher density pixel count for same sensor size, even with similar technology. Sensors are designed for specific sizes and pixel count. Sensor technology evolves fast and almost every design tends to be different, even when using similar technolgy.

I remember of one panasonic camera that once claimed better performance in low light with lower pixel count than its predecessor. it created a bit of a marketing fuzz - going to lower pixel count was against market(ing) trends....even then in 2015.

But it involved also new sensor technology - HS MOS versus CMOS , maybe they had still trouble to create high pixel counts on the new, first chip-versions of that HS-technology. As you can guess higher pixel counts followed later on.

I quote the sales text at launch:

" The LUMIX ZS50 features a 12.1-megapixel High Sensitivity MOS sensor, ultra-wide-angle 24mm LEICA DC VARIO-ELMAR lens and 30x optical zoom for amazing versatility and performance ...... (sensor) that offers a one-stop improvement in noise compared to its predecessor (the ZS40). "

The predecessor ZS40 was 18 mp CMOS sensor... so definitely other electronics design and technology. So even that is no proof of contribution of pixel size effect alone, maybe it contributed.


I haven't seen other vendors seen doing this. (feel free to fill-in)


And : my 10mp k10D is less good than my 24 mp k3II in low light. It was one of the main reasons to upgrade . Even my family's newer small pocket camera's started to outperform the aging k10 in low light around the time the k3II appeared on the market. So my larger DSLR kit was challenged , hence upgraded to k3II .

[Rondec]

Sensors with lower pixel counts appear to have less noise because you can't zoom as much. They also appear to have less detail because you can't zoom as much. As has been mentioned numerous times, if you are printing/viewing the same size the differences in noise at a pixel level aren't evident. The detail difference typically is evident if you are printing at a decent size.

For all the talk of next generation sensors, I think there has been much less progress in this direction over the last six or seven years. Pentax has less noise at high iso, but it isn't because the sensors are better, but because they've tacked an accelerator chip in to get rid of some of the noise. Otherwise, I don't know that the KP or K-3 III would be that much better than K-5 at iso 1600.

The real reason that brands have lower megapixel sensors has to do with video performance and frame rates. It is just easier to get high frame rates and deep buffer with a 20 megapixel camera than a 60 megapixel camera.

[house]

The Curry show is a bit of an odd one. Why display the photos so large? A couple of reasons for printing large.

- The print is intended to command a large room or space.
- The photo works at multiple scales, bringing different experiences at different viewing distance.
- Someone just thinks bigger is better.
- Large prints are more efficient at exhibitions because many people can view the photo at the same time because of the viewing distance. Small art often create a ququeing situation in popular galleries.