PC Doc 54
aka fcapes
Premium
join:2000-10-28
Middle Island, NY
clubs: |  True or false ... the megapixel scam?
»www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
True or false ... are we being scammed by camera makers on the number of pixels?
As photographers, what are your opinions? |
|
B52GUNR
KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA
clubs: 
 ·Comcast
 ·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Stop the presses!
Ken Rockwell and I agree on something. And he wasn't being his normal KR self. He makes very valid points. Something he also didn't touch on is jamming more pixels on smaller sensors. In theory, this should make for a more detailed image (finer "grain" if you will), but the reality is it makes high ISO performance next to useless.
I'd say (and it doesn't hurt too bad to say this) that KR is spot on with what he said. |
|
gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Bergen Co | reply to PC Doc 54
I agree that he actually made some sense. I recently read his Raw VS JPG's article and I'm still scratching my head.
Can't wait to see his views on HDR's. |
|
Gemologist
Premium
join:2001-11-15
USA
clubs:
| reply to B52GUNR
said by B52GUNR  :Stop the presses! Ken Rockwell and I agree on something. That makes two of us. H3ll must have frozen over!
--
My Pbase Gallery
What is RSD? |
|
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to PC Doc 54
said by PC Doc 54 :» www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htmTrue or false ... are we being scammed by camera makers on the number of pixels? As photographers, what are your opinions? Yes, it's a known scam... just better known now.
Also, as B52GUNR says... the small sensors with 10+ MP aren't doing anyone any favors.
I learned a new concept the other day (sorry, I can't recall where)... many of us have heard of diffraction-limited lenses, lenses where the natural diffraction of light limits the resolution of an image. (Such lenses are highly desirable since, by definition, they could not be better). There is also the concept of photon-limited image quality.
Basically, there are only so many photons available for producing an image. By fitting a huge number of photo cells on such tiny sensors, I wonder if they've hit the wall. How many photons are available to fill each cell in typical lighting conditions on a 10MP postage stamp-sized sensor? How does this compare to built-in sensor noise?
I realize the technology is improving almost daily... but when we reach the point (have we already?) that 10 photons hit each cell, there's really no room for sensor noise at all. Far better to have larger cells that can take in far larger amounts of photons.
Heh... I'll stop here since this is basically speculation on my part. Maybe there's a real writeup somewhere else. (I'll look later).
--
My Site |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
1 edit | reply to PC Doc 54
I must admit that it is nice to zoom in on images and see all of the detail. However very few of my pictures are ever printed on paper, with most going up on dslreports or pbase. These are scaled, so the number of pixels in the original image is completely irrelevant.
However his section on monitors is mostly bull. My 19" monitor goes all the way up to 1920x1440, but I choose to run it at 1600x1200 which is higher than 100dpi.
--
My pbase gallery |
|
