dandij Loc: Hoodsport, Washington

dandi,
Are we related?
And we live in the same area to-boot.
dandij,
Dan :wink:

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Ok, we can look at the data for S/N ratio if you like.

The data for "Screen" noise shows the noise when viewed on a Monitor at 100% magnification. The graph shows exactly what you would expect, that individual pixel noise is greater in the smaller pixel. If you were to print part of the image at that scale, you would see that the print from the larger pixels has less noise per pixel, but because each pixel has a larger area in the print, any noise in that pixel will also be more visible. That becomes quite significant in any real print at the proper scale because those two factors work to cancel each other out on most modern cameras so that the noise in the full printed image ends up being independent from pixel count when comparing sensors of the same size.

This is evident when you look at the DxO data for "Print" noise where all the pixels are taken into account. You now see the effect of the self cancellation mentioned above and the smaller pixel Sensor now has slight advantage although not enough to be significant, to all intents and purposes, they are the same.

Camera Manufacturers are not stupid, if large photosites gave any advantage, they would exploit that advantage to the full. The reality is that more MPs give you more resolution and detail and that's a fact the same as the small photosite disadvantage is a myth.

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

Image Quality is based on several factors with pixel size and quantity being just a few of the variables that contribute. You have to look at the entire system as to how it deals with the light all the way to the paper. It is not based on the Megapixel only.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Quite right but those factors are unaffected by the photosite size. If you look at the other DxO data, you will see that the smaller phototosites of the D800 deliver higher IQ in every measure.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

d

You continue to resist facing the facts and obviously have refused to read the link, but have placed your attention on investigating the age of the link. Well, age has not altered the size of photons, and only so many photons per unit of time fit in a pixel in proportion to its size.

As for "resolution", this means pixels per area unit. the smaller the pixels the more fit in one cm or inch. Resize programs using fractal technology can increase the resolution, far more than the sensor with the smallest pixels, but in neither case this improves the quality of the one with larger pixels. Resolution only has meaning when comparing images with identical-size pixels. The noise, however, will be greater in the one with the smaller pixels.
I have wasted enough time on this issue. Goodbye

Peekayoh Loc: UK

No, I read it years ago and I skimmed it again.
Of much more relevance is the Quantum Efficiency of the photosite and that has certainly improved with advancing technology.
You're really telling me that pixels interpolated in software are better than discrete photosites?
I think you're on your own with that statement. I know for sure than my 24MP camera comfortably out resolves my earlier 12MP camera.
Yes but I already gave you the proof that single pixel noise is not relevant; does anyone really evaluate an image by looking at a tiny fraction completely invisible unless it's magnified? Pixel peeping is no guide to the quality of the whole image and isn't the whole image the really important thing.
Toys and prams, I guess.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

Peekayoh in his message above this one selected to quote my response one line goodbye as my full reply to his message.

Here (in red) is his message and my purported whole reply to it:
Peekayoh:Yes but I already gave you the proof that single pixel noise is not relevant; does anyone really evaluate an image by looking at a tiny fraction completely invisible unless it's magnified? Pixel peeping is no guide to the quality of the whole image and isn't the whole image the really important thing.
bunuweld wrote:
I have wasted enough time on this issue. Goodbye

And here (in blue) is my total message before peekayoh's distortion by censoring the part of my message that he did not want people to see:

You continue to resist facing the facts and obviously have refused to read the link, but have placed your attention on investigating the age of the link. Well, age has not altered the size of photons, and only so many photons per unit of time fit in a pixel in proportion to its size.
As for "resolution", this means pixels per area unit. the smaller the pixels the more fit in one cm or inch. Resize programs using fractal technology can increase the resolution, far more than the sensor with the smallest pixels, but in neither case this improves the quality of the one with larger pixels. Resolution only has meaning when comparing images with identical-size pixels. The noise, however, will be greater in the one with the smaller pixels.
I have wasted enough time on this issue. Goodbye

This is to warn people about intentional distortions used by a person who is trying to look like a victor when he knows tha he has lost the argument. For me, the issue is not who looks better, but to inform others with the facts. At any rate, the above intentional distortion by peekayoh gave me the opportunity to practice my Html color addition that I just learned from some kind UHHers :)

Peekayoh Loc: UK

I'm not aware of any distortion, I trimmed nothing out and answered your post point for point.

Apart from repeatedly stating your conviction that small sensels are bad you have not been able to provide any evidence to challenge my position that smaller sensels are of great benefit to resolution and in fact produce no more noise in the whole image when compared to a similar sized Sensor but with larger sensels. My earlier posts on this page go into more detail as to why that's the case and pointing a particular case, the D600 and the D800 where performance is similar even though one has 50% more sensels in the same area of Sensor.

If you could point to a case where a sensor of similar size and technology having smaller photosites has a substantially worse IQ than a less dense sensor with larger photosites your postulations might count for something.

I had to qualify the latter with "a sensor of similar size" because last time you told me that any 24MP DSLR was better than a Nokia Lumia 1020. Undoubtedly true but hardly noteworthy in this context.

The reason I prolong this conversation is because other less experienced readers are probably still being misled by this myth that small sensels are a bad thing. The myth is rooted in an earlier time when the dead area around the sensels blocked significant numbers of photons but manufacturers now have that problem pretty well licked rendering the dead areas relatively insignificant.