Detail vs IQ
Jan 29, 2024 13:52:44 #
Just Fred wrote:
There's more to it than just megapixels, but consider: Each pixel contains ALL of the information needed to produce an image.
So, sheer numbers suggest more is better. Still, you have to take into accout pixel size, data contained within each and so on.
So, sheer numbers suggest more is better. Still, you have to take into accout pixel size, data contained within each and so on.
Clearly, you have confused pixels with DNA. Pixels do not battle for survival of the fittest.
(Download)
Jan 29, 2024 14:04:17 #
MrBob wrote:
Can someone more informed than me please define " IQ " in the context of this post ? I take it to mean ALL of the above mentioned individual elements combined to render a pleasing image. I would imagine that as each of these elements improve , IQ improves... Am I being too elementary ?
Youre being rather accurate.
Jan 29, 2024 14:09:20 #
Delderby wrote:
But I am correct in thinking that there will always be a trade-off between IQ and detail when comparing pixel numbers and pixel size in any given sensor? I'm thinking that less pixels means larger pixels, which logically means more room for more detail? 
Logical ? So a 100 pixel sensor (10x10) with giant pixels means "more room for detail" ??
If youre gonna pretend to *logic*, then you hafta consider the Logical Conclusion.
Jan 29, 2024 14:16:24 #
Not sure what the point of your question is and All Things are rarely equal in the real world.
The best answer so far is R.G.'s above and may be what you were getting at which is (in another generalization) Larger Pixels in the same generation of sensor, tend to be better than small pixels.
But you always have to ask "Better for what use"
Historically when FF sensors first reached 12 MP it was somewhat of a quality revelation. Canon did it first with the original 5D which became a cult camera for it's "Look" and (then) Low light performance . The next generation was Nikon's D3 and even better D3s (because of better processing) Also cult cameras. 12MP was truly adequate for most pro uses . Those cameras still hold up in terms of image quality, for publication and moderate sized prints.
But, your question oversimplifies the total package because "Image Quality" (besides being subjective) is made up of a complex combination of Sensor Quality, Sensor Resolution,Processor quality, and camera function quality ( things like focus and tracking, IBIS etc)
So there really isn't a good all things equal comparison that is really meaningful.
Now parenthetically my Daughter still uses a couple of D3s cameras to shoot high end weddings, because output is mostly limited to web sharing and a print album. The cameras are definitely showing their age feature wise.
Modern FF cameras are better in every way, they SHOULD be given ten + years of evolution.
If your 12 MP camera is making pictures that please you, keep using it, and don't worry about it.
The best answer so far is R.G.'s above and may be what you were getting at which is (in another generalization) Larger Pixels in the same generation of sensor, tend to be better than small pixels.
But you always have to ask "Better for what use"
Historically when FF sensors first reached 12 MP it was somewhat of a quality revelation. Canon did it first with the original 5D which became a cult camera for it's "Look" and (then) Low light performance . The next generation was Nikon's D3 and even better D3s (because of better processing) Also cult cameras. 12MP was truly adequate for most pro uses . Those cameras still hold up in terms of image quality, for publication and moderate sized prints.
But, your question oversimplifies the total package because "Image Quality" (besides being subjective) is made up of a complex combination of Sensor Quality, Sensor Resolution,Processor quality, and camera function quality ( things like focus and tracking, IBIS etc)
So there really isn't a good all things equal comparison that is really meaningful.
Now parenthetically my Daughter still uses a couple of D3s cameras to shoot high end weddings, because output is mostly limited to web sharing and a print album. The cameras are definitely showing their age feature wise.
Modern FF cameras are better in every way, they SHOULD be given ten + years of evolution.
If your 12 MP camera is making pictures that please you, keep using it, and don't worry about it.
Jan 29, 2024 14:18:04 #
MrBob wrote:
Can someone more informed than me please define " IQ " in the context of this post ? I take it to mean ALL of the above mentioned individual elements combined to render a pleasing image. I would imagine that as each of these elements improve , IQ improves... Am I being too elementary ?
I thought detail was a part of image quality.......
Jan 29, 2024 14:33:36 #
User ID wrote:
Clearly, you have confused pixels with DNA. Pixels do not battle for survival of the fittest.
More perfect than normal!
Jan 29, 2024 14:34:53 #
User ID wrote:
Logical ? So a 100 pixel sensor (10x10) with giant pixels means "more room for detail ?!?
If youre gonna pretend to *logic*, then you hafta consider the Logical Conclusion.
If youre gonna pretend to *logic*, then you hafta consider the Logical Conclusion.
I was talking MPs and practicalities. All things being equal, I believe that 13MP (larger pixels) on, say, a given sensor will record better IQ than the same sensor with 22MP (smaller pixels), but record less detail.
We can improve IQ in PP but we cannot increase detail.
Jan 29, 2024 14:44:57 #
Delderby wrote:
I was talking MPs and practicalities. All things being equal, I believe that 13MP (larger pixels) on, say, a given sensor will record better IQ than the same sensor with 22MP (smaller pixels), but record less detail.
We can improve IQ in PP but we cannot increase detail.
We can improve IQ in PP but we cannot increase detail.
Uhhh??
Large pixels tend to produce less digital noise. But, they simply cannot capture more detail. Put on your thinking hat and think about it. More total pixels capture more detail. period.
But, you need a larger screen to see that detail, as your display device is also a pixel-based device. Resized images of large pixel resolution to smaller display resolution hides all those details. But, at the 1:1 pixel-level, here you can 'see' the differences, regardless of the display device. That is, your screen will make the same image look "the same", whether 12MP or 24MP, when the images are resized to a screen that has only 8MP resolution (example = "4K" at 3840x2160 = 8.3MP).
Instead, take a 3840x2160 'crop' of the 1:1 pixel-level details of the two images, 12 vs 24MP, then you'll clearly see the difference, assuming you have a relevant image to compare.
Jan 29, 2024 14:45:43 #
Funny thing about humans.
Each has their opinion of grouping, categorizing, defining, necessities, desires,
and what they want to worry about.
Me, I'd rather just take pictures.
Each has their opinion of grouping, categorizing, defining, necessities, desires,
and what they want to worry about.
Me, I'd rather just take pictures.
Jan 29, 2024 15:20:46 #
Delderby wrote:
I was talking MPs and practicalities. All things being equal, I believe that 13MP (larger pixels) on, say, a given sensor will record better IQ than the same sensor with 22MP (smaller pixels), but record less detail.
We can improve IQ in PP but we cannot increase detail.
We can improve IQ in PP but we cannot increase detail.
Compare what you wrote earlier to what youve written now. Now you are logical.
Assuming you havent changed your mind, your earlier post possibly was just poorly composed ? Again, no problem with your current version.
Jan 29, 2024 17:18:08 #
Jan 29, 2024 17:30:18 #
revhen wrote:
I have taken fin pictures with cameras from 2mp(!) to 24.
Congrats. I cant manage that below about 8MP. I only get there by cropping. I never shoot below 12MP. 12 is for "night vision".
Jan 29, 2024 19:46:57 #
I feel that it only matters if you can notice the difference when viewing the print, or file, at its intended viewing distance. If the difference is only noticeable when pixel peeping, its not really an issue.
Jan 29, 2024 20:30:11 #
A good photograph is not explained with words, it just needs at least thirty megapixels.
Jan 29, 2024 21:09:35 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
A good photograph is not explained with words, it just needs at least thirty megapixels.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.