Re: Why is the pixel count growing so slowly?

Today, SMS made these interesting comments ...

Alfred Molon wrote:
Given that memory chips with billions of cells exist, why are
we stuck at the 10-12MP level? What prevents a manufacturer
from creating a CCD with 50-100 million pixels? Should be
doable with today's technologies. Let's ignore the sensor
size, which can't be too big for economical reasons. Are
perhaps manufacturers increasing the pixel count by just 1-
2MP per year for marketing reasonsß

It's because a larger number of pixels require a larger
sensor, due to noise issues.

For non-SLRs, even today's pixel count is resulting in lower
quality images than before.

Even in some SLRs, especially those with the smaller 4/3
sensor, the noise levels are intolerable for amateurs and
professionals, though for the consumer level cameras at least
they are better than the point and shoots.

When I spent a half-year evaluating a DSLR in the fall of 2005, I
settled on either the Nikon D70s and the Canon Rebel XT. The
final decision in favor of the Canon was primarily because I
liked its smaller physical size and lighter weight, the very
"features" that some people dislike.

I had been led to believe that DSLR technology, i.e., sensors and
image processing, would afford me many advtanges, among them much
lower noise at high ISO. Well, I VERY much like the Rebel and am
very impressed with the quality of my 2 L-glass zoom lenses, but
I am most disappointed in the noise it produces. I ran a number
of controlled tests in daylight, low-light without flash, and
low-light with flash from ISO 100 to 1600. I could easily see
noise even at 200 but it wasn't bothersome. At 400, it was much
more noticeable but controllable using PSP 9's DCNR and making a
judgement as to the trade-off between noise and detail sharpness.
But, I found it virtually impossible to get noise free ISO 800
immages that kept enough detail/sharpness to satisfy me when
taking car pictures, my most frequent subject. And, I quickly
gave up trying ISO 1600.

Now, the Rebel may not have been my best choice if low noise was
the major criterion, but my long-winded comments above are in
clear support of your statement just above mine. I could've opted
for a more expensive "pro" or "advanced amateur" DSLR from either
Nikon or Canon, but the size, weight, and cost were major
disadvantages to me at the time, and still are today.

For the high-end professional cameras, you're seeing
relatively large, full-frame sensors become more common as the
pixel count increases. Fortunately the prices are falling on
full-frame as well.

I might be interested in a full-frame DSLR when my Rebel starts
to die, but my current inventory of lenses would need to be
replaced to compensate for the 1.6X focal length difference. I'll
take a look later this year and early next year to see how the
technology evolves. One thing is certain, while it may be neat to
have a 12, 16 or higher MP camera, for my needs AND wants, 10-12
MP is already overkill. The only time I shoot at the Rebel's 8 MP
is when I want an effective "digital zoom" when I want to crop a
part of the image to compensate for not having enough telephoto.
But, those situations are rare for me. And, since I do not print
larger than 8.5 x 11, I get results that suit me just fine.

Just one comment on print quality: I bought a Canon Pixma 6600
about a year ago. I am very impressed with its quality for car
pictures as well as general photography, architechture, and other
subjects with fine detail on either Canon's pro glossy paper or
glossy plus. I get by with 150 PPI or less primarily because my
perception of absolute image quality with minimum posterization,
artefacts, and jaggies is much lower than many folks, and I tend
to view my prints from longer distances.

--
HP, aka Jerry
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: D3x great camera, but...
    ... decrease pixel size, its like cutting a pie into smaller pieces, so ... Bayer sensor design and the need for a blur filter. ... equal comparison I've seen, shows that P&S-sized sensors are as good or better than DSLR sensors at photon efficiency, and that base ISO read noise, integrated by pixel pitch, is also equal or lower ... But neither full well capacity nor electron densities are ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: The Joy of Pixel Density
    ... critics here have no viable working model in their heads of what a sensor ... That is the only way to compare pixel density, ... that higher pixel density lowers DR or increases noise. ... Who said I was trying to tell people what camera to buy? ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Joy of Pixel Density
    ... the sensor DR you're actually interested in. ... amplification) and its noise is probably the irreducible minimum read ... How does pixel read noise scale with pixel pitch? ... programmable gain amplifier into the "middle read noises" Nm. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Joy of Pixel Density
    ... many pixels into a sensor smaller than the one used by Fuji's F30. ... The JPEG output of both cameras are ... I am fighting the myth that pixel noise ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Joy of Pixel Density
    ... Does that mean an equal p-p noise level, ... You can't directly take the standard deviation of an upsampled image ... You can clearly see that at 100% pixel view for both cameras, ... I consider there to be three basic qualities; PQ (pixel quality), ...
    (rec.photo.digital)