Re: Why is the pixel count growing so slowly?

Today, Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) made these
interesting comments ...

GoKiting wrote:

All these people pining for more resolution, faster rates,
lower cost, I have yet to see any still photography from
anyone that deserves to be printed above an 11x14" print.

So you've never been to the Ansel Adams gallery? Or any other
photo gallery for that matter? Have you ever seen a big
large format print?

I think the point is still valid. Yes, a really good
photographer, pro or amateur, can produce really fine quality
work at 16 x 20 or larger, but not the average Joe Dokes that
just bought their first DSLR.

More resolution isn't going to make your photography any more
worthy of viewing nor printing than it already is.

Such blanket statements illustrate pretty poor vision in my
opinion. Each increase in resolution helps improve perceived
edge sharpness and texture. Large format photography, which
has a couple hundred megapixels equivalent can make or break
that "knock-your-socks-off" image. Example: a 5 megapixel
image may show a nice bird, while the 8 megapixel image
may show texture in the feathers, or detail in the
eye of the animal, e.g.
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lilac-bre
asted.roller.c01.24.2007.JZ3F1238.b-700.html

Again, I think the point is well taken, when discussed in
context. We're not talking of the 0.1% of people who can take
full advantage of a max resolution camera of any time, including
the large format film kind. And, as I think all of know - if we
admit it to ourselves - many/most of our images won't stand up to
the test you describe because of various things we did not
optimally. So, I don't think that one can automagically expect
far better prints simply from doubling or quadrupling the mega
pixels alone.

And keep in mind, going from
5 mpx to 10 mpx is not doubling your resolution. It's a
function of area, not linear. You'd have to have a 20 mpx
camera to double the resolution of a 5 mpx camera. Going from
6 to 8mpx or even 6 to 10 or 12mpx just isn't worth the cost
nor the effort. All it gives you is just a slight bit more
cropping room for when you have to rotate an image to level
that shoreline.

Megapixels are not the only factor in image quality.
The fact that relatively low megapixel count images look
so good, especially compared to high resolution film scans
is in large part due to the higher signal-to-noise ratios
of digital images compared to film. High signal-to-noise
(S/N) ratio image data allows one to improve real and/or
apparent sharpness through software (trading S/N for spatial
detail). Thus large pixels delivering high S/N images produce
better images, e.g. 8 megapixels of large pixels versus
8 megapixels of small pixels, the large pixel image will
appear nicer and can be pushed further.

E.g. see:
Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

For the OP:
Pixel count is not growing as fast anymore because pixel size
is becoming too small. The main noise in most digital camera
images is due to photon noise, and that is a function of the
size of each pixel. See:

Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

and other articles at:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html#sensor_analys
is

Another factor in producing larger pixel count sensors
is the readout time for the sensor. The fastest readout
currently in DSLRs is the 1D Mark III which does about
100 megapixels per second, using multiple readout taps.
Readout rates to produce 100 MP images would mean 1 second
readouts with the current top technology and many seconds
for cheaper consumer cameras. Rates aren't likely to
increase much as physical limits are being approached
(quantum mechanics of moving single electrons).

In my opinion the 6-8 micron pixel pitch produces
superb images from digital cameras. So to increase pixel
size, the sensor size needs to increase and costs go up
exponentially.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com




--
HP, aka Jerry
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Differential intra-interchannel filters for RGB images lossless compression
    ... >>> However IMHO many photographic images are even slightly more difficult ... don't look right, lighting doesn't look right, surfaces are almost always ... compression, it seems concievable to me that they could. ... would likely be able to fairly accurately predict the pixel. ...
    (comp.compression)
  • Re: How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
    ... with higher pixel densities. ... and upsampled our images to view them in their ... very little perception of noise in the recent high-density sensors. ... Our viewing options are horrible. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: OS X.4.X update...
    ... todays macintosh, it's really almost exactly the same as the 128k ... and the Net Effect that you Still Want, Is to control every pixel. ... incremental features, which basically boil down to Graphical ... Which allow you to easily blend colours and twist images around... ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Why is the pixel count growing so slowly?
    ... The fact that relatively low megapixel count images look ... e.g. 8 megapixels of large pixels versus ... Pixel count is not growing as fast anymore because pixel size ... Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: why linux?
    ... files, get the sound working, watch a movie or read images from my digital ... With Windows all this was simple. ... read images from my digital camera"? ... Perhaps you suffer from "positive pigheadedness"? ...
    (Debian-User)