Re: [photo-3d] Megapixels

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While important, the number of pixels, or the size of the chip, or single or
two or three chips, are not the only factors that determine the final image
quality.  It is more along the lines of the "weakest link".  It is entirely
possible for a 3 megapixel camera to produce a sharper picture than a 4, if
something else is limiting the sharpness.  For example, the quality of the
lens.

This argument is not new.  For years, photographers have been discussing
which film camera produced the sharpest images.  Usually it was a result of
the combination of the resolution of the film with the resolution of lens,
the aperture, the shutter speed (motion blur), and several other
considerations.

There is no reason why digital cameras should be any different.  Any imaging
system has to be judged on the MTF (modulation transfer function) of the
entire system, not just one component.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Megapixels


> Mark wrote:
> > Well....it's here already. I predicted digital cameras to peak at 4
> > megapixels ( consumer models) and Fuji just introduced a 4.3
> > megapixel camera/ MP3 player......audio and photo combined! I
> > figured this would not happen for at least 1 year. Now I'll be
> > interested to see if a higher pixel camera is introduced...that is
> > without interpolation, but true pixels.
>
> Which Fuji camera?  I believe that their newest cameras have about 3
> million sensor sites in a hexagonal grid that are then interpolated
> into a rectangular grid of around 4 million pixels.  Personally I
> think there is a lot to be gained from a non-rectangular grid, but I
> want to wait to see the results.  Even if there are 4 million sensor
> sites, unless it is a three chip camera there is still color
> interpolation going on.  All of the one chip cameras use a color
> filter mask of RGBG filters and interpolate colors at each pixel.
>
> > Yikes.......looks like film sales is predicted to drop 7-10% this
> > year according to some industry gurus.
>
> According to whose numbers?  Having seen so many of these predictions
> (and not just film vs. digital) change depending on who the audience
> is, I don't place much faith in various industry "gurus".  About the
> only thing you can put any faith in are the stockholder reports, which
> at least have legal penalties if they deliberately try to lie.
>
> > Has anyone heard of a digital consumer model to exceed 4.3
> > megapixels? I believe Fuji is the only company to offer this
> > technology in a small package.
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure I've heard rumblings of things to come from other
> manufacturers.  Photo Plus Expo East (or whatever they're calling it
> now) is the beginning of next month.  Although I'm only going there
> because of my interest in large format (John Sexton will be giving a
> seminar on B&W photography), I expect to see all the newest digital
> stuff.  I used to go to this expo to get away from computers.  Sigh.
>
> By the way, smaller is not better.  The digicam industry has been
> hyping pixel count and going for smaller and smaller sensor sites in
> order to get more pixels in the final image, but what you really want
> are larger sensor sites.  This will give you a more sensitive chip,
> and a better signal to noise ratio, but will cost more.  I'm afraid
> that the digital market is going to be driven by the low end of the
> consumer expectations.
>
> --
> Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
> reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
> http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
> NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"
>
>
>
>