Is 60MP going to be the standard for a few further generations? Is that what you would want?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

I believe that is a myth. I have never seen any evidence of that claim to be accurate.

As of today and near future, same technology, same total area: more pixels or more dynamic range is a compromise. What eveidence you can't see? 

[FrozenInTime]

What is with the clickbait directed adverts in the forum ?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[gbealnz]

Just now, FrozenInTime said:

What is with the clickbait directed adverts in the forum ?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Ah, is that what it is?

I asked the same question on the "About the Leica Forum" section.

[LocalHero1953]

Paying members of the forum don’t see that clickbait 🙂

I’m glad to say!

Edited December 8 by LocalHero1953

[fenykepesz]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

Paying members of the forum don’t see that clickbait

i don't pay anything, and i believe it was the first time i saw such 'clickbaits' on LUF - i hope they will not surface more frequently on my screen...

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

As of today and near future, same technology, same total area: more pixels or more dynamic range is a compromise. What eveidence you can't see? 

The dynamic range is mainly determined by the sensor size, not by the number of pixels.

A lower number of pixels only increases aliasing and decreases resolution. They do not improve dynamic range as DR is measured in the only relevant way: by the same output size

Edited December 8 by SrMi

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, fenykepesz said:

i don't pay anything, and i believe it was the first time i saw such 'clickbaits' on LUF - i hope they will not surface more frequently on my screen...

I saw one, perhaps when I was accidentally logged out. I reported it as spam to Andreas, and that was what he said.

[Kiwimac]

15 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

To my understanding, no. I believe electronic stabilisation in-camera relies on realigning successive frames to eliminate jitter. The same process is used in post processing to stabilise video clips. It means that the output clip is slightly cropped from the original, depending on how much stabilisation/smoothing is required. Obviously this is not possible with single shots.

Now perhaps. But a global shutter that read fast enough could perhaps do what an iPhone does and take an ‘instant’ set of images for this purpose. 

[jaapv]

An iPhone certainly does not do that

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

. This is the case with the SL2 and SL2S

The difference between SL2 and SL2S is caused by a difference in sensor technology, not the resolution. Nikon and Sony offer cameras with same sensor technology, but different resolutions. Their DR is similar.

Interestingly, Nikons Z7 and Leica SL3 measure even higher DR than their low resolution counterparts at base ISO (P2P).

Increasing reaolution does not lead by itself to lower SNR.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

Now perhaps. But a global shutter that read fast enough could perhaps do what an iPhone does and take an ‘instant’ set of images for this purpose. 

 Electronic stabilization cannot fix blurry pixels, only the video jitter.

The selected shutter speed dteemines how instant am image is. Theres is a reason why iPhones have in-phone stabilization.

[Einst_Stein]

8 hours ago, SrMi said:

The dynamic range is mainly determined by the sensor size, not by the number of pixels.

A lower number of pixels only increases aliasing and decreases resolution. They do not improve dynamic range as DR is measured in the only relevant way: by the same output size

I agree with that.if a technology starts with higher MP, the reduces then MP with same pixel size just to get faster access speed or frame rate, then there would be no DR benefit. We expect lower MP to have larger pixel size to get bigger DR.

But that is exactly the point, the question is what would be more beneficial? a larger pixel lower MP and hence higher DR or a higher MP, higher resolution and lower DR?

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

I can think of at least one other: telling a story with photography where the subject matter is more important than the image quality. I.e. photographs that are 'about' something, not 'of' something. (Photography is not just pretty pictures.)

This is correct,
but high MP or perfect recording of the scenery has nothing to do with telling a story, the content tells a story not the accuracy how the photo was recorded.
Second, not all photos need to "tell a story" even if they do in any case, they just can document a moment and tell a personal story to the photographer or his clients.
There are zillions of tack sharp and high res fotos of any photographic genre telling a story and winning prices and many of them are not even a bit inferior than the ones by the photographers you named. 

The 3 examples i made have nothing to do with story in a photo, they are limited to what the photographer expect from what the camera records.
My post was regarding high MP and recording accuracy and not about story telling, what are two different pair of shoes.

However, we have different views about what a photo need to express and that is good as it makes photography broad as it is and that makes it off topic and useless to discuss about.

Chris

Edited Tuesday at 07:48 AM by PhotoCruiser

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I agree with that.if a technology starts with higher MP, the reduces then MP with same pixel size just to get faster access speed or frame rate, then there would be no DR benefit. We expect lower MP to have larger pixel size to get bigger DR.

But that is exactly the point, the question is what would be more beneficial? a larger pixel lower MP and hence higher DR or a higher MP, higher resolution and lower DR?

It should be common knowledge that pixel size does not affect DR when comparing DR at the same output size (common way). This means that the DR is the same regardless of MPs.

Edit: DPR studio scene comparing a 24MP with a 47MP sensor (resized to same size):

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited Tuesday at 10:14 AM by SrMi

[Einst_Stein]

The common knowledge I know, DR depends on the maximum saturation charge divided by the minimum detectable charge, less the noise charge. It is a phenomena when the light is strong, not when it is dark. 
 

Edited Tuesday at 12:29 PM by Einst_Stein

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

The common knowledge I know, DR depends on the maximum saturation charge divided by the minimum detectable charge, less the noise charge. It is a phenomena when the light is strong, not when it is dark. 

I am not sure what you are referring to. An example that shows the superiority of low-resolution over high-resolution sensors would be helpful.

Here is a comparison in low light. It also looks very similar at both resolutions.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Einst_Stein]

I cannot see what your examples try to prove.
You mentioned common knowledge, Don’t waste your time, go back to physics. 

[SrMi]

8 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I cannot see what your examples try to prove.
You mentioned common knowledge, Don’t waste your time, go back to physics. 

My examples prove that low resolution sensors do not have better DR than high resolution sensors. But I should not waste your and my time any longer, and apply Hitchen's razor to your claims:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

[VanDooglz]

14 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

We expect lower MP to have larger pixel size to get bigger DR.

You're confusing "the physics" (which you're inviting others to go back to) with implementation. The physics doesn't care about the pixel size. The physics cares about the photon count per unit of surface area. That's what determines DR. Pixels is just an implementation detail. You can have one enormous "pixel" occupying the entire area, or a trillion tiny ones. If both implementation capture the same number of photons, DR will be the same. And indeed, the latest BSI designs leave no gaps between microlenses so the overhead of having more pixels have been largely eliminated, again due to improved engineering. Leave physics out of it.

Edited Tuesday at 09:31 PM by VanDooglz

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

32 minutes ago, VanDooglz said:

 The physics doesn't care about the pixel size. The physics cares about the photon count per unit of surface area. That's what determines DR.  

Don't know what you are talking about. It is not photon count per unit area, it is total electron count per pixel. Depends on physics (or technology if you feel better), the same amount of photos may trigger different number of electrons. Also, depends on the pixel accumulation capability, the accumulation may reach saturation point hence the triggered electrons may be reduced even with more light (photos). The total accumulatable electronics is likely to be proportional to the area, given the same area, with some variations that is inversely protional to the square root of the area.  

On the other side, the noise figure of dark exposure, the noise is somewhat random with repect to the location and time, but the random variation is inversely proportion to the square root of the pixel size, again, given the same technology. 

The DR is roughly the ratio of the maximum accumulatable electrons over the minimum detectable amount of electrons, less the amount of noise electrons.

This is probably not a good place to talk about these physics, as most people only care the photography. I will stop here, I can't help any furthr, I will wait real experts to cut in.