smaller resolutions make good photos ?

[amvj]

I have one doubt.

DSLRs are having less M pixels/cm2 while low end budget cameras have higher M pixels/cm2.

example:
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8869/pixels.png (http://www.imagehosting.com/)

I have a 8MP camera which is having pixel density of 33MP/cm2. So taking photos at a reduced resolution say 4 or 6 MP, can I get high quality photos from my camera than at 8 MP ?

smaller sensor with larger pixels = very bad photo quality.
I took a photo with my cam and took the same subject with my friend's sony w220 (I think) cam which is having 12.1 megapixels. When comparing both, at 100% crop, my cam's photo was miles ahead of him in terms of detail and exposure.

Yes it depends upon lot of factors like lens, sensor size etc etc...
but its possible to get quality photos from the above method ?

[KrishnenduKes]

Discussion Approved

To work Vicky, Anvancy, Synn and the others...

[amvj]

^ Thanks for the approval ken. Now looking for some answers.

[hitanshu]

You have gotten your own answer my friend. Whats for us to say :D

[anvancy-(macro analyst)]

the mp density is on the sensor.

the most common example used all over is the bucket and water example.a bucket suppose has 25ltrs capacity.so you can fill 25ltrs in that bucket.but once that threshold is broken,the water spills out..so the bucket cant handle the extra load.
now when you apply this to the mp and sensor thing,a rectangle will have certain area to accommodate a certain number of pixels.a lower count here will mean that the area for the pixels is large to play with.as the sensor is amplified for low light photography,the pixels can be rearranged and programmed in that big area.so in the end good photos in low light also.in general a lower mp density count will mean that you will have cleaner photos since the pixels are having ample area to play with.

when you start overloading the sensor's capacity with more pixels the density increases leading to poor image quality at the low light end.since upon the amplification the heavier count doesnt have enough room to spread out and accommodate.so lower quality in photos.

DSLRS have bigger sensors than compacts.compacts are more mp cramped which leads to bad images somewhat in terms of IQ.take my camera for example. my cam has got a 14 density rating which is "much" lower than the other compacts besides.in the end the s3is can be a better buy.

DSLRS have bigger sensors but ultra cramping of mp without significant size on sensor doesnt make sense.its like squeezing more people in a mumbai local without increasing the capacity.so still you find people buying 30D and nikon D80s or 70s or 400Ds.they also after all perform beautiful since they have mps which can play easily on the sensor area.

mp count is crucial when you do heavy cropping.that cropping may come in say macro photography or portrait or wildlife photography.thats where mp count is hugely required.but for average joes like us the mp count of 8 to 10 is enough.we dont print A4s and A3s all the time.

coming to your question of reducing the mp count,as per my knowledge it will only create loss in details and nothing else.if this was possible then people would have turned down the mp option in their cameras to improve low light performance.but they dont.

also some say that the mp density story and ratings are questionable of DPR.so its complex.

Anvancy

[Xavier]

I have a 8MP camera which is having pixel density of 33MP/cm2. So taking photos at a reduced resolution say 4 or 6 MP, can I get high quality photos from my camera than at 8 MP ?

Nope, it won't really work in practise. Since the native resolution of your camer IS 8 million pixels. Shooting at 4mp will only have the effect of downsizing which can be done in post processing as well.

[Xavier]

The major problem with P&S', other than the smaller sensor size is that their lenses are totally outresolved by the sheer no. of pixels. The Canon G11 was a step in the right direction when they decided to 'downgrade' the megapickles and improve the noise performance.

[KrishnenduKes]

The major problem with P&S', other than the smaller sensor size is that their lenses are totally outresolved by the sheer no. of pixels. The Canon G11 was a step in the right direction when they decided to 'downgrade' the megapickles and improve the noise performance.

That is an interesting piece of information!

[anvancy-(macro analyst)]

the average joe market believes that having a higher mp count means better photos.so its like having a bike which gives best efficiency.so many here go for that angle and thats where these companies have to cater in the compact to the prosumer market.

frankly speaking the cameras after the canon s5is are all like identical.so actually buying an s5 is a good option if one is getting it.HD videos look better in DSLRs due to depth of field and larger sensor areas than compacts.

the lumix series from panasonic,olympus all are good cameras.but the factor of more mp=more quality and performance gives preference to canikons.

Anvancy

[Xavier]

frankly speaking the cameras after the canon s5is are all like identical.so actually buying an s5 is a good option if one is getting it.

the lumix series from panasonic,olympus all are good cameras.but the factor of more mp=more quality and performance gives preference to canikons.


I don't completely agree here. Cameras with a higher pixel count aren't necessarily worse when it comes to performance. If that were true then a 6mp 10D should have better noise performance than the 18mp 7D since the former has larger photosites. But we know that this is not true as the 7D has a 2-3 stops advantage when it comes to noise performance.

Actually, with the advance technology it has become possible to cram in more pixels without sacrificing noise performance. And this stands true for most compact cameras too. The main gripe I have with these high mp P&S are the sucky NR they use which completely annihilates any form of detail left in the image. I wish RAW shooting was an option for all cameras.

[KrishnenduKes]

I wish RAW shooting was an option for all cameras.

How does that change anything?

[synn]

More dynamic range, complete control over white balance, ability to do noise reduction by yourself instead of relying on the camera's algorithm....

Basically every single reason why RAW is better than JPEG. :D

[Xavier]

How does that change anything?

We wouldn't be subject to the horrendous NR and sharpening that the in-camera processors apply.

Something like this.

http://www.thephotographer.in/darkroom/attachment.php?attachmentid=729&stc=1&d=1260718121

EDIT : Synn beat me to it. :p

[KrishnenduKes]

Basically every single reason why RAW is better than JPEG. :D

I am not saying that RAW is not better than Jpeg. I shoot in RAW only! What I am trying to say is in reference to what Xavier said... about cramming MPs on that piece of silicon. The problems about detailing remain whether Jpeg or RAW or am I wrong again?

In really low light conditions, even if you shoot in RAW, when you try to boost in PP, your noise will creep in just as much as in Jpeg!

[synn]

You have better chances of recovering detail on the RAW than on the JPEG. Every JPEG image produced by a p&S is compressed in some way by the camera. As JPEG is a lossy format, this means that detail is lost.

Case in point, the 12MP photos from my phone are the same filesize as a 6MP JPEG from my DSLR.

[KrishnenduKes]

You have better chances of recovering detail on the RAW than on the JPEG. Every JPEG image produced by a p&S is compressed in some way by the camera. As JPEG is a lossy format, this means that detail is lost.

Case in point, the 12MP photos from my phone are the same filesize as a 6MP JPEG from my DSLR.

I agree that you have better chances of recovering detail on RAW. But only upto a certain extent. I finally see that all depends on the size of that piece of silicon. You see... most of the time you are on the move, you will not even have time to shoot in RAW! You HAVE to shoot in Jpeg when every shot you are taking is being uploaded in almost real time to a server. And light conditions are not too good. Of course I am talking about very specific and specialised assignments in photojournalism, but as common as covering night sports which can be anything from indoor tennis to T20 Cricket! You do not have time to PP. Basically I agree with what you are saying... but I guess that even recovering detail on RAW is also limited, but it is more versatile than Jpeg.

But I think that I am going OT!

[Xavier]

I agree that you have better chances of recovering detail on RAW. But only upto a certain extent. I finally see that all depends on the size of that piece of silicon. You see... most of the time you are on the move, you will not even have time to shoot in RAW! You HAVE to shoot in Jpeg when every shot you are taking is being uploaded in almost real time to a server. And light conditions are not too good. Of course I am talking about very specific and specialised assignments in photojournalism, but as common as covering night sports which can be anything from indoor tennis to T20 Cricket! You do not have time to PP. Basically I agree with what you are saying... but I guess that even recovering detail on RAW is also limited, but it is more versatile than Jpeg.

But I think that I am going OT!

Ken, most cameras do create a RAW file, each time a picture is clicked. (This is evident from the RAW hack of many Canon Powershot cameras) We do not have access to it, the camera's processor does. I agree that JPEG has its own disadvantages, but having RAW as an option in all cameras won't mean that the JPEG option won't be there. Casual snap shooters can still use the JPEG option, while people who need the maximum out of their smaller sensors can use the RAW option to the fullest.

[anvancy-(macro analyst)]

the question is the buffer time for RAW on P&S..my cam has a bloody 4secs:mad:.so get bored waiting 4 secs for the recycle if i m taking lots in a hurry.

RAW gives ultimate control.
Anvancy

[amvj]

EDIT

coming to your question of reducing the mp count,as per my knowledge it will only create loss in details and nothing else.if this was possible then people would have turned down the mp option in their cameras to improve low light performance.but they dont.


... Shooting at 4mp will only have the effect of downsizing which can be done in post processing as well.

So these are the extracts for me. Thanks everyone for the info.
and now the thread gone into RAW vs JPEG.

[anvancy-(macro analyst)]

many compacts dont care of RAW since the market it caters are people who basically want to click and post.no edit involved.so putting RAW for them becomes somewhat bad.

thats why different categories like starters prosumers pros cams are there.

Anvancy

[Daniel Browning]

I have a 8MP camera which is having pixel density of 33MP/cm2. So taking photos at a reduced resolution say 4 or 6 MP, can I get high quality photos from my camera than at 8 MP ?


The quality will be worse (though in some circumstances it will only be the same, not worse).


the most common example used all over is the bucket and water example


I think one of the flaws in the common example is that the "depth" of the bucket does not change when you switch to smaller buckets, so the total amount of water gathered remains the same.