Stanford paper on pixel size

[johnastovall]

Here is a paper from Stanford's Information Systems Laboratory on pixel size. It is a solid paper technical paper on what pixel size affects in an image.

"How Small Should Pixel Size Be."

[PeteQ]

Exactly the kind of stuff I an learning to ignore these days John. While I am certain it is a fine research paper, it really means nothing to me as a consumer/user because:

A. We can't change the pixel size, that's up to the manufacturers.

B. The paper doesn't take into account how lenses affect the image quality especially vignetting and lens abberations. (From the conclusions section) Last time I looked most of us use lenses and this has as much affect as anything on image quality.

and

C. The methodology hasn't been extended to color test. (From the conclusions section) So it seems that it is inconclusive when it comes to the cameras we are using.

Lots of cool looking equations though.....

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by PeteQ

Exactly the kind of stuff I an learning to ignore these days John. While I am certain it is a fine research paper, it really means nothing to me as a consumer/user because:

A. We can't change the pixel size, that's up to the manufacturers.

B. The paper doesn't take into account how lenses affect the image quality especially vignetting and lens abberations. (From the conclusions section) Last time I looked most of us use lenses and this has as much affect as anything on image quality.

and

C. The methodology hasn't been extended to color test. (From the conclusions section) So it seems that it is inconclusive when it comes to the cameras we are using.

Lots of cool looking equations though.....

We can make buying decision on pixel size and that does affect the manufacturers.

As for lenses affectting image quailty simple the best lenses will produce the best images. Which is why people put Leitz and Zeiss glass on Canon and Nikon bodies.

I see is as setting a floor when looking at the sensor specification for a camera. Just like grain size affected film buying.

As for color, no sensor records color color is the result of computation not the pixel.

I see this article as letting us look at the min-max curves when defining resolution and noise as functions of pixel size.

I'll take one article like this over a hundred DPReveiw pictures of a Vermoth label.

[PeteQ]

John, the flaw in your argument about buying decisions is that the pixel size is determined several years before the sensor hits the street and we can have an effect on things. And by that time the technology has evolved and it's a new ball game so yesterdays decisions are great, but they are old news.

As for the color comment, that came straight from their conclusions. The writers state that the results need to be extended so therefore there is an anticipated effect otherwise why would they specifically note that?

As for me, I don't like to use a calculator when I go to take photos and it wouldn't matter anyway unless ther are user adjustable photosite's coming to a camera near me soon.

Now really, did you base you last decision more on running these calculations or looking at the vermouth bottles in real life because I bet the Leica engineers had cute equations like this that said everything is dandy and we saw what happened in the real world of vermouth bottles and black fabrics....

The lab is one thing, the real world quite another. They are using a "camera simulator" in perfect conditions. Whose to say that in a world ofsay, slightly higher humidity that things don't get better....or worse?

But if that is the aspect of photography that one enjoys, have at it! All I know is that for me, I feel a weight has been lifted and my creativity set free when I stopped worrying so much about picofarads, nanofarads and the like....