Active Topics
-
Is there a section to talk about Java ME? Apps, etc. (0)
to General by Kalatti - 8 hrs, 23 mins ago -
Extra softwares in Sailfish using CLI, repositories, etc (117)
to SailfishOS by nieldk - 2 days, 5 hrs ago -
Firefox with Leste (6)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 2 hrs ago - more...
giorgosmit |
2011-06-23
, 11:30
|
|
Posts: 114 |
Thanked: 239 times |
Joined on Jan 2011
@ Greece
|
#21
|
Originally Posted by Darkshine
Cool? The day we can manufacture stuff so small would be the day we say that good ol' nanotech is boring, have phones that are calling us dumb-users, have graphene bones that so that wolverine can cry his heart out, and incidentally, I just HAVE to forward this lol-genespliced-raptor pic to uncle Jimmy on Titan...
|
|
2011-06-23
, 11:33
|
|
Posts: 66 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Brighton
|
#22
|
Originally Posted by giorgosmit
Yeh. Photons aren't technically particles at all, so it would be pointless to give them a size. This is moving into quantum mechanics, which I only have a terse understanding of - but I do know that they're very small
Photons are point particles, I think, so they have no "size". For the sake of this thread, I think that we can define the photoreceptors are 1 photon in "size" as long as, statistically, they absorb a single photon most of the time they are exposed to radiation (light). I'm no physicist, just a physics buff, so anyone more knowledgeable out there please correct/ advise.
|
|
2011-06-23
, 11:41
|
|
Posts: 735 |
Thanked: 1,054 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
|
#23
|
Originally Posted by Darkshine
your call daddyo, i ain't wasting any further time on the matter.
I ignored you once already, because it's a gross over-generalisation. Different phones have different sized CCDs - there isn't one 'mobile phone CCD' that everyone puts in their phones, so your point is moot.
|
|
2011-06-23
, 12:03
|
|
Posts: 1,680 |
Thanked: 3,685 times |
Joined on Jan 2011
|
#24
|
Originally Posted by Darkshine
Stultifyingly ill-informed incomprehensible babbling.
CCD size is an important part of what makes a good image, but it doesn't mean that you should lower your pixel density - it means you should have a bigger CCD.
As the CCD becomes more dense it's true that each pixel will receive less photons, but they're still all recorded. Once the image is rendered and you compare it to a picture taken with a lower MP camera with the same size CCD you'll see a better image with the more pixel dense CCD because it has recorded more information with more precision. Yes, the image may be more grainy the more you zoom in - but with the lower MP camera it would be more pixellated, and that's worse.
It is true, however, that you may be better off having a lower MP camera with a larger CCD than the opposite - and there are forums all over the internet with arguments about the best compromise. It is also true that there are diminishing returns as you go up the scale - but theoretically it won't hit a wall until you're making CCDs with each pixel only one photon across - and AFAIK no-one is doing that yet
Originally Posted by Darkshine
By all means. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Don't make me get out my citations
__________________
N900: One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vi_ For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-06-23
, 12:13
|
|
Posts: 943 |
Thanked: 3,228 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Zagreb
|
#25
|
Originally Posted by Darkshine
I disagree. In theory, you are right. In practice not so. It's true that all the sensors in mobiles are not the same size but generally they all are WAY TO SMALL so more pixels mean less quality. My ancient minolta Z1 make far better photos than any mobile.
I ignored you once already, because it's a gross over-generalisation. Different phones have different sized CCDs - there isn't one 'mobile phone CCD' that everyone puts in their phones, so your point is moot.
IMHO, 3MP is more than fullHD and enough for majority of consumers. But modern consumers are blind, stupid and have no idea about what they are actually buying but mantra "bigger number is better" is always present.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kinggo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-06-23
, 12:19
|
|
Posts: 114 |
Thanked: 239 times |
Joined on Jan 2011
@ Greece
|
#26
|
@ kinggo: It's just another "my schlong is bigger than yours" case of marketing that's pervading the tech industry. In its "finest" form, this brings us gems like a quad-core 1.5 ghz processor Tegra 3 aimed at smartphones, because the average joe demands to run mathlab and autocad simultaneously on his phone, or 4,5 inch phones, for the millions of elephantiasis-stricken football jocks out there. Generally, this levels out at one point (at least in non-smartphone analog of my examples, the dSLR and the desktop CPU speed space). Let's see what levels of absurdity the smartphone spec race will reach.
 |
|
2011-06-23
, 13:07
|
|
Posts: 738 |
Thanked: 983 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ London
|
#27
|
Oh and I know nothing of CCDs, but you can certainly use the wavelength of light as a good reference for the scale at which problems appear.
As a pixel is roughly 1-5 micrometer wide and visible light wavelength is 0.4-0.8 micrometers, we can safely assume that quantum effects and all kind of related issues are already arising.
As a pixel is roughly 1-5 micrometer wide and visible light wavelength is 0.4-0.8 micrometers, we can safely assume that quantum effects and all kind of related issues are already arising.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to erendorn For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-06-26
, 06:48
|
|
Posts: 303 |
Thanked: 146 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#28
|
First, this is NOT a CCD, it is a CMOS sensor. Different technologies, different results.
The more pixels you have, the higher the resolution. If you have 10 MPs or 2 MPs on a sensor of the same size, you will get more details, more resolution out of the higher MP sensor.
HOWEVER, resolution is not everything. Color accuracy, noise and dynamic range are sometimes more important.
The smaller the pixels, the lower the dynamic range. For those who don't know, dynamic range means being able to expose both the bright and the dark areas of the image.
So a 2MP camera will have more accurate colors, and will look less washed out than a 10MP image (assuming same technology and same sensor size). But the 10MP image will generally show more details if the scene is not a high contrast one.
The more pixels you have, the higher the resolution. If you have 10 MPs or 2 MPs on a sensor of the same size, you will get more details, more resolution out of the higher MP sensor.
HOWEVER, resolution is not everything. Color accuracy, noise and dynamic range are sometimes more important.
The smaller the pixels, the lower the dynamic range. For those who don't know, dynamic range means being able to expose both the bright and the dark areas of the image.
So a 2MP camera will have more accurate colors, and will look less washed out than a 10MP image (assuming same technology and same sensor size). But the 10MP image will generally show more details if the scene is not a high contrast one.
|
|
2011-06-27
, 16:57
|
|
Posts: 535 |
Thanked: 598 times |
Joined on Apr 2011
@ Republic of the Philippines
|
#29
|
nice tags. hehe
on the argument of MP and detail... well you also have to put in the equation the direction by which the light is hitting the subject.
more detail will be seen, even on a lower MP cam, if the light hitting the subject is at an angle. that's based on my experience, not quantum physics. hehe
on the argument of MP and detail... well you also have to put in the equation the direction by which the light is hitting the subject.
more detail will be seen, even on a lower MP cam, if the light hitting the subject is at an angle. that's based on my experience, not quantum physics. hehe
|
|
2011-06-28
, 00:53
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#30
|
Some details on the sensor size:
(I didn't check the math)
Pixel size is 1.4 microns vs 1.75 of the N8, hence why we need larger aperture and greater sensor sensitivity to balance out the performance differential.
1.4 microns X 3552 = 4.97 mm
1.4 microns X 2448 = 3.42 mm
So the area is 17 mm.
This is just less than 1/3".. So may be 1/3.02" as against to N8's 1/1.83"
 |
| Tags |
| borrrrrrring, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27.