Here are some recent pictures of Morgan. They were taken on my phone because we still have not replaced our dead camera. It's too early, we're still mourning.
I'll start with one basic issue: resolution (by which I mean pixel count (there are more accurate meanings "resolution", but I'm not that smart)). To a point, pixel count does make a difference. Although I doubt 8Mp is really better than 5Mp for most purposes. One reason higher pixel count doesn't always help is that the average pixel size decreases in order to accommodate a given optical format (or real sensor size). Smaller pixels = less light hitting the sensor = less data with which to make yerself a picture = less than ideal pictures of yer kids.
Second, the optics of these things are often not positioned with the same precision that those of a digital camera are. And the quality of cellphone optics is often so/so. They often count on image processing to atone for any optics problems, but that's not a really good excuse for getting cheap on optics.
This hearkens back to the light/smaller pixel issue: the amount of light that gets to the tiny sensor in your cellphone is a whole lot less than the amount of light that reaches the sensor in a digital camera, because the sensors and optics are a heck of a lot larger in digital cameras.
Also, it might not be a Micron sensor! Micron Technology, Inc. High School football rules! (I'm paraphrasing there, mind you.) It's all about the home team.
Hope that helps, if you'd like some more detail on it just let me know.
P.S. I know the question was rhetorical...I hereby apologize for my lack of self-control, which must be quite persistent since I really will post all of this.
You should have seen the link I put up on my other blog about the mega-pixel marketing sham. It pretty much boiled down to the author taking many photos with cameras between 3 and 10 MP and then getting really large prints of the photos and having people try to identify the higher MP photos. Nobody could. I think maybe 1 professional photog was able to, and there was a question about whether she was identifying lower resolution or other qualities that may be apparent in a higher quality camera.
I don't know how the pictures where enlarged and printed. But I would think that ink-jet printers, at least, would be somewhat like a LCD or CRT display, in that they have a resolution of their own. Both of which are why I don't think a 10MP camera makes sense. My largest display will probably only be a few MP. I will never see the other millions of pixels my camera can take. I guess you can zoom and crop alot if you have extra pixels.
10Mp is just crazy for the vast majority of photographs. It's really the same thing as GHz used to be for processors, and you'll notice that most adverts don't even show the processor clock speed anymore.
It sure keeps consumers buying things they don't need! And that's what makes America great, right?
If you were to blow pictures up to the size of murals, you could definitely tell the difference, but it's been a little while since I did that.
3 comments:
Well, Alison, I'm glad you asked.
I'll start with one basic issue: resolution (by which I mean pixel count (there are more accurate meanings "resolution", but I'm not that smart)). To a point, pixel count does make a difference. Although I doubt 8Mp is really better than 5Mp for most purposes. One reason higher pixel count doesn't always help is that the average pixel size decreases in order to accommodate a given optical format (or real sensor size). Smaller pixels = less light hitting the sensor = less data with which to make yerself a picture = less than ideal pictures of yer kids.
Second, the optics of these things are often not positioned with the same precision that those of a digital camera are. And the quality of cellphone optics is often so/so. They often count on image processing to atone for any optics problems, but that's not a really good excuse for getting cheap on optics.
This hearkens back to the light/smaller pixel issue: the amount of light that gets to the tiny sensor in your cellphone is a whole lot less than the amount of light that reaches the sensor in a digital camera, because the sensors and optics are a heck of a lot larger in digital cameras.
Also, it might not be a Micron sensor! Micron Technology, Inc. High School football rules! (I'm paraphrasing there, mind you.) It's all about the home team.
Hope that helps, if you'd like some more detail on it just let me know.
P.S. I know the question was rhetorical...I hereby apologize for my lack of self-control, which must be quite persistent since I really will post all of this.
Taylor,
You should have seen the link I put up on my other blog about the mega-pixel marketing sham. It pretty much boiled down to the author taking many photos with cameras between 3 and 10 MP and then getting really large prints of the photos and having people try to identify the higher MP photos. Nobody could. I think maybe 1 professional photog was able to, and there was a question about whether she was identifying lower resolution or other qualities that may be apparent in a higher quality camera.
I don't know how the pictures where enlarged and printed. But I would think that ink-jet printers, at least, would be somewhat like a LCD or CRT display, in that they have a resolution of their own. Both of which are why I don't think a 10MP camera makes sense. My largest display will probably only be a few MP. I will never see the other millions of pixels my camera can take. I guess you can zoom and crop alot if you have extra pixels.
10Mp is just crazy for the vast majority of photographs. It's really the same thing as GHz used to be for processors, and you'll notice that most adverts don't even show the processor clock speed anymore.
It sure keeps consumers buying things they don't need! And that's what makes America great, right?
If you were to blow pictures up to the size of murals, you could definitely tell the difference, but it's been a little while since I did that.
Post a Comment