On 2018-04-25 11:58:07 +0000, Neil said:

On 4/25/2018 5:11 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 16:29:27 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/24/2018 9:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:37:53 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as
unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or
lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which
defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.

you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into
space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most
cases.

So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the
8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality!

Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large
sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as
much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in
film days other than being part of the grain.
Noise is sensors is quite differnt.

I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an
variation in the output from a source signal.

No it is NOT.
Noise is defined as unwanted signal.
Lik students talking at the back of the class.

That is correct for one usage of the term. However, you must be aware
that there are others that are just as valid because they're analogous
but not measured in the same way?

Then how are they analogous.

For example, when one refers to the
S/N of audio speakers, it is a figure assigned that does not take into
consideration any particular environment, so "noise" is therefore not an
external factor as it is in your example. Let's move on.

You're talking crap, we used to test loudspeakers here, we had one of
the few anachoic chambers in the country. Noise is NOT a feature of
speakers. They DO NOT have a S/N ratio.

Oh, you think I made up that usage? I did not, and I don't particularly
agree with it, either. Usage is about communication, and that usage
communicates with many folks even though it doesn't remotely represent
your limited definition of noise being an external factor. Put your
hands over your ears and yell "blah blah" all you want. No one cares.

He's livin SO might, and end up to be his ex livin SO! :-))

In film, grain is just one
of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to
vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal").

sort of right but what is your source signal ?

The subject being photographed.

SO what 'noise' comes from this source. See you even have this wrong
NOISE does not come from the subject, well unless they are students of
course, then it's almost pure noise.


Why did you ask
"what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"?

because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ?

Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would
cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower
resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the
reason for asking the question is puzzling.

because sufficiently means very little and isn't very accurate or scientific.
We can travel sufficiently close to the speed of sound anyhting esle as
virtually meaningless.

In this context, "sufficiently" means "...enough to be the primary
reason for a poorer representation of the subject".

So pretty meaningless then as I suspected.

Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when
looking at two prints of the same size.

which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image
flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in
post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw"
images are not that impressive.

The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and
better repeatability than a JOOC image could be.

JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw.

No it isn't if you're using JOOC.

Keep setting up your straw men, I'll keep shooting them.


The TG-4
does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome
only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything
other than still subjects.

Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera
is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that.
I don't see any bellows on that camera,

Then go to specsavers, or another opticians.

and it would be just as easy to
attach one to the TG-4,

yeah sure it would.

Why do you believe that your personal limitations apply to everyone? If
I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task
would take less than an afternoon. I'd take one of my TG-4 lenses to
the closest MakerSpace ( 10 minute drive), do a 3D scan of the lens
mount, send the file to the CNC machine and attach the new mount to one
of my bellows. No big deal at all.

if that mattered, because it does have
interchangeable lenses and standard thread mounts. So, it doesn't and
we're back to basics:

a pin hole camera is back to basics

which represents most subjects better,

The 10X8 camera isn't for most subjects any more than the space shuttle
was meant as public transport to the ISS.

I see no particular value to that camera. At 12mp it can do nothing
that can't be done better with dozens of cameras at a fraction of its
cost. Dance all you want, set up as many straw men as you want, and
refuse to give the obvious answer to the original question. No one
cares.

higher
resolution *in color* or lower S/N in monochrome?


--
teleportation kills