P&S resolution

You've got a P&S camera with a pixel density of 30-40 million per square
centimeter with a pixel count of 10-15 million. Compare this to a DSLR
with a pixel density of around 2.5 millon per cm sq. Sounds like that if
they made a FF sensor with a density of the P&S, they'd have a DSLR with a
resolution of around 200-400 million pixels. Sounds good, right? So why
don't they exist?

In article , RichA
wrote:

You've got a P&S camera with a pixel density of 30-40 million per square
centimeter with a pixel count of 10-15 million. Compare this to a DSLR
with a pixel density of around 2.5 millon per cm sq. Sounds like that if
they made a FF sensor with a density of the P&S, they'd have a DSLR with a
resolution of around 200-400 million pixels. Sounds good, right? So why
don't they exist?

smaller pixels will result in more noise and getting that much data off
a sensor and written to a flash card is going to take a while.

RichA wrote:
You've got a P&S camera with a pixel density of 30-40 million per square
centimeter with a pixel count of 10-15 million. Compare this to a DSLR
with a pixel density of around 2.5 millon per cm sq. Sounds like that if
they made a FF sensor with a density of the P&S, they'd have a DSLR with a
resolution of around 200-400 million pixels. Sounds good, right? So why
don't they exist?

Probably, because resolution in is only one part of the equation in
capturing a great digital image.
Noise level, color purity, lens quality and optical density are all
equally important. The main advantage that a 400MP image (captured on a
sensor with 40MP/sq. cm. pixel density) would have over say a 10 MP
image with the same pixel density, is the former's ability to produce
bigger enlargements. I suspect that there would be no discernible
difference on 8x10 or even 11x14 prints.
It may not even be commercially feasible to produce a f1.4 Prime 50mm
lens that could resolve 400MP in a 24x36 mm (FF) format.
Bob Williams

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:35:30 -0600, RichA wrote:

You've got a P&S camera with a pixel density of 30-40 million per square
centimeter with a pixel count of 10-15 million. Compare this to a DSLR
with a pixel density of around 2.5 millon per cm sq. Sounds like that if
they made a FF sensor with a density of the P&S, they'd have a DSLR with a
resolution of around 200-400 million pixels. Sounds good, right? So why
don't they exist?

One reason is because then you'd have to have a lens that can resolve
to that level to take full advantage of that pixel density and do it
while controlling LCA 10x better than they have to today.

P&S cameras with that density don't have lenses that can take
advantage of it. Why do you think it's possible to blow up a 10-15MP
DSLR image to, say, 20x30" and still have it look good. But try
blowing up a 10-15MP tiny sensor P&S image to a 20x30" print and see
what you get. You'll quickly realize that all those pixels are just
marketing hype and you would have gotten a better overall image with a
P&S that had only 4-8MP with lower pixel density instead of 10-15MP.

Another reason is that you'd have to carry a box full of CF/SD cards
and change them all the time as they get filled up storing those
200-400MP images. Oh, and not to mention, you'd have to wait a few
minutes after taking a few pictures for all that data to be written to
the card before you can take it out.

Steve

RichA wrote in
:

You've got a P&S camera with a pixel density of 30-40 million per
square centimeter with a pixel count of 10-15 million. Compare this
to a DSLR with a pixel density of around 2.5 millon per cm sq. Sounds
like that if they made a FF sensor with a density of the P&S, they'd
have a DSLR with a resolution of around 200-400 million pixels.
Sounds good, right? So why don't they exist?

Costs increased by better sensor storage capacity? Just a guess.

I found an LCD TV on the roadside only to discover that the picture
"tube" (if you will) was cracked. One doesn't discover this until it is
turned on. The display was a colorful array of cracks and lines. It
costs more to repair such a wreck than it does to buy a new LCD TV.

Sensors are probably similar in that there's more than just a pixel
density involved, but the capacity of different levels each sensor can
represent.


My 2 cents, I know.




--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)