More Pixels, Less Quality?

Following the recent discussions on here about camera quality, this makes interesting reading:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6156398.html?tag=nl.e539

Just found this in the NY Times Circuits Newsletter. A quote from the author of Imatest software which is used for measuring sharpness and image quality by imaging-resource.com, DigitalCameraInfo.com, and CNET, as well as many print publications:
"Incidentally, where the megapixel myth really goes berserk is with cameraphones. Limited real estate forces the camera modules to be tiny, which means that the pixels get tiny--well under 2 microns--when the marketing people force the engineers to increase the pixel counts, because megapixels sell. Unfortunately, tiny pixels are noisy, work poorly in low light, and may not be utilized due to a physical phenomenon called lens diffraction. Engineers are well aware of the problems, and they keep butting heads with the marketing people. Guess who has the real power?"
And from a former Kodak manager: "Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."
And finally, from David Pogue (the NYT writer) says "The sensor size is far more important [than the pixel count]. After all, it's undisputed that a 6-megapixel Nikon D40 digital S.L.R. takes better pictures than a 10-megapixel shirt-pocket camera, because its sensor is relatively gigantic. Its individual pixel sensors can be larger and soak in more light, even if there are fewer of them."
So there you go.

Similar Messages

  • Why is my image more pixelated after changing the DPI?

    I am creating a magazine for a university project and I have chosen 2 images to be included in one of my articles. I changed the DPI of both images in PhotoShop to 300 DPI and saved them before placing them into my InDesign document but they appear to be even more pixelated after this than what they were when I placed them straight from the internet. Will they be like this when I print it or does it only look pixelated on my screen? Any help?

    What is the effective resolution in InDesign? (look into the link panel.) (BTW resolution of an image is measured in PPI, not in DPI!)
    Is the link up to date?
    How do you proof it? Did you turn on the high quality display?
    What file type are you using?
    What is the scaling factor of the image in InDesign?
    How did you change the resolution in Photoshop? What was the first resolution, did you change the size of the image?

  • Getting pixelation when I add a camera layer to my imported .mov.  Even more pixelation when rendere

    I've created a composition with animation in After Effects.  Because of the complexity of the composition and its many layers, adding a 3D camera layer to it spawned a whole lot of issues with the wipe effects I had on the pre-existing layers and movement of my layers.  So I rendered the composition without the camera layer, nested the .mov into a new comp and added a camera layer.  The animation works great but I'm getting a lot of pixelation.  Highest HD settings, full resolution, preserving quality of layers when nesting and not sure what's happening.  Any ideas?  Thanks!

    Ok, so here is a screenshot of the original composition.  There is no camera layer added here and as you can see the resolution is very clear with little or no pixelation.
    Next, is a screenshot of the above composition, after it has been rendered and imported as a .mov in the second composition.  Here is where I added the camera layer.  The reason I did this is because when I added the camera layer to the first composition (pre-render) my layers would move or resize and my initial animations with the doors opening would be thrown off and my wipes wouldn't work correctly.  It became so time consuming to do it this way and have to go back and adjust everything, so I decided to go the quicker route and export then nest the .mov and then add the camera layer. As you can see it becomes more pixelated and as Andrew says "soft" around the edges.
    Here is a screenshot from the above rendered comp's .mov file.  In the .move it seems even more pixelated and the color is not as sharp either.  It looks faded.  While it's not too bad, it differs from the rest of the composition I have it combined with in my final composition, so it stands out.  This section is my most complication and it should stand out in a good way, and we don't want the quality to distract the viewer from message and fun animation.
    So if Andrew is correct, then do I have to go back and add the camera layer to the original composition and if so, is there a way to do so that won't alter the layers and animations?

  • Retina Display-Better Screen or More Pixels?

    I make a lot of advertisments, e-mail blasts, web banners, etc. that are viewed on my platforms. Does the higher-quality Retina display actual add more pixels to the screen so a graphic on an iPad 2 with a 1024×768 screen will look different, size wise, on an iPad 3 with 2048×1536?
    Just thinking ahead to see if we have to worry how stuff looks like the old days with 640x480 vs. 1024x768.
    Thanks for any advice.

    The new iPad has 264 pixels per inch whereas the 1 and 2 have 132 ppi.  Everything should appear the same size but with double the resolution.

  • More Pixels for Pana GH2 available in other raw editors?

    Is it possible to have all of the pixels available before any auto correction in raw for m43(gh2 in particular) available. In other editors they have as much as 2-3% more pixels in length and width on my gh2 and the extra width especially for landscapes can be used to good effect. Is this an easy option to provide?

    Every camera has "non-effective" pixels that are intended to be cropped off the visual RAW file data because they are at the very edge of the usable information and are prone to exhibit certain defects for a variety of reasons.
    It is my understanding that some RAW-processing software (not LR) will show portions of this data anyway, sometimes using less-than-ideal interpolation to attempt to make it usable.  AFAIK, LR doesn't try to salvage any data deemed "non-effective" by the camera manufacturer.
    However, I will admit that I am no expert on this topic.  Somebody with more technical knowledge in this area may be able to provide more detailed information.

  • I am trying to copy more or less 30G from my MacbookPro to an external hard drive and it is stuck in the "preparing to copy" step. But that for more than one hour. What should I do to make it faster? Thanks a lot in advance!

    I am trying to copy more or less 30G from my MacbookPro to an external hard drive and it is stuck in the "preparing to copy" step. But that for more than one hour. What should I do to make it faster? Thanks a lot in advance!

    Thanks Shootist007, by blockd files I mean files that I have changed to blocked and when I tried to move then for the first time, I had to unblock again. I am trying to backup my pictures, my songs and other files like word documents and excel tables. First I put all of them as blocked, what caused the first problems on trying to move them. Then, I've unchecked the block option and if I try to move one by one, there is no problem. The issue is to move all together, because it gets stuck in the preparing to copy files step. Anyway, if I cannot do all by once, I'll do it one by one, event though that was not suposed to happen if we are talking about technology, right? Anyway, I thank you again for trying to help me!

  • Less quality after export Pemiere Pro CS5

    Hello,
    Not sure if I am writing this in the right place but the adobe forum is not working so I was hoping someone in here could help me out. I have made some nice tracks on my snowboard holliday. I want to make a movie of that. I tried this in Final Cut, but when someone recommaned Premiere Pro to me I was definitely convinced of Premiere Pro. The movies are taken in 720P 60FPS. Someone told me as a sequence I had to choose HDV720P 29,97 FPS. Because when I do a slomotion of 50% it stays 30 FPS. So I started a sequence in HDV720 29,97 FPS. I made the first few minutes and tried to export it. I choose the option H.264 in HDV720P 29,97 as an export file. When I watch the exported file in the same program (VLC) and compare the shot of the real movie to the exported one there is really less quality. I was wondering why is there less quality and what is the best to choose to get the same quality as the real movie?
    Best regards,
    Cathelijne

    Many thanks for your reply. Someone on the adobe forum helped me out. In premiere I can choose a sequence by selecting the video and it will take all the settings of the video to the sequence. I have done that. I still the find the exported file a bit less in quality. I mean the image quality and not the motion. I have exported in H.264 - High quality - 720p - 59,97 fps - VBR pass 2 - maximum render quality and a bitrate of 6 and max 10. For a 12 minute video the file size was 550 mb.
    The 60 fps mode of the camera (contour HD, almost same as GoPro) is really cool especially when you play in slow motion it looks really nice. I still think (not because of Premiere but also the raw shots) when you look at a 60 fps video it looks like it is in fast motion. Don't know why this is.

  • HT5525 I have been told that it is recommended that I  update i-photo '11 version 9.2.2  and want to publish a book I've been working on for 2 weeks! Will it really be of lesser quality if I don't update i-photo?

    I have been told that it is recommended that I  update i-photo '11 version 9.2.2  and want to publish a book I've been working on for 2 weeks! Will it really be of lesser quality if I don't update i-photo?

    Question
    Will it really be of lesser quality if I don't update i-photo?
    Answer
    NO!
    LN

  • Hi Lèonie, it is still recording only 8 minutes (more or less). I take off the 'metronomo', time is 'on', the section timing is on 'automatic'. What do you mean saying 'set the tempo to a very low value'  ? Thank you again. Ipad Retina ...

    Hi Lèonie, I tried, but it still recording only 8 minutes (more or less).
    I took off the 'metronomo', tempo is on (automatic), the section time
    is on (automatic).
    What do you mean when you say "set the tempo to a very low value" ?
    Thank you again.
    Best Regards,
    Enrico

    Enrico,
    in your previous post you said:
    GarageBand (used with a Mic microphone) is stopping to record after only 7/8 minutes.
    In which way I may record a complete concert or at least one hour of music ???
    If you want to record at least one hour of music, you need to make the max. of 320 bars last for a long time - for example:
    With a maximum of 320 bars, a song with160 bpm and a 4/4 measure will only last for 8 minutes; to make it last 32 minutes, reduce the tempo to 40 bpm.
    Léonie

  • My iPhone 4S shows I have over 6 GB of memory used for mail yet the mailboxes are more or less empty.  Where is the memory going and how can I reduce it?

    My iPhone 4S shows I have over 6 GB of memory used for mail yet the mailboxes are more or less empty.  Where is the memory going and how can I reduce it?

    I found a post with this solution that worked for me - .Do a backup, then download ibackupbot. It lets you look into the contents of that backup. Look in system files>mediadomain>library>sms>attachments. I found a ton of huge files related to long deleted texts. ibackupbot let me delete all that old crap. I then restored the phone with that now modifec backup and Bingo! freed up 9 GB. No problems.
    But note, if you are not technically inclined you probaly don't want to be digging around and deleting back up files. You delete the wrong thing and you could jack up your phone badly. Be careful.

  • Okay i want to go to smart phone with 2 year contract. i am wavoring between the 2g to 4g plan. verizon has decided not to chat with me for the moment. because i'm annoying. my question is, can i alter the G factor as i go if i need more need less and lea

    okay i want to go to smart phone with 2 year contract. i am wavoring between the 2g to 4g plan. verizon has decided not to chat with me for the moment. because i'm annoying. my question is, can i alter the G factor as i go if i need more need less and leave everything else the same?

    you can start out low and increase your data allowance as you need throughout the month, backdating it to the beginning of the billing cycle so you don't have overages; however, I found out the hard way that you cannot decrease your data allowance during the month and backdate it so you don't overpay for unused data.
    what I do now is reset my data allowance to 2GB at the beginning of every bill cycle and then increase it if I get warnings that I'm going to go over... and I check it 3 days before my bill cycle ends to see if I think I might need to bump it up before the end of the bill cycle
    it's annoying, but otherwise I end up paying thru the nose for overages or overpaying for data I don't use
    BTW, I'm on the More Everything plan, which is the same plan you'll get unless you go Edge (where you pay the full price for the phone but don't get the 2-year commitment to it)

  • Mac bought friday,says the SSD memory is already finished, full, for more or less 100 GB of "other" but doesn't explain what it is... help please!

    mac bought friday,says the SSD memory is already finished, full, for more or less 100 GB of "other" but doesn't explain what it is... help please!

    Empty the Trash if you haven't already done so. If you use iPhoto, empty its internal Trash first:
    iPhoto ▹ Empty Trash
    Then reboot. That will temporarily free up some space.
    According to Apple documentation, you need at least 9 GB of available space on the startup volume (as shown in the Finder Info window) for normal operation. You also need enough space left over to allow for growth of your data. There is little or no performance advantage to having more available space than the minimum Apple recommends. Available storage space that you'll never use is wasted space.
    If you're using Time Machine to back up a portable Mac, some of the free space will be used to make local snapshots, which are backup copies of files you've recently deleted. The space occupied by local snapshots is reported as available by the Finder, and should be considered as such. In the Storage display of System Information, local snapshots are shown as "Backups." The snapshots are automatically deleted when they expire or when free space falls below a certain level. You ordinarily don't need to, and should not, delete local snapshots yourself.
    To locate large files, you can use Spotlight. That method may not find large folders that contain a lot of small files.
    You can more effectively use a tool such as OmniDiskSweeper (ODS) to explore your volume and find out what's taking up the space. You can also delete files with it, but don't do that unless you're sure that you know what you're deleting and that all data is safely backed up. That means you have multiple backups, not just one.
    Deleting files inside an iPhoto or Aperture library will corrupt the library. Any changes to a photo library must be made from within the application that created it. The same goes for Mail files.
    Proceed further only if the problem isn't solved by the above steps.
    ODS can't see the whole filesystem when you run it just by double-clicking; it only sees files that you have permission to read. To see everything, you have to run it as root.
    Back up all data now.
    Install ODS in the Applications folder as usual. Quit it if it's running.
    Triple-click the line of text below on this page to select it, then copy the selected text to the Clipboard (command-C):sudo /Applications/OmniDiskSweeper.app/Contents/MacOS/OmniDiskSweeper
    Launch the Terminal application in any of the following ways:
    ☞ Enter the first few letters of its name into a Spotlight search. Select it in the results (it should be at the top.)
    ☞ In the Finder, select Go ▹ Utilities from the menu bar, or press the key combination shift-command-U. The application is in the folder that opens.
    ☞ Open LaunchPad. Click Utilities, then Terminal in the icon grid.
    Paste into the Terminal window (command-V). You'll be prompted for your login password, which won't be displayed when you type it. You may get a one-time warning not to screw up. If you see a message that your username "is not in the sudoers file," then you're not logged in as an administrator.
    The application window will open, eventually showing all files in all folders. It may take some minutes for ODS to list all the files.
    I don't recommend that you make a habit of doing this. Don't delete anything while running ODS as root. If something needs to be deleted, make sure you know what it is and how it got there, and then delete it by other, safer, means. When in doubt, leave it alone or ask for guidance.
    When you're done with ODS, quit it and also quit Terminal.

  • Ringtones Play At Lesser Quality Than Text Tones

    Strange thing I am noticing.
    Ringtones on my iPhone 4S (iOS 5) play back at what sounds like a lesser quality than Text Tones.
    When selecting a "ringtone", all the tones that play back sound like a low quality audio file.
    When selecting a "text tone", the very same audio files play back in full quality.
    Just sayin.

    Thought I'd be a pest and bump this (I also replied to a related thread).
    I previously was too lazy to make my own ringtones, so when I finally got around to it last week, I noticed this inexplicable and annoying bug.  Why on EARTH would ringtones play at such horrid quality?  If Apple made its own Blu-ray player, would it play movies at VHS quality??
    I'll be VERY HAPPY when this is fixed.  Then my phone won't sound like an audio Hallmark greeting card when it rings.

  • Is it wrong or why Firefox uses it as an extremely large amount of memory? I'm running Firefox 7.0.1 on Windows 7 and it is more or less constant over 1.5 GB of memory utilization, twice as much as they early version 6. Best regards Jonas Walther

    Is it wrong or why Firefox uses it as an extremely large amount of memory?
    I'm running Firefox 7.0.1 on Windows 7 and it is more or less constant over 1.5 GB of memory utilization, twice as much as they early version 6.
    Best regards
    Jonas Walther

    Hi musicfan,<br />Sorry you are having problems with Firefox. Maybe you should have asked earlier and we could have fixed it.
    Reading your comments I do not see that rolling back to an insecure Firefox 22 will actually help you much. You are probably best using IE, unless you have also damaged that.
    *[[Export bookmarks to Internet Explorer]]
    You should not use old versions they are insecure. Security fixes are publicised and exploitable.
    * [[Install an older version of Firefox]]
    * https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox.html
    Most others will not be having such problems. We are now able to say that with confidence because after developers missed a regression in Firefox 4 telemetry was introduced so that data was obtained. It may be an idea to turn on your telemetry, if you have not already done so, and decide to stick with Firefox.
    *[[Send performance data to Mozilla to help improve Firefox]]
    Trying safe mode takes seconds. Unfortunatly if you are not willing to do even rudimentary troubleshooting there is not anything we can do to help you.
    *[[Troubleshoot Firefox issues using Safe Mode]]

  • New Macbook Pros: more pixels == smaller letters?

    I see that the new Macbook Pros offer a choice of screen resolutions in the 15" model. You can only get a glossy screen with the higher pixel count.
    I want the glossy screen, but my aging eyes don't want to have to deal with smaller letters. (I notice that my wife's MacBook Air has smaller letters for the default fonts than my MacBook Pro does, and I wouldn't want to switch.)
    I'm not sure whether the higher resolution MacBook Pros compensate for having more resolution by using more pixels for each letter, so that the overall size of letters is about the same, or whether it just gives you smaller letters.
    The description of the higher-res screen in the Apple Store says it gives you "more screen space to work with" which I'm pretty sure implies smaller letters.
    But I decided to ask here in case someone has solid info. (If it wasn't for this question, I'd have already ordered my machine.)
    Thanks,
    Gary

    I have an older hi res model, and what I did was to set some preferences in Mail and Safari for larger text. You can try this out on the Mac you have to see how it works.
    In Safari, go to Preferences>Advanced and check the Universal Access box. Then you can select "Never use font sizes smaller than..." and you can select whatever font size is comfortable.
    In Mail, go to Preferences>Colors and Fonts and select a font size that is comfortable. In addition, you can select "Customize Toolbar" under "View" in the menu bar and place a magnifier in the tool bar to use on mail that gets sent in tiny fonts.
    You may still opt for the lower resolution, but just so you know, there are ways to cope with the high resolution displays.
    Happy hunting!

Maybe you are looking for