There is no denying that a 5 and 3 MP takes more detail that 2 or 1.3.
Quality is a different issue.
Detail is just as much dependent on the lens as it is the sensor.
As the sensor gets as small as they are in phones, where they are much smaller than they are even in compact cameras, the pixels are so small that the lens can't resolve them. That's assuming a very good lens, not the junk you see on phones.
Even for my Canon 5D mkII, with a FF 35mm size sensor with 21 MP, my "L" lenses are often not sharp enough to resolve all the detail the sensor can deliver. It's even more true for Nikon and Sony with their 24.5 MP sensors.
5 MP on these phone cameras would be like over 30 MP on mine, but the processing is crap, at best, and the $5 lenses are also crap.
The problem is that they have so much noise reduction that there is little detail in the higher MP phones that isn't in lower MP phones. Right now, 3 to 4 MP is about the best you can do as a balance.
3.2MP is poor but so is 5MP & 7MP, i rather have 3.2MP and have the phone stay the same size and not have a useless 5MP on it and have the unit look like a freggin Taco, I already have a 12MP Camera so i think it will be a big mistake for them to sacrifice size and still throw a bullshit camera.
As has been said and proven numerous times. more MP does not automatically equate more image detail. Electronics companies would like you to believe such simple measurements. But in real life imaging is far more complicated. In many ways the lens is more important than the sensor, the crap lens on phones are....crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
It is an indicator of image detail.
There is no denying that a 5 and 3 MP takes more detail that 2 or 1.3.
HDTV is 2 Megapixels. The "megapixel number" is not an indication of image quality.
A better image quality needs a better lens, a larger sensor, better low-light performance and some variable focus.
Incorrect. You're confusing megapixel size vs. megapixel quality. Sure, 2MPs roughly equal the size of an HD picture, but definitely not quality. The reason a 2MP image looks good (on an iPhone screen for example) is because that image is being "squished" into an area of 480x320. The image's relative lack of MPs is compensated by the small size in which it is viewed. In actuality, a 2MP image viewed at 100% looks pretty terrible. Higher MP counts will always net you better image qualty, because there are more pixels created per square cm, that thus raises the resolution.
There is no denying that a 5 and 3 MP takes more detail that 2 or 1.3.
Not even that... At best, it is an indicator of the maximum level of image detail the camera can achieve.
But the laws of physics remain. For instance, diffraction is a function of the individual pixel size and the aperture. It is pretty common for these high pixel count tiny sensors to be diffraction limited at *any* aperture, no matter how good the lens is (and usually, it's bad). Then, adding more pixels cannot increase image detail, since the detail is not there at the source. But, adding more pixels will still have negative side-effects (noise). So, once you are diffraction limited, adding megapixels decreases the image detail.
Noise is another parameter. Increasing the pixel count increases the noise level. And noise destroys image details.
Building a digital camera is a balance... If you focus on a single parameter for marketing purposes, you just build worse and worse cameras...
Actually, the current iPhone camera is capable of capturing video, as has been proven with jailbroken phones.. Not the best quality, but it can do it..
There is no such thing as megpixel size and megapixel quality. He's right 1920x1080 frames are 2 megapixels. What makes the difference is that HD cameras are using better lens, better sensors, and better processing.
I've printed some pictures taken on my iPhone. The ones taken in bright light look OK for point and shoot snap shots.
Higher MP do not always net better images. That's a marketing trick that has no basis in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85
Incorrect. You're confusing megapixel size vs. megapixel quality. Sure, 2MPs roughly equal the size of an HD picture, but definitely not quality. The reason a 2MP image looks good (on an iPhone screen for example) is because that image is being "squished" into an area of 480x320. The image's relative lack of MPs is compensated by the small size in which it is viewed. In actuality, a 2MP image viewed at 100% looks pretty terrible. Higher MP images will always net you better image qualty, because there are more pixels per square cm, that thus raises the resolution.
Right- a 2 MP camera takes pics that look as good as an HDTV image.
My trusty old Coolpix 990 with its mere 3MP can certainly do that...
And I don't see what you mean. Per definition, a HDTV image is taken by a 2mp sensor! The resolution of 1080i/p HTDV *is* 2mp. Give me a 24x26 camera with a 2mp sensor and a decent lens, and I will get you *amazing* HDTV images, even in awful light conditions... Just look at what a camera like the Nikon D2h could achieve with "only" 4mp over a decent size sensor...
Incorrect. You're confusing megapixel size vs. megapixel quality. Sure, 2MPs roughly equal the size of an HD picture, but definitely not quality. The reason a 2MP image looks good (on an iPhone screen for example) is because that image is being "squished" into an area of 480x320. The image's relative lack of MPs is compensated by the small size in which it is viewed. In actuality, a 2MP image viewed at 100% looks pretty terrible. Higher MP images will always net you better image qualty, because there are more pixels per square cm, that thus raises the resolution.
Actually, he's correct.
The only time when you would be correct is if both images have about the same pixel quality, and the lenses and processing of those images is about equal. Then, and only then, will the higher pixel image be better.
Obviously, it's more complex than that. But, we're starting out with a pretty low quality file to begin with. In real cameras, the images are so much better, and that's true even for the $99 8 MP 3x optical zoom models we see.
If people only want to see the image on the phone, and aren't interested in zooming in and out, then for the iPhone, an image with 153,600 pixels would be enough. If they want to make a usable 8 x 10, which I can assure you is rare for most people, then a 3.2 MP image is enough. It's more than good enough for a 6 x 8.
Noise and dynamic range is more important for these really cheap "cameras", because it's so poor even in the best models. It trumps sensor resolution.
EDIT:
I wanted to add that there is no such thing as viewing an image designated in number of pixels, at 100%, or any other percentage. A pixel is a pixel, it doesn't indicate image size.
If you wanted to view these images at 100%, the only way you could do so is at the size of the sensor, which is very tiny, and too small for you to really see the image without a magnifying lens, which would make the image larger.
Higher MP do not always net better images. That's a marketing trick that has no basis in reality.
Exactly... Just look at what happens when the megapixel race stops... For instance, take a Nikon D3 with "only" 12mp over a 24x36 sensor. The camera is absolutely amazing in low light at high ISO.
Comments
Maybe the 5-megapixel camera is the new iSight for Macs.
I wonder if anything will come of those patents they had to embed the camera inside the screen instead of just putting it on top.
That's easy to conceptualize, difficult to do.
maybe the 5-megapixel camera is the new isight for macs.
I wonder if anything will come of those patents they had to embed the camera inside the screen instead of just putting it on top.
1 + 1 = 2?
HDTV is 2 Megapixels. The "megapixel number" is not an indication of image quality.
It is an indicator of image detail.
There is no denying that a 5 and 3 MP takes more detail than 2 or 1.3.
Quality is a different issue.
HDTV is 2 Megapixels. The "megapixel number" is not an indication of image quality.
I agree. With enough light and a stationary subject, the current iPhone takes some pretty nice pics.
HDTV is 2 Megapixels.
C.
What does that mean?
I agree. With enough light and a stationary subject, the current iPhone takes some pretty nice pics.
Can't capture video though, so it's antiquated.
The camera, not the phone.
It is an indicator of image detail.
There is no denying that a 5 and 3 MP takes more detail that 2 or 1.3.
Quality is a different issue.
Detail is just as much dependent on the lens as it is the sensor.
As the sensor gets as small as they are in phones, where they are much smaller than they are even in compact cameras, the pixels are so small that the lens can't resolve them. That's assuming a very good lens, not the junk you see on phones.
Even for my Canon 5D mkII, with a FF 35mm size sensor with 21 MP, my "L" lenses are often not sharp enough to resolve all the detail the sensor can deliver. It's even more true for Nikon and Sony with their 24.5 MP sensors.
5 MP on these phone cameras would be like over 30 MP on mine, but the processing is crap, at best, and the $5 lenses are also crap.
The problem is that they have so much noise reduction that there is little detail in the higher MP phones that isn't in lower MP phones. Right now, 3 to 4 MP is about the best you can do as a balance.
What does that mean?
If he's talking about 1080p, then that's 1920 x 1080p. That's 2,073,600 pixels.
It is an indicator of image detail.
There is no denying that a 5 and 3 MP takes more detail that 2 or 1.3.
Quality is a different issue.
HDTV is 2 Megapixels. The "megapixel number" is not an indication of image quality.
A better image quality needs a better lens, a larger sensor, better low-light performance and some variable focus.
Incorrect. You're confusing megapixel size vs. megapixel quality. Sure, 2MPs roughly equal the size of an HD picture, but definitely not quality. The reason a 2MP image looks good (on an iPhone screen for example) is because that image is being "squished" into an area of 480x320. The image's relative lack of MPs is compensated by the small size in which it is viewed. In actuality, a 2MP image viewed at 100% looks pretty terrible. Higher MP counts will always net you better image qualty, because there are more pixels created per square cm, that thus raises the resolution.
Can't capture video though, so it's antiquated.
The camera, not the phone.
If he's talking about 1080p, then that's 1920 x 1080p. That's 2,073,600 pixels.
Right- a 2 MP camera takes pics that look as good as an HDTV image.
It is an indicator of image detail.
There is no denying that a 5 and 3 MP takes more detail that 2 or 1.3.
Not even that... At best, it is an indicator of the maximum level of image detail the camera can achieve.
But the laws of physics remain. For instance, diffraction is a function of the individual pixel size and the aperture. It is pretty common for these high pixel count tiny sensors to be diffraction limited at *any* aperture, no matter how good the lens is (and usually, it's bad). Then, adding more pixels cannot increase image detail, since the detail is not there at the source. But, adding more pixels will still have negative side-effects (noise). So, once you are diffraction limited, adding megapixels decreases the image detail.
Noise is another parameter. Increasing the pixel count increases the noise level. And noise destroys image details.
Building a digital camera is a balance... If you focus on a single parameter for marketing purposes, you just build worse and worse cameras...
Of course it does and does them very well- that's why I'm a proud owner of a 16g 2gen Touch.
Good man!
My brother has one. He loves it.
Can't capture video though, so it's antiquated.
The camera, not the phone.
Actually, the current iPhone camera is capable of capturing video, as has been proven with jailbroken phones.. Not the best quality, but it can do it..
I've printed some pictures taken on my iPhone. The ones taken in bright light look OK for point and shoot snap shots.
Higher MP do not always net better images. That's a marketing trick that has no basis in reality.
Incorrect. You're confusing megapixel size vs. megapixel quality. Sure, 2MPs roughly equal the size of an HD picture, but definitely not quality. The reason a 2MP image looks good (on an iPhone screen for example) is because that image is being "squished" into an area of 480x320. The image's relative lack of MPs is compensated by the small size in which it is viewed. In actuality, a 2MP image viewed at 100% looks pretty terrible. Higher MP images will always net you better image qualty, because there are more pixels per square cm, that thus raises the resolution.
Right- a 2 MP camera takes pics that look as good as an HDTV image.
My trusty old Coolpix 990 with its mere 3MP can certainly do that...
And I don't see what you mean. Per definition, a HDTV image is taken by a 2mp sensor! The resolution of 1080i/p HTDV *is* 2mp. Give me a 24x26 camera with a 2mp sensor and a decent lens, and I will get you *amazing* HDTV images, even in awful light conditions... Just look at what a camera like the Nikon D2h could achieve with "only" 4mp over a decent size sensor...
Incorrect. You're confusing megapixel size vs. megapixel quality. Sure, 2MPs roughly equal the size of an HD picture, but definitely not quality. The reason a 2MP image looks good (on an iPhone screen for example) is because that image is being "squished" into an area of 480x320. The image's relative lack of MPs is compensated by the small size in which it is viewed. In actuality, a 2MP image viewed at 100% looks pretty terrible. Higher MP images will always net you better image qualty, because there are more pixels per square cm, that thus raises the resolution.
Actually, he's correct.
The only time when you would be correct is if both images have about the same pixel quality, and the lenses and processing of those images is about equal. Then, and only then, will the higher pixel image be better.
Obviously, it's more complex than that. But, we're starting out with a pretty low quality file to begin with. In real cameras, the images are so much better, and that's true even for the $99 8 MP 3x optical zoom models we see.
If people only want to see the image on the phone, and aren't interested in zooming in and out, then for the iPhone, an image with 153,600 pixels would be enough. If they want to make a usable 8 x 10, which I can assure you is rare for most people, then a 3.2 MP image is enough. It's more than good enough for a 6 x 8.
Noise and dynamic range is more important for these really cheap "cameras", because it's so poor even in the best models. It trumps sensor resolution.
EDIT:
I wanted to add that there is no such thing as viewing an image designated in number of pixels, at 100%, or any other percentage. A pixel is a pixel, it doesn't indicate image size.
If you wanted to view these images at 100%, the only way you could do so is at the size of the sensor, which is very tiny, and too small for you to really see the image without a magnifying lens, which would make the image larger.
Higher MP do not always net better images. That's a marketing trick that has no basis in reality.
Exactly... Just look at what happens when the megapixel race stops... For instance, take a Nikon D3 with "only" 12mp over a 24x36 sensor. The camera is absolutely amazing in low light at high ISO.