Some things might not scale, though, like the efficiency of light capture at f/0.9. Are BSI sensors immune to light loss with smaller pixels? We know that they are not immune with FSI sensors, even with microlenses. Certainly, the low-f-number losses are expected to be much smaller with BSI, but is it close to nil?
June 17, 2023
92
-
-
All good questions.
-
You forgot to square your crop factors for ISO/exposure. ISO 100 on a FF is equivalent to 39 on a 1.6x crop, and 25 on a 2x crop.
Even so, the smaller sensors tend to have less visible read noise with less spatial correlation. When was the last time you saw horizontal banding or large chromatic blotches on a 1" sensor? Smaller sensor are, in general, slightly superior regarding adding less visible noise to a given total exposure times area input.
Go to the DPR Studio Comparison tool, and compare pixel-level view where pixel pitches are in 1.4x, 2x, 2.8x ratios, etc, and normalize ISO for "light per pixel". You will see zero benefit for larger pixels, in general (individual outliers notwithstanding). Do the same when sensor areas are in ratios of about 2x, 4x, 8x, etc, and you will see the same. Go to the highest ISOs, and turn on the stressful incandescent mode, and still, the smaller sensors and pixels do as good or better with the same total light, especially when the smaller pixels are also on a smaller sensor.
On average, smaller sensors and their readouts create less visible, added noise than larger sensors, with the same area times exposure. There is no disadvantage to smaller sensors, whatsoever, other than limited area. The best 1" sensors give less visible noise with the same very low exposure times area than FF cameras like the Nikon D5 and Sony A7S3.
Here's an example, and don't forget that the smaller sensors here are more handicapped diffraction-wise by the shooter's choices, so signal doesn't cut through noise as well as it might in equivalent f-numbers:
-
The lithography for sensors that small can be done in one shot per mask, which helps.
-
I still think the future of image capturing is going to be in some sort of vector-like or 3D capturing method that will make formats pretty obsolete.
-
Promises, promises ...
That's good, because they do know better.
-
members from here on a woodwork site.
Harold : hey joe i just bougth this new eastwing hammer today
Joe, hey man thats awesome
Harold. i bought the 20ounce model
joe: why did you buy that one you should have bought the 16. because if you take 20 x 35 / g force of the human arm x 4.000 blps per sq inch multiplied
buy your artheritise so x= c#xd56.000+a9345.88) x dr /234,55. the 16 would have been better driving a nail into a peice of hardwood thats hardness
= 34 / the sectional - friction x m2 / 4.5678 + the moisture content of timber would have been better.Harold: nah its all good Joe because i use different size nails and different timber species.
Joe: thats ok if you dont like the utimate force vers efficency out of your hammer, i much prefer to know how the universe works before i ever buy a new tool.
Harold: what ever... i just like to build things 🤣🤣😁
-
Thats to funny.
Just think GB i could write a 100,000 word paper on the use of a hammer and quality for a PHD, id then be called Dr DonaldB 😎🙄🤨
-
The link is brilliant- And it is nice to see a witty conversation.
-
-
Its a classic. im saving the link.
just today my nailgun compressor ive had for 37 years has finally died 😌😌 off to buy a new one tomorrow if i cant fixe the old girl.
-
😀😃🙂 it's estwing you old bugga and I have 16, 20 and 24oz framing. 😀 yeah right tool for the right job.
-
My fav is the 20 oz but i have lost my last one ,probally had it for 20 years but it was buggered anyway some leather was missing and just ran out of electrical tape to fix it 😁but i mainly use a 12 oz timber handle atm because my hands are not real good.
just tried fixing my compressor but the windings are finally gone and not worth replaceing the motor that i doubt you could even buy today. so off shopping
for a new toy tomorrow 😁 -
Estwing is the best. My 16 oz is Estwing, but my 20 oz is Irwin, which is a very close second. I think that confirms that I am, indeed, a dude. 😁
-
[deleted]
-
Amongst other things.
-
no comment
-
I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying here. My guess is that you are saying smaller sensors add in less total electronic noise, so that if we have equivalent photos, the smaller sensor will produce a less noisy photo. If so, then your link does not support this hypothesis, as you used the D5 for the "FF representative", which is an older sensor, and one of the more noisy sensors, whereas you used the newest sensors for APS-C and mFT. If you instead use, say, the Z6II instead of the D5, and also normalize the display size (i.e., photo for photo as opposed to pixel for pixel), you'll see negligible difference between them.
-
Thanks for that pointer; the D5 was still at the cutting edge of low visible pre-gain read noise per unit of sensor area last time I compared FF sensors in the tool. I had no idea that the Z6-II had surpassed it. The D5 is still slightly better than any FF from Canon at ISO 102.4K.
The reasons I go with pixels with 1.4x, 2x, 2.8 pixel pitch ratios, etc, and use 1:1 pixels when I can is because there is no resampling biases, and converters generally have NR proportional to light per pixel, since people tend to inspect at the pixel level.
A better approach might be to convert with something neutral, like one of the libraw products, and resample, but there is no online tool that does that automatically that can be linked to.
-
You know the best thing about the new AI grammer programs comming out ? i will be able to lift heavey fings and spell 😁😁 😜
