
Why the Megapixel Race Needs to End - soundsop
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/why-the-megapix.html
======
apu
I work in computer vision, and there's an entire sub-branch called
"computational photography" that aims to do more interesting things with
cameras. The idea is that by capturing more information at the hardware level
-- perhaps in some 'coded' form -- we can do much more with the captured data.
Things like getting better quality images, getting depth information,
capturing HDR images in a single image, etc. Many of these techniques require
trading off spatial resolution for their benefits, thus making the increasing
number of megapixels actually useful (i.e., so that when you lose 50% of your
resolution to capture some other information, you're still left with a decent
size image).

A good page describing this field is
<http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/projects/what_is/>

------
rw
Do not conflate orthogonal issues. Pixel count increases, all else being
equal, are good. Any visual artifacts caused by that increase are the result
of other factors. The author's real problem is with the design of _individual_
sensors, not the _quantity_ of sensors.

"Good enough" does _not_ mean "stop innovating."

~~~
soundsop
_Pixel count increases, all else being equal, are good._

The problem is that all else is not equal. Recent pixel count increases have
come at the expense of pixel area, since the total sensor area is not
increasing. Thus there are fewer photons per pixel, decreasing the per pixel
signal-to-noise ratio.

------
jmah
Calm down, it'll end like the MHz (GHz) race did.

~~~
Herring
Incidentally, why was the MHz race a swindle?

~~~
josefresco
The MHz race wasn't a swindle, when MHz mattered it was a simpler world were
you could compare processors without having to lookup meaningless product
numbers like T850 or TL-60.

The only thing you needed to remember was the Celeron/P4 distinction (and the
AMD equivalent)

Now each chip company spits out new products at higher and lower MHz which
makes it even more confusing to consumers. Is a P4 4 GHz chip faster than a
Core Duo 2.16 GHz, is a typical question I get from friends/family.

------
bprater
Heard of downsampling? There is a reason that HD video looks better on a
standard television.

------
shadytrees
That's one damn erotic campfire.

------
vaksel
they should still have the race for the professional cameras, but for your
basic point and click its way overboard.

~~~
aschwo
Even when considering professional cameras, it's more about the size of the
sensor than raw megapixel output:

"Bigger chips mean so many good things. Big chips mean shallower depth-of-
field at equivalent settings. Big chips mean big pixels, which means more
light hits each photosite. More light means less gain, less noise per pixel.
Less noise means more dynamic range. Bigger chips mean better pictures."

[http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/07/panasonic-is-my-
hero.htm...](http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/07/panasonic-is-my-hero.html)

<http://rebelsguide.com/dl/sensorSizes_06_cheatSheet.png>

