(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )

Filed under:

Giz Explains: Why ISO Is the New Megapixel

Giz Explains: Why ISO Is the New Megapixel - Digital Cameras - Gizmodo

BOOM.

And THAT is why I’d rather have a 12MP Nikon D3S than a 24MP most anything else - because the D3S has a sufficient but not overly large # of pixels spread across a BIG HONKIN sensor.

This is why I was vexed to see Red spec out Scarlet at 5K for S35 sized sensor - I’d MUCH rather have 3K Bayer (to generate a sharp 1080p) with more dynamic range, better low light performance, and less rolling shutter (aka image skew when panning) than a 5K similar sensor.

EDIT - see Graeme’s response in the comments - it is more subtle than just these issues. Rolling shutter is read/reset, not total pixel count. More pixels may make it more difficult to reduce the read/reset time (I am GUESSING), but higher resolution doesn’t HAVE to mean lower read/reset. My bad. Higher resolution also offers the benefit of reduced aliasing, and cleaner signal/noise once scale back down to target size.

I’d been meaning to write an article about this, but like most things, if you wait a bit, somebody will write a better one than you were going to.

I am, apparently, quite the lazy writer.

My backup on this? Arri went with 3K for their next gen digital camera - dynamic range and better high ISO performance beats “high resolution” any day. EDIT - again, see the comments.

-mike

The human eye sees contrast and color before it sees detail. That’s why I’d rather have better dynamic range and high ISO performance (with low noise, please) rather than a massive megapixel count on my cameras, be they still or motion. EDIT - results vary - see comments again.

(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )

I agree, Mike. I wish they would concentrate on perfecting the 2K sensors before adding higher resoulutions. They’ve already reached the point where the resolution is higher than any human eye can discern. Being able to film in lower light environments is a good thing, but you don’t need more resolution to accomplish it. Why don’t they tackle the problem of the “jello” effect? The cameras are pretty much useless when fast movement of the camera is needed or when there is fast movement in front of the camera. Maybe they could use adaptive optics of some sort like NASA has developed to compensate for atmospheric distortions for telescopes. The army uses the same technology to keep their laser weapons on target. Otherwise I don’t see the advantages of 5K over 2K sensors. They could also concentrate on trying to make the technology less costly and therefor more available.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/14  at  09:15 AM

---

The design of the pixel counts for more than the size of the pixel.

Resolution is necessary, but not sufficient. You can see a picture at 1bit if you have enough resolution, but if you don’t have enough pixels, 14bit isn’t going to make it look any better than 12bit or 8bit.

“Jello” is read/reset time. The spinning mirror shutter in a film camera or Arri digital camera has an equivalent read/reset time of around 4ms, an M-X is 5ms, and the cams that have jellovision issues are in the 20ms to 40ms range.

One forgotten factor is that 4k leads to a much cleaner 2k than aiming for 2k on the sensor. Just look at the F35 which has significant aliasing artifacts at < 2k, whereas the 4k RED is utterly clean to 2k and beyond.

Just as the megapixel race is a gross over-simplification of the nuances of camera design, so is the ISO race. All it is, is putting a single number to represent “quality” whereas actual camera design is severely more nuanced and complex than that.

Posted by Graeme Nattress  on  02/14  at  10:03 AM

---

Hi Mike
Do you know of any tests or articles on the D3s vers 5d ii or Sony Pmw 3 for video low light

Thanks

Posted by Sebastian  on  01/01  at  01:41 PM

---

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: