General > General Technical Chat

Budget Camera Recomendation

<< < (11/13) > >>

paulca:

--- Quote from: admiralk on April 23, 2020, 09:21:31 pm ---My theory is that you can always make it smaller, but you cannot make it bigger. For example, I record audio at 24/48 into separate channels. After mastering, I render it to 16/44.1 stereo for playback. I am going to have to process an image anyway; crop, resize, whatever, so why not start with more than I need.

--- End quote ---

This kinda happened in video world.  While everyone was using 1080p pro video cameras where 4K.  This allows them to pan and scan the picture to pull out a native resolution sub frame when editing/mastering.  It also allowed for special effects and image stablising room.  Then everyone wanted 4K TV, so camera had to go up to recording in 5-8K.  Now there is talk of pushing 8K for home use in the next 5 years.  I don't know if there even are commercially available 12-16K video cameras!

David Hess:

--- Quote from: admiralk on April 23, 2020, 09:21:31 pm ---My theory is that you can always make it smaller, but you cannot make it bigger. For example, I record audio at 24/48 into separate channels. After mastering, I render it to 16/44.1 stereo for playback. I am going to have to process an image anyway; crop, resize, whatever, so why not start with more than I need.
--- End quote ---

Where this breaks down is that increasing the sensor resolution decreases the pixel size and aperture compromising performance so the result is not quite the same, but of course it is almost always acceptable.  More relevant may be that the existing optics are almost always limiting performance of the lower resolution sensor so using a fraction of the higher resolution sensor image increases the various optical problems.  On close examination, this is readily apparent on my point-and-shoot Canon Powershot where visible coma and chromatic aberration become evident with high contrast sources.

Marketing can make good use of an objective but largely meaningless specification like number of pixels while quantifying something which is more important, like the various forms of image distortion produced by the optics, is difficult.  Sensor resolution passed the bounds of diminishing returns long ago.

magic:
Ironically, phones could have an edge over point and shoots because they use prime lenses which are easier to optimize and make with wide aperture. I mean, it is an edge as long as you are OK with whatever angle of view the manufacturer chose for you ::) But anyway, it seems that about f/2 is the norm for phones these days, which enables a few megapixels worth of detail on a 1/3"~1/2.5" sensor if aberrations are taken care of.

That being said, I stumbled upon a review of some super-duper iPhone 11 Pro Max today, apparently Apple's TOTL phone, and I am absolutely not impressed by their sensor / image processing performance. A bunch of sample photos shot in bright sunlight and every single one has painful noise reduction artifacts all over the place. Somehow small sensor p&s aren't as bad.
Why, Apple, why? :wtf:

https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-camera-review/
Is that stuff seriously supposed to be the best that smartphones have to offer? :scared:

admiralk:

--- Quote from: David Hess on April 26, 2020, 03:54:02 pm ---Where this breaks down is that increasing the sensor resolution decreases the pixel size and aperture compromising performance so the result is not quite the same, but of course it is almost always acceptable.  More relevant may be that the existing optics are almost always limiting performance of the lower resolution sensor so using a fraction of the higher resolution sensor image increases the various optical problems.  On close examination, this is readily apparent on my point-and-shoot Canon Powershot where visible coma and chromatic aberration become evident with high contrast sources.

Marketing can make good use of an objective but largely meaningless specification like number of pixels while quantifying something which is more important, like the various forms of image distortion produced by the optics, is difficult.  Sensor resolution passed the bounds of diminishing returns long ago.

--- End quote ---

As I understand it, if I take a .raw file and straight away save it as a .jpg I would end up exactly what I would get if I save it as a .jpg to begin with. I assume the algorithm used by the software on my computer is more efficient than what the camera uses, so it could even be better, although I doubt it would be noticeable. So the only limiting factors are in the hardware, which is going to be the same in either case.

Diminishing returns are why I only record audio at 24/48. 24/96 doubles the file size for little noticeable difference. As it is, a 2 hour set can easily be over 1 gig per track.

helius:

--- Quote from: admiralk on April 26, 2020, 09:58:20 pm ---As I understand it, if I take a .raw file and straight away save it as a .jpg I would end up exactly what I would get if I save it as a .jpg to begin with. I assume the algorithm used by the software on my computer is more efficient than what the camera uses, so it could even be better, although I doubt it would be noticeable. So the only limiting factors are in the hardware, which is going to be the same in either case.

--- End quote ---

The RAW converter program has a large impact on the quality. It's true that software on a computer can do more processing, but the camera's image processor is specialized to the task and also (if you use OEM lenses) may have better correction of lens optical distortions.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod