And it's actually more complicated than that. Even a good quality lens
may not be able to resolve to the size of those pixels if they're very
small (such as small cameras) or, even if the lens is very good, if the
aperture is too small the diffraction effect can cause it to act like a
lens with much lower resolution. But diffraction is relative to
frequency of the light so resolution will also very by color. Then it
gets even more complicated with different sensor and sensor filter
designs. Finally, it doesn't take much camera or subject motion to blur
across multiple pixels when the pixel size is measured in microns.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/18/2016 9:38 AM, piers@xxxxxxxx wrote:
You have oversimplified, Brian. You have not mentioned the lens, and if
that is, say, a jam jar, the maximum resolution is likely to fall somewhat
short of the potential of the camera, so you will not see any improvement
whatever the theoretical capacity of the sensor.
Piers
On 18 Sep 2016 11:09 a.m., <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm still puzzled.
Let's suppose we have two cameras, one (a) with
2,000 pixels on the long side, and another (b) with 10,000 pixels on the
long side, and take a photo with each.
Now suppose we print them each
in a print which is 2,000 inches wide (on the long side). Forget the
absurdity of the dimensions for the moment.
My supposition is that the
print from (b) will be 5 times sharper (5 x more detail) than the one
from (a) because each inch from it contains information from 5 pixels,
not just 1 pixel.
Reply?
Brian
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|