OT: Digital Resolution

[wayne_murphy8]

Can someone tell me if the digital sensor chip size affects resolution? For

example, the Contax TVS Digital has a 7.3 to 21.9 mm lens. This means that

the chip must be much smaller than a 35mm frame. On the other hand, Nikon

lenses have a multiplier of 1.4 and Canon has a full size 24x36mm sensor.

 

All things being equal, and for a big print, is a 5 megapixel large(full frame)

chip going to deliver better resolution than a 5 megapixel smaller chip (as in

the Contax TVS and similar products). Assume the lens quality is the same.

 

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

[michael_bender]

No, but it affects your DOF in a major way, and the level of noise (i.e. largest sensitivity your camera will likely support)

[fotografz]

Mr.Bender sir, please explain "no".

 

Doesn't the increased size of the individual light receptors of a

larger surfaced sensor resolve more detail? (i.e., more

information in the same area given that the final output size is

equal...as in two 11"X14" prints side by side).

 

Example: Contax TVS Digital @ 5 meg verses the Contax ND full

frame @ 6 meg with a 24-85 zoom...two 11"X114" prints side by

side, no contest. The ND full frame is far more detail rich and

sharp, with considerably better tonal gradations. (We tested this

and posted results on the www.contaxinfo.com > test gallery)

 

Just like with film, given the same emulsion, bigger is better.

[chris_david]

Short answer, yes.

 

For a long answer check out:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

[christoph_frick1]

Bigger is better. Size matters. You said "assume the lens quality is the same." Total resolution is always a result of the entire chain. So here, the main ingredients are the chip resolution and the lens resolution. For the smaller chip, the individual pixels are closer to each other in absolute terms. The lens resolution is limited as well. If you would use a lens with a better, higher resolution with the smaller chip, it might be possible to even things out, but you said you assume that lens quality is the same. Another important factor is the absolute size of each pixel: the larger, the better, for better dynamics (better signal-to-noise ratio).

[kirk_thompson]

The big differences have to do with noise and artifacts. The firmware program has to 'guess' how to combine red, green, & blue data into a full range of colors. Digital noise is simply a pattern of errors in these guesses. The larger the pixels you begin with, the smoother the tonal transitions. This is why photographs from the Canon D30, 3MP, looked so much better than anything else available at the time: the sensor & the pixel 'pitch'/size was larger.

 

In-camera sharpening from a small sensor produces more visible artifacts than from a large sensor.

 

The way sensor size is denoted is confusing, so look at the Luminous Landascape site. Would you believe that a "2/3" size sensor is larger than a "1 1/8" size sensor?

[gerry_szarek]

From a sensor design point of view the "ideal" pixel size is between 5 and 9 microns, the 10D has a 7 micron size. The prosumer cameras have 1 micron pixels. The number of pixels matter less than the quality / size of them.

 

GS

[benny_spinoza]

The larger the pixel (receptor) size, the larger the signal-to-noise ratio. As other have said, bigger is better. (That's why I mainly shoot medium format.)