Infoseite // What are megapixels?

Frage von Dhub:


Hi Folks

I'm just on about what you need in order for a camera to get more megapixels.

If this is made of pure computing power of the device or it has optical synonymous origins?

Thanks in advance

Your Dhub



Antwort von Pianist:

"Dhub" wrote: I'm just on about what you need in order for a camera to get more megapixels.

If this is made of pure computing power of the device or it has optical synonymous origins?
In itself it is so, that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, but it seems synonymous exceptions to ...

What determines the most resolution from a camera? From the pixels on the chip. More pixels you get when installed the chip just has more pixels.

Matthias



Antwort von Dhub:

The idea came to me so synonymous already, but why is there more chips with less MegaPixel?

This is contrary to this reasoning, because it really makes no sense to a larger chip with low or stagnant MegaPixel to construction.



Antwort von PowerMac:

Hergott heaven!

I recommend you the appropriate article in Wikipedia. What is the resolution? And it makes very much sense to build bigger chips. They are namely uslichtempfindlicher.



Antwort von Bernd E.:

"Dhub" wrote: ... why there are larger chips with less MegaPixel ... because it really makes no sense to a larger chip with low or stagnant MegaPixel to construction ...
This is very useful, and I would hope that the trend is precisely what was - at the moment is unfortunately quite the contrary, asked more and more pixels on ever smaller sensors to cram. The result: Noise and bad light sensitivity. Take on the other hand, a large sensor with relatively few pixels and you get synonymous in dark surroundings klasse Picture.

Gruß Bernd E.



Antwort von Duisburger:

Optics is also important for higher resolution is synonymous quality optics are needed.



Antwort von MacPro:

Exactly the other way would have to be argued: ".. because it really makes no sense to a smaller chip with more MegaPixel ..." The Manufacturer do nonetheless. Called marketing ;-)
"Dhub" wrote: because it really makes no sense to a larger chip with low or stagnant MegaPixel to construction.



Antwort von WoWu:

Nee, now just called profit maximization .... consumers to believe that it is a good thing, which is called marketing.



Antwort von B.DeKid:

"Dhub" wrote: Hi Folks

I'm just on about what you need ....... to get more megapixels.

..... Processing power of the optical device synonymous ...... .......



Gude

So the issue / allegation lower noise, with fewer pixels is approximately equal chips, for example for years with Nikon and Canon can be observed.
(Almost a religious war ;-) * But then the whole SonyTop with CA 24 Mega ")

If you like an example my test.

--------------------------

Now you said computing power on .... Well I think it already ..... In the other thread one hears so often, the video signals to HD gepuscht be ..... This requires the camera to Internal Program and a computing unit.
Due to the increasingly small processors (see atom and EPIA solutions for example), we see bistimmt synonymous nor 8 K cameras ....

I think that the chip is only a conditional role but Hardwear Programmiererei and the next "internal process" the problem.
Da gabs mal synonymous here with the report of a beta version of the Camera of many small optics Camera Picture of the continued "Like a fly eye"

................................

The optics were

Well as it always is, the better the optics, the shorter the shutter speed / aperture to be. Ne So the optics may well have a reason to play, but I think it more likely you will be around the chip - Process, Megapixel - thing go, right?

Since I am already out before the Council, eg on WoWu wait. wanted to give, I do now. The synonymous certainly explains the short flush times.

Sag times but you just want to know or are you like one of my friends, the only solder tüffelt and programmed, because I believe we can better formulate the answers.

Alla
MfG
B. DeKid






Antwort von WoWu:

Hello DeKid B.,

thanks for the baton ...
..... but I must admit that I think the question of Dhub not really understand it.
Perhaps he is in a position to them again to clarify something ...

I think he thinks the question of how a camera at a higher Resolutionbekommt ... whether by sheer computing power or Optics.

@ Dhub

If your question should be, then you're idea of the pixel once separated.
That what you want to see are as many details on your screen.
They are "as much as possible" does not make sense, because the eye can only perceive about 4¼, which are about 0.2 mm in one meter distance.

This allows you to see, what Resolutioneigentlich nor at what distance sense. There is absolutely no sense simply for more and more pixels to call .... ever finer the resolution of an image is, the denser it is approached s.das Picture to display the details are still to be able to see.
(Or you have to increasingly enlarge).
Nor can the number of pixels on a constant area does not simply increase to infinity. A single beam of light has dimensions synonymous.
Is a pixel smaller than a Lichstrahl with its environment, it is simply and easily blurred.
One must therefore increase the amount of pixels synonymous is the area of the sensor size, if one still wants to produce sharp images.

But imagine now that you've got a wahnsinns sensor, with resolution wahnsinns But a blurred Lens ... what is the result?
Clearly a blurred picture. So it makes sense only the sensor to increase resolution when I synonymous better lens performance have.
(-For the pros, I will leave here and Alaising sharpness and detail effects, and problems away).
This brings us to your question on the computing power in the Camera.

Basically, the need grows naturally s.Rechenleistung with the quantity of pixels, but it is also synonymous with the set of tasks. The modern camcorders are now so many that it has begun to build a management that processes and distributes emergency synonymous in some tasks no longer completely executes the Picture and then "delivers", as it just could be calculated. ( Example sharpening edges)
The management ensures that processes are managed so that the picture, though unfinished, yet "ansehbar" is.

Then I need a codec still synonymous, to me the (more pixels) - Images synonymous nor (despite data reduction) in a reasonable quality transfers.
Imagine, you have a lot of effort with super pictures gezaubert and the codec makes it rough and unsightly back.
So synonymous here, everything has to fit together.
And, ultimately, the more pixels you have, the greater will of course synonymous with your data volume ... and with the quantity of course synonymous higher data speed, because the next picture again in 25 ms there is to be processed.
So synonymous a storage media, which is the high data rate can be saved.

So, you see, the call for more pixels means that all together "more" can be.
It is not enough simply to the sensor to capture more pixels.
The correct call would be for more detail .... if it makes sense and this is really synonymous More s.Details can see.
Remember, the higher the resolution of your TV and the image is, the closer you must approach.
And when you're only part of the chain, supposedly improved, it may happen that the Picture s.Ende even looks worse than before.

Also subjective perceptions play a major role.
For example, a lens with a lower detail resolution but better contrast transmission as perceived to be sharper than a lens with high detail sharpness but a less good contrast.

So not the amount of pixels alone make a good picture, but the correct ratios of all components.

So, now, I hope that answered your question ... if not ... na dann bis bald.



Antwort von Bernd E.:

"B. DeKid" wrote: ... always is, the better the optics, the shorter the shutter speed / aperture to be ...
If you are with "better" mean more light (ie with larger maximum aperture), then is this - otherwise, the quality of Optics nothing with the duration of the shutter speed to do so. As an old ;-) You know the photographer so myself, but I wanted it to safety once again have made clear.

Gruß Bernd E.



Antwort von Bernd E.:

"WoWu" wrote: ... I must admit that I think the question of Dhub not really understand it ...
Do not worry, the more readers it should be gone ;-) But your contribution is a very good and certainly synonymous Summary for laymen to understand that you may link to any future, after more pixels in its camera screams.

Gruß Bernd E.



Antwort von B.DeKid:

Gude

Yes I think that Bernd, just wanted to briefly Optics.

Thanks WoWu thought a version kruze together here could possibly help, or the topic defenieren.

Alla
I wish what
MfG
B, DeKid



Antwort von Dhub:

Hello and thank you for your abundant and sometimes very detailed answers. Of course, there was again a typical synonymous aggressive free-spirit PowerMac contribution, but no preference.

Known, there are only stupid answers yes and no stupid questions. ... although I must see that my question was really poorly worded. It was meant as exactly why it said.

My question of you all best answers. Thank you very much

In summary this means for me

The pixels can be in their volume on the same chip size vary.
Larger chips with better Lichtempfindlickeit are better than small pixels at a constant number.
Surpassing a 1 / 3 inch wide chip with 1 MegaPixel (especially in SD area) than a small 1 / 6 inches chip with for instance, 3 MegaPixel.

But one last (hopefully better this time formulated) question:

Net interest sake: is the pixel value, the number of (at the impinge of light) electrons are released?



Antwort von Markus:

"Dhub" wrote: In summary this means for me

The pixels can be in their volume on the same chip size vary.
Larger chips with better Lichtempfindlickeit are better than small pixels at a constant number.
Surpassing a 1 / 3 inch wide chip with 1 MegaPixel (especially in SD area) than a small 1 / 6 inches chip with for instance, 3 MegaPixel.
That is all correct.

"Dhub" wrote: Net interest sake: is the pixel value, the number of (at the impinge of light) electrons are released?
The number of pixels in this context is equal to the number of sensor points on the image converter (or, in the case of all 3CCD image converters).

The number of each sensor point selected electrons has probably nobody counted. ;-)