That's what happens when they use the wrong term. Sensors don't have pixels, they have photosites. Replace the term 'pixels' with 'photosites' and what they say makes good sense.
Photosites aggregate through processing to become picture elements—pixels. Lower sensor noise as in better SNR from the photosite array does indeed lead to cleaner results in the pixel aggregate at the end of the processing chain. Godfrey > On Aug 5, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Bryan Jacoby <[email protected]> wrote: > > "The larger pixel size means that each pixel > can collect physically more light. The more light per pixel, the > better the signal to noise ratio for that pixel and so that pixel will > more accurately detect the incoming light than a smaller pixel would." > > I think this idea of bigger/fewer pixels leading directly, as in > through the very basic physics of photon noise, to lower noise is > wrong-headed. I couldn't care less what the signal-to-noise ratio of > _pixels in my sensor_ is. What I care about is the SNR of pixels in > the output image, whether that be an image displayed on a screen or > the dots made by a printer. A camera with more pixels will have more > of those pixels averaged together in each pixel of a given final > output image, and it all comes out in the wash. > > This is not to say that all sensors are equal. Just that the amount > of light collected by each pixel of the sensor isn't what matters. > > (Darren, I am ranting at petapixel, not you. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
