D800 pixel count

[Nikon_Josh]

I don't thing so! Where did you come up with that?

skieur

UH OH! Hes Back!!!!

Stop trolling! Contribute or get out!

skieur

:lmao: You are the troll who begins posts to cause conflict, not me SKIER!

 

[KmH]

I am still a little confused. Take a picture of, eg a house with the D800 and the same picture with an FX camera (same lens, F stop etc.) which has a lower pixel count and then project the images on to identical monitors such that the house just fits in exactly the same on the two monitors. My current understanding is that the total number of pixels making up the house in the D800 will be more, than the total number of pixels in the other FX camera. Thus each pixel in the D800 picture would have to be smaller and hence better resolution. Or am I off?

Resolution is the pixel dimensions of the photo. You also have to factor in the pixel pitch, which defines how big a single pixel is.

The D800's native 36 MP resolution is 7360 x 4912 pixels on a 35.9mm x 24mm image sensor, while it's older brother, the D700's native 12.1 MP resolution is 4256 x 2832 pixels on a 36.0mm x 23.9mm.

That tells us that the D800's individual pixels are A LOT smaller than the D700's individual pixels since they are packed into the same amount of image sensor real estate.

The human eye comes nowhere close to being able to resolve the 12 MP of the D700, let alone the 36 MP of the D800.

 

[bs0604]

KMH: thanks. If you cropped out a small section from the d800 picture and the d700 picture and then enlarged them to fill up the whole screens would you not then reach a point where the human eye could discern the difference in resolution between the two pictures?

 

[skieur]

UH OH! Hes Back!!!!

Stop trolling! Contribute or get out!

skieur

:lmao: You are the troll who begins posts to cause conflict, not me SKIER!

Still trolling eh, and it is SKIEUR not (SKIER). Try reading and contributing. I made a correction to an inaccurate statement. You have done nothing.

skieur

 

[mjhoward]

I made a correction to an inaccurate statement.

Except... you didn't.

 

[skieur]

I made a correction to an inaccurate statement.

Except... you didn't.

OK, I will repeat there is NOT a 300% difference in resolution between the Nikon D700 and D800 as stated. As I stated 2X the megapixels is a 20% improvement in resolution.

skieur

 

[ph0enix]

I made a correction to an inaccurate statement.

Except... you didn't.

OK, I will repeat there is NOT a 300% difference in resolution between the Nikon D700 and D800 as stated. As I stated 2X the megapixels is a 20% improvement in resolution.

skieur

Care to elaborate? I'm not being a wise a$s. I just want to know how you came up with 20%. I may be missing something.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Stop trolling! Contribute or get out!

skieur

:lmao: You are the troll who begins posts to cause conflict, not me SKIER!

Still trolling eh, and it is SKIEUR not (SKIER). Try reading and contributing. I made a correction to an inaccurate statement. You have done nothing.

skieur

The only reason I responded to your post in the way I did was because I notice that you only seem to raise your head when it involves trying to PROVE A POINT of some kind or another. You do not seem to contribute in general debates from what I can see! And it would seem again you are trying to argue by providing false and inaccurate information.

 

[skieur]

Except... you didn't.

OK, I will repeat there is NOT a 300% difference in resolution between the Nikon D700 and D800 as stated. As I stated 2X the megapixels is a 20% improvement in resolution.

skieur

Care to elaborate? I'm not being a wise a$s. I just want to know how you came up with 20%. I may be missing something.

Sure. We are not dealing with a square image. Resolution is measured in a linear manner in horizontal lines, so it is the pixel difference in the height that makes a difference. 12 megapixels creates an image about 3,000 pixels in height. A 300% increase in resolution would mean an image that is 9,000 pixels in height. The Nikon 800 has a height of 4,912 pixels.

If you do the math, that comes to FAR LESS than 300%.

By the way, this is NOT personal opinion or MY spin. You can find verification in any tech info on megapixels.

skieur

 

[skieur]

:lmao: You are the troll who begins posts to cause conflict, not me SKIER!

Still trolling eh, and it is SKIEUR not (SKIER). Try reading and contributing. I made a correction to an inaccurate statement. You have done nothing.

skieur

The only reason I responded to your post in the way I did was because I notice that you only seem to raise your head when it involves trying to PROVE A POINT of some kind or another. You do not seem to contribute in general debates from what I can see! And it would seem again you are trying to argue by providing false and inaccurate information.

What false info.?

see above

 

[mjhoward]

OK, I will repeat there is NOT a 300% difference in resolution between the Nikon D700 and D800 as stated. As I stated 2X the megapixels is a 20% improvement in resolution.

skieur

Care to elaborate? I'm not being a wise a$s. I just want to know how you came up with 20%. I may be missing something.

Sure. We are not dealing with a square image. Resolution is measured in a linear manner in horizontal lines, so it is the pixel difference in the height that makes a difference. 12 megapixels creates an image about 3,000 pixels in height. A 300% increase in resolution would mean an image that is 9,000 pixels in height. The Nikon 800 has a height of 4,912 pixels.

If you do the math, that comes to FAR LESS than 300%.

By the way, this is NOT personal opinion or MY spin. You can find verification in any tech info on megapixels.

skieur

Except what you've described is only the vertical resolution and I'm pretty sure that is how you measure the resolution of a LENS, not the pixel resolution of a sensor. The ability of a lens to preserve contrast is measured by means of a Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) and is done so by alternating horizontal line pairs of black and white. At a given number of LP/mm (Line-pairs/millimeter) the percentage of preserved contrast between them is measured. Pixel resolution, I believe, is given by the total number of points that the sensor can resolve. Otherwise, by your standards, a sensor of 1280x1024 would have the same resolution as a sensor of 2560x1024... yea that makes sense.

Hence...

I made a correction to an inaccurate statement.

Except... you didn't.

 

[skieur]

No, it doesn't make sense. Contrast may enhance apparent resolution but if the detail is not resolved by the megapixels/lines of resolution, then there is NOTHING to enhance.

skieur

 

[ph0enix]

No, it doesn't make sense. Contrast may enhance apparent resolution but if the detail is not resolved by the megapixels/lines of resolution, then there is NOTHING to enhance.

skieur

I still don't understand where you got 20%. The difference in just vertical or just horizontal resolution between the D700 and the D800 is around 73%.

 

[KmH]

KMH: thanks. If you cropped out a small section from the d800 picture and the d700 picture and then enlarged them to fill up the whole screens would you not then reach a point where the human eye could discern the difference in resolution between the two pictures?

Doh! It should be clearly obvious that the answer is yes. :scratch:

Smaller pixels saturate with light sooner than larger pixels do. Once a pixel has reached saturation it cannot record any more light that strikes it even if the exposure is still in progress. That saturation point defines the upper limit of the image sensors dynamic range.

A pixel is sensitive to a wide range of electromagnetic radiation (light), not just the very narrow range of electromagnetic radiation (light) we humans can see. This other electromagntic radiation is all around us and is also emitted by components of the pixel itself. That's part of why higher end DSLR's have metal bodies. The metal blocks a lot of that other, unwanted electromagnetic radiation.
The signals from the stray electromagnetic radiation are usually much smaller than the light in the scene and effectively get canceled.
The image sensor is designed so it can measure the maximum and average amount of the stray electromagnetic radiation that is recorded in special rows of pixels that have opaque covers. That is called the 'dark current' and defines the lower limit of the image sensors dynamic range.

Consequently, resolution is just part of what has to be considered.



the chip has rows of sensors with opaque covers. It measures the signal in these "dark" buckets to determine the average and maximum amount of stray radiation during the capture. This "dark current" measurement defines a level beyond which we can’t be sure of our data. In the vocabulary of signal processing we call this the
[FONT=Minion Pro,Minion Pro][FONT=Minion Pro,Minion Pro]noise floor[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Minion Pro,Minion Pro][FONT=Minion Pro,Minion Pro][/FONT][/FONT].

 

[skieur]

No, it doesn't make sense. Contrast may enhance apparent resolution but if the detail is not resolved by the megapixels/lines of resolution, then there is NOTHING to enhance.

skieur

I still don't understand where you got 20%. The difference in just vertical or just horizontal resolution between the D700 and the D800 is around 73%.

I said 20% was doubling the resolution. The difference between the D700 and the D800 is tripling the resolution. Between roughly 3,000 and 4,912 it seems to come to 64% NOT 73% and certainly NOT 300%. However there is another factor involved that I have forgotten which lowers it. It may be the downside to more pixels on the same size chip, but I will see if I can find the info.

skieur