Quote Originally Posted by Kamelot


It does'nt matter if you have 1,6 square metre and you will split it to the 10 smaller squares or to the 20 squares . It still will be the same 1,6 square metre surface. And if you will compare it to the only 1 square metre surface, does not matter, how large the squares on that 1 square metter will be. The overal surface capacity will be smaller. Bigger surface can collect more light, and the noise is smaller.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I am not sure that is correct. Sorry, I may be getting a little off topic here, but there has been a lot of bucket analogies going on where just the surface area is considered. However, (keeping the analogy going) there are losses that happen when you start breaking up the information into successively smaller buckets. Lets assume your buckets are square and fit together tightly into a rectangular array... you still have all the added edges that exist and that goes up as you go from 10 buckets to 20 buckets in the same area. There are losses at the edges. So unless you improve the technology to reduce the losses around the edges, then the "noise" is going to go up.


Probably more important is the losses you get when converting light energy to electrical energy at the photo site. I do not claim an relevant expertise here, but it would seem reasonable to expect that as you reduce the size of the pixel, you also reduce the the light gathered at that pixel, and therefore reduce the electrical signal that you are trying to produce to transfer that information. I guess my point is, as you reduce the pixel size (and increase the number of pixels for the same area) you are reducing the electrical signal at each pixel- require more amplification and processing, and you would have more efficiency losses... so unless you have an increase in technology (pixel, electrically, and processing), then you will get more noise and losses.


So, to give you a little different perspective on the analogy: Let's say you have two bucket arrays, one with 10 buckets and one with 20 smaller buckets covering the same area. Now put a whole in the bottom of each, and add a tube to take that water to a point that will monitor the the water that drains from each bucket. Now the set of 10 buckets has less connections, less tubing, less losses due to leaks at the connections, and less friction losses in the tubing.Also, because the 20 bucket set has less water to look at, your monitoring equipment needs to get better to be able to measure the differences and account for the added losses.


There are many reasons for more pixels (e.g., cropping), butmore may not always be a good thing unless there is an upgrade in the technology thatis used to handle the detrimental effects.


Sorry this got a lot longer than I expected.


Pat