Mixing
Signal to Noise Ratio over the years
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I've been enjoying Marc Levoy's Lectures on Digital Photography and have reached this point.
Marc has broadly said:
- Sensors have got better at reducing noise
- But pixels are gotten smaller so there is more noise
- These effectively cancel each other out.
Unfortauntely his chart stops at 2008.
I've been unable to find an updated version of this chart. Does the SNR still remain constant when we add sensors up to 2018? (not counting downsizing, which he goes on to)
sensor noise
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I've been enjoying Marc Levoy's Lectures on Digital Photography and have reached this point.
Marc has broadly said:
- Sensors have got better at reducing noise
- But pixels are gotten smaller so there is more noise
- These effectively cancel each other out.
Unfortauntely his chart stops at 2008.
I've been unable to find an updated version of this chart. Does the SNR still remain constant when we add sensors up to 2018? (not counting downsizing, which he goes on to)
sensor noise
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
2
Does he still imagine that today? I vote that we have less noise today. Pixels may be more numerous and smaller, but noise has gotten tremendously better the last few years (since 2008), easily allowing higher ISO now. The past could not even imagine that.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
2
Smaller pixel sensors have more noise, that's physics. Image processors are always getting better at covering up noise, that's math. Taken together, it's hard to quantify what the actual sensors are picking up these days, but i've still not seen lower measured noise than old 4-6mp DSLRs.
– dandavis
1 hour ago
Note that you're misinterpreting the conclusion from this slide, at least as I read it without hearing the talk. Even in 2008, for the same display area SNR was improving over time.
– mattdm
50 mins ago
Hi @mattdm - that's what I meant by "not counting downsizing, which he goes on to" it's a fairly interesting distinction he makes.
– Joe
42 mins ago
Right, what I mean is: "not counting how images are actually ever actually used" is a caveat which turns the conclusion on its head.
– mattdm
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I've been enjoying Marc Levoy's Lectures on Digital Photography and have reached this point.
Marc has broadly said:
- Sensors have got better at reducing noise
- But pixels are gotten smaller so there is more noise
- These effectively cancel each other out.
Unfortauntely his chart stops at 2008.
I've been unable to find an updated version of this chart. Does the SNR still remain constant when we add sensors up to 2018? (not counting downsizing, which he goes on to)
sensor noise
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
I've been enjoying Marc Levoy's Lectures on Digital Photography and have reached this point.
Marc has broadly said:
- Sensors have got better at reducing noise
- But pixels are gotten smaller so there is more noise
- These effectively cancel each other out.
Unfortauntely his chart stops at 2008.
I've been unable to find an updated version of this chart. Does the SNR still remain constant when we add sensors up to 2018? (not counting downsizing, which he goes on to)
sensor noise
sensor noise
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
asked 1 hour ago
Joe
1285
1285
2
Does he still imagine that today? I vote that we have less noise today. Pixels may be more numerous and smaller, but noise has gotten tremendously better the last few years (since 2008), easily allowing higher ISO now. The past could not even imagine that.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
2
Smaller pixel sensors have more noise, that's physics. Image processors are always getting better at covering up noise, that's math. Taken together, it's hard to quantify what the actual sensors are picking up these days, but i've still not seen lower measured noise than old 4-6mp DSLRs.
– dandavis
1 hour ago
Note that you're misinterpreting the conclusion from this slide, at least as I read it without hearing the talk. Even in 2008, for the same display area SNR was improving over time.
– mattdm
50 mins ago
Hi @mattdm - that's what I meant by "not counting downsizing, which he goes on to" it's a fairly interesting distinction he makes.
– Joe
42 mins ago
Right, what I mean is: "not counting how images are actually ever actually used" is a caveat which turns the conclusion on its head.
– mattdm
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
Does he still imagine that today? I vote that we have less noise today. Pixels may be more numerous and smaller, but noise has gotten tremendously better the last few years (since 2008), easily allowing higher ISO now. The past could not even imagine that.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
2
Smaller pixel sensors have more noise, that's physics. Image processors are always getting better at covering up noise, that's math. Taken together, it's hard to quantify what the actual sensors are picking up these days, but i've still not seen lower measured noise than old 4-6mp DSLRs.
– dandavis
1 hour ago
Note that you're misinterpreting the conclusion from this slide, at least as I read it without hearing the talk. Even in 2008, for the same display area SNR was improving over time.
– mattdm
50 mins ago
Hi @mattdm - that's what I meant by "not counting downsizing, which he goes on to" it's a fairly interesting distinction he makes.
– Joe
42 mins ago
Right, what I mean is: "not counting how images are actually ever actually used" is a caveat which turns the conclusion on its head.
– mattdm
30 mins ago
2
2
Does he still imagine that today? I vote that we have less noise today. Pixels may be more numerous and smaller, but noise has gotten tremendously better the last few years (since 2008), easily allowing higher ISO now. The past could not even imagine that.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
Does he still imagine that today? I vote that we have less noise today. Pixels may be more numerous and smaller, but noise has gotten tremendously better the last few years (since 2008), easily allowing higher ISO now. The past could not even imagine that.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
2
2
Smaller pixel sensors have more noise, that's physics. Image processors are always getting better at covering up noise, that's math. Taken together, it's hard to quantify what the actual sensors are picking up these days, but i've still not seen lower measured noise than old 4-6mp DSLRs.
– dandavis
1 hour ago
Smaller pixel sensors have more noise, that's physics. Image processors are always getting better at covering up noise, that's math. Taken together, it's hard to quantify what the actual sensors are picking up these days, but i've still not seen lower measured noise than old 4-6mp DSLRs.
– dandavis
1 hour ago
Note that you're misinterpreting the conclusion from this slide, at least as I read it without hearing the talk. Even in 2008, for the same display area SNR was improving over time.
– mattdm
50 mins ago
Note that you're misinterpreting the conclusion from this slide, at least as I read it without hearing the talk. Even in 2008, for the same display area SNR was improving over time.
– mattdm
50 mins ago
Hi @mattdm - that's what I meant by "not counting downsizing, which he goes on to" it's a fairly interesting distinction he makes.
– Joe
42 mins ago
Hi @mattdm - that's what I meant by "not counting downsizing, which he goes on to" it's a fairly interesting distinction he makes.
– Joe
42 mins ago
Right, what I mean is: "not counting how images are actually ever actually used" is a caveat which turns the conclusion on its head.
– mattdm
30 mins ago
Right, what I mean is: "not counting how images are actually ever actually used" is a caveat which turns the conclusion on its head.
– mattdm
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
This data was iffy then — not really enough data points, and the trendline is dubious:
That said, the company DxOMark does measurements of camera sensors all the time, designed to be resolution-neutral. Here's a chart of the "Sports" score, which is based on SNR, from all tested APS-C camera models from 2002 to 2018:
Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but
- It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend
- That trend might not have been obvious in 2008, but it seems like it's probably actually also there.
If you look at overall scores for the same cameras, which include dynamic range and color depth, you'll see the same general sort of upward trend, although it's arguable that there's more growth to around 2010 after which it kind of levels off.
In practice:
All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.- More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.
- There are cameras within any given year's cohort which would fit right in ten years later or ten years earlier. That is, waiting until next year is unlikely to give you a see-in-the-dark miracle.
Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.- None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
This data was iffy then — not really enough data points, and the trendline is dubious:
That said, the company DxOMark does measurements of camera sensors all the time, designed to be resolution-neutral. Here's a chart of the "Sports" score, which is based on SNR, from all tested APS-C camera models from 2002 to 2018:
Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but
- It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend
- That trend might not have been obvious in 2008, but it seems like it's probably actually also there.
If you look at overall scores for the same cameras, which include dynamic range and color depth, you'll see the same general sort of upward trend, although it's arguable that there's more growth to around 2010 after which it kind of levels off.
In practice:
All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.- More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.
- There are cameras within any given year's cohort which would fit right in ten years later or ten years earlier. That is, waiting until next year is unlikely to give you a see-in-the-dark miracle.
Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.- None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
This data was iffy then — not really enough data points, and the trendline is dubious:
That said, the company DxOMark does measurements of camera sensors all the time, designed to be resolution-neutral. Here's a chart of the "Sports" score, which is based on SNR, from all tested APS-C camera models from 2002 to 2018:
Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but
- It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend
- That trend might not have been obvious in 2008, but it seems like it's probably actually also there.
If you look at overall scores for the same cameras, which include dynamic range and color depth, you'll see the same general sort of upward trend, although it's arguable that there's more growth to around 2010 after which it kind of levels off.
In practice:
All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.- More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.
- There are cameras within any given year's cohort which would fit right in ten years later or ten years earlier. That is, waiting until next year is unlikely to give you a see-in-the-dark miracle.
Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.- None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
This data was iffy then — not really enough data points, and the trendline is dubious:
That said, the company DxOMark does measurements of camera sensors all the time, designed to be resolution-neutral. Here's a chart of the "Sports" score, which is based on SNR, from all tested APS-C camera models from 2002 to 2018:
Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but
- It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend
- That trend might not have been obvious in 2008, but it seems like it's probably actually also there.
If you look at overall scores for the same cameras, which include dynamic range and color depth, you'll see the same general sort of upward trend, although it's arguable that there's more growth to around 2010 after which it kind of levels off.
In practice:
All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.- More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.
- There are cameras within any given year's cohort which would fit right in ten years later or ten years earlier. That is, waiting until next year is unlikely to give you a see-in-the-dark miracle.
Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.- None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
This data was iffy then — not really enough data points, and the trendline is dubious:
That said, the company DxOMark does measurements of camera sensors all the time, designed to be resolution-neutral. Here's a chart of the "Sports" score, which is based on SNR, from all tested APS-C camera models from 2002 to 2018:
Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but
- It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend
- That trend might not have been obvious in 2008, but it seems like it's probably actually also there.
If you look at overall scores for the same cameras, which include dynamic range and color depth, you'll see the same general sort of upward trend, although it's arguable that there's more growth to around 2010 after which it kind of levels off.
In practice:
All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.- More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.
- There are cameras within any given year's cohort which would fit right in ten years later or ten years earlier. That is, waiting until next year is unlikely to give you a see-in-the-dark miracle.
Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.- None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
answered 22 mins ago
mattdm
116k37335628
116k37335628
Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago
Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago
Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101704%2fsignal-to-noise-ratio-over-the-years%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Does he still imagine that today? I vote that we have less noise today. Pixels may be more numerous and smaller, but noise has gotten tremendously better the last few years (since 2008), easily allowing higher ISO now. The past could not even imagine that.
– WayneF
1 hour ago
2
Smaller pixel sensors have more noise, that's physics. Image processors are always getting better at covering up noise, that's math. Taken together, it's hard to quantify what the actual sensors are picking up these days, but i've still not seen lower measured noise than old 4-6mp DSLRs.
– dandavis
1 hour ago
Note that you're misinterpreting the conclusion from this slide, at least as I read it without hearing the talk. Even in 2008, for the same display area SNR was improving over time.
– mattdm
50 mins ago
Hi @mattdm - that's what I meant by "not counting downsizing, which he goes on to" it's a fairly interesting distinction he makes.
– Joe
42 mins ago
Right, what I mean is: "not counting how images are actually ever actually used" is a caveat which turns the conclusion on its head.
– mattdm
30 mins ago