Signal to Noise Ratio over the years

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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.



enter image description here



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







share|improve this question

















  • 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














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I've been enjoying Marc Levoy's Lectures on Digital Photography and have reached this point.



enter image description here



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







share|improve this question

















  • 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












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.



enter image description here



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







share|improve this question













I've been enjoying Marc Levoy's Lectures on Digital Photography and have reached this point.



enter image description here



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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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












  • 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










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:



xkcd curve fitting



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:



snr



Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but



  1. It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend

  2. 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:




  1. All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.

  2. More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.

  3. 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.


  4. Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.

  5. None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.





share|improve this answer




















  • Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
    – scottbb
    13 mins ago










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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

















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:



xkcd curve fitting



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:



snr



Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but



  1. It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend

  2. 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:




  1. All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.

  2. More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.

  3. 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.


  4. Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.

  5. None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.





share|improve this answer




















  • Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
    – scottbb
    13 mins ago














up vote
2
down vote













This data was iffy then — not really enough data points, and the trendline is dubious:



xkcd curve fitting



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:



snr



Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but



  1. It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend

  2. 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:




  1. All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.

  2. More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.

  3. 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.


  4. Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.

  5. None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.





share|improve this answer




















  • Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
    – scottbb
    13 mins ago












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:



xkcd curve fitting



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:



snr



Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but



  1. It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend

  2. 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:




  1. All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.

  2. More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.

  3. 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.


  4. Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.

  5. None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.





share|improve this answer












This data was iffy then — not really enough data points, and the trendline is dubious:



xkcd curve fitting



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:



snr



Given the cartoon above, I won't try to draw a line, but



  1. It's pretty clear that there's a slight upward trend

  2. 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:




  1. All cameras over the last decade do very well on these measurements.

  2. More megapixels don't seem to be hurting.

  3. 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.


  4. Don't worry too much about this. All of the cameras produce excellent results even in very, very little light.

  5. None of these measurements really matter to making good photographs.






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 22 mins ago









mattdm

116k37335628




116k37335628











  • 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




Clearly, the trend is best shown by clicking "smooth lines" in Excel.
– scottbb
13 mins ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more