- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why is resolution a measure of quality for smartphone screens, but not cameras?
Posted on 12/6/14 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 12/6/14 at 5:20 pm
for cameras, we all know that megapixels aren't everything, and that image quality is more dependent on the sensor, lens system, etc.
why is it, then, that resolution is the main determinant of screen quality for smartphones? for example, people automatically assume that a 1440p screen on a smartphone is superior to a 1080p panel - yet those same people will tell you that resolution really doesn't determine the quality of a camera.
why the discrepancy?
why is it, then, that resolution is the main determinant of screen quality for smartphones? for example, people automatically assume that a 1440p screen on a smartphone is superior to a 1080p panel - yet those same people will tell you that resolution really doesn't determine the quality of a camera.
why the discrepancy?
This post was edited on 12/6/14 at 5:22 pm
2
Posted on 12/6/14 at 5:29 pm to demosa
Because you're confusing megapixels with resolution...
Posted on 12/6/14 at 5:38 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
Because you're confusing megapixels with resolution...
No confusion here, megapixels is a different way of stating resolution.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 5:45 pm to demosa
quote:
for cameras, we all know that megapixels aren't everything, and that image quality is more dependent on the sensor, lens system, etc.
why is it, then, that resolution is the main determinant of screen quality for smartphones? for example, people automatically assume that a 1440p screen on a smartphone is superior to a 1080p panel - yet those same people will tell you that resolution really doesn't determine the quality of a camera.
why the discrepancy?
There isn't really a discrepancy. Resolution is the main determinant of quality for both smartphone screens and cameras.. to a certain point. Once resolution is high enough that our eyes can't pick out individual pixels at standard viewing distances, other factors become more important. As you mentioned, for cameras these factors include sensor quality, lens, etc. For smartphone screens, these factors might include color accuracy, contrast, viewing angles, etc.
The only difference is camera tech hit the resolution sweet spot long before smartphone screens did.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 5:58 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Resolution is the main determinant of quality for both smartphone screens and cameras.. to a certain point. Once resolution is high enough that our eyes can't pick out individual pixels at standard viewing distances, other factors become more important
at what point though? at least for cameras, a higher resolution photo always provides you with some benefit, as you can continually zoom in on certain parts of the image and still have exceptional clarity.
for smartphones, though, what's the limit? 1080p? 1440p? as a tangent, i'm really interested in seeing where smartphones go from here in terms of displays - for years, it's always been about resolution. i think 1440p is going to be the limit on smartphones for the next 6+ years.
still though, there is a difference in perception - most people will automatically assume that a 1440p screen is better than a 1080p screen. yet, almost no one automatically assumes that a 13 MP camera is better than an 8 MP camera.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 6:10 pm to Korkstand
That's not entirely correct, unless you equate resolution to quality.
For instance, this picture was taken with a 20mp camera, and the native resolution is 5184x3426 at 300dpi. However, the purposes of screen resolution, it's been converted for the web to 92 dpi.
This one is taken with a iPhone and the resolution is 3264 x 2448 again converted to 92dpi
For web purposes the resolution's irrelevant because it's downsized so dramatically.
For printing purposes, the megapixels are irrelevant because each camera has a different sensor size...The iPhone is a 4mm sensor, and the 1Dx has a 34x26mm sensor. consequently, you will inherently get a higher quality photo print from a lower mega pixel full frame sensor than you will from a larger mp micro 4/3 or APS-C compact sensor.
For instance, this picture was taken with a 20mp camera, and the native resolution is 5184x3426 at 300dpi. However, the purposes of screen resolution, it's been converted for the web to 92 dpi.
This one is taken with a iPhone and the resolution is 3264 x 2448 again converted to 92dpi
For web purposes the resolution's irrelevant because it's downsized so dramatically.
For printing purposes, the megapixels are irrelevant because each camera has a different sensor size...The iPhone is a 4mm sensor, and the 1Dx has a 34x26mm sensor. consequently, you will inherently get a higher quality photo print from a lower mega pixel full frame sensor than you will from a larger mp micro 4/3 or APS-C compact sensor.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 6:16 pm to demosa
quote:
a higher resolution photo always provides you with some benefit, as you can continually zoom in on certain parts of the image and still have exceptional clarity.
Maybe, but resolution doesn't mean shite if the photos have poor color reproduction or camera has a small sensor and needs to shoot at a ridiculously high iso in low light, producing an extremely noisy photo. Zooming in on grainy garbage isn't really a benefit. I'd rather a 1.2MP photo of exceptional quality vs. a 16MP photo taken on a potato cam.
quote:
for smartphones, though, what's the limit? 1080p? 1440p? as a tangent, i'm really interested in seeing where smartphones go from here in terms of displays - for years, it's always been about resolution.
I can say that using my Nexus 6, which has a beautiful 1440P screen, would probably be just as good at 1080P. The one benefit of high-resolution screens on smart phones is the ability to zoom in on images and text for finer detail. For normal video viewing and regular use, pixel density on phones has reached a point well beyond distinguishable resolution.
quote:
i think 1440p is going to be the limit on smartphones for the next 6+ years.
Definitely not. We will see 4K phones in less than half that time.
quote:
most people will automatically assume that a 1440p screen is better than a 1080p screen. yet, almost no one automatically assumes that a 13 MP camera is better than an 8 MP camera.
Just a case of misinformation. Those same people probably buy 50" 4K TVs and sit 10 feet away from them watching 1080i broadcast TV and swear it's more detailed.
The screen quality on today's flagship phones are all pretty great. Presented with half a dozen phone screens, without knowing the model and without zooming, your judgment of which was better would be solely based on color accuracy/saturation and contrast. And even then it would more than likely be a subjective view that not everyone would agree with. But while screen quality of flagship phones has nearly converged, camera quality is still all over the map.
This post was edited on 12/6/14 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 12/6/14 at 7:00 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
That's not entirely correct, unless you equate resolution to quality.
It is entirely correct, megapixels are the same as resolution where both cameras and screens are concerned.
Your dpi argument is simply a roundabout way to say that quality is better than quantity of pixels, given that the quantity of pixels is sufficient. Obviously, the size of a given screen or sensor, and the scale of a given image, matter when viewing a particular image on a particular screen. But so what? We are talking about camera quality factors vs screen quality factors, NOT the dynamics of viewing an image taken with a particular camera being displayed on various screens vs printed, etc.
Also, you state that megapixels are irrelevant for printing purposes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as I've said already, the number of pixels (or dots or points) is the main determinant of quality, up to the point that it doesn't matter as much as other factors, depending on the display device/media, viewing distance, etc.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 7:36 pm to Korkstand
Well I'll try to explain it another way. Just like screens you need to map the megapixels. 10mp squeezed into a 4mm sensor is not equal to 10mp in a 24x36mm sensor.
The primary function of a camera is to capture light, and larger density pixels capture much better photos.
The MP misconception can be easily demonstrated if you take your camera and put it into panoramic mode. It will easily create a 10-20 megapixel photo...and when you inspect it at 100% zoom and map it pixel to pixel on your computer it will be completely distinguishable from a 10-20mp photo taken with a DSLR. It doesn't matter how many megapixels you cram into a camera phone, you will never overcome the artifacting that occurs in the smaller sensors. This fact may not be true forever, as the new mirror less sensors have shown a great deal of promise.
But until that time comes, I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.
The primary function of a camera is to capture light, and larger density pixels capture much better photos.
The MP misconception can be easily demonstrated if you take your camera and put it into panoramic mode. It will easily create a 10-20 megapixel photo...and when you inspect it at 100% zoom and map it pixel to pixel on your computer it will be completely distinguishable from a 10-20mp photo taken with a DSLR. It doesn't matter how many megapixels you cram into a camera phone, you will never overcome the artifacting that occurs in the smaller sensors. This fact may not be true forever, as the new mirror less sensors have shown a great deal of promise.
But until that time comes, I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 8:15 pm to lsuconnman
Sounds more like arguing semantics.
Megapixels does not equal quality. It equals how large an image can be at a fixed DPI, or how many dots can be crammed in a fixed size. But at the same time, we don't want a 400x600 low-resolution picture if we're trying to print an 8x10 photo. But also at the same time, we don't want a noisy photo from a shitty phone camera sensor, which is totally independent of resolution.
I'm pretty sure we are all saying the same thing.
Megapixels does not equal quality. It equals how large an image can be at a fixed DPI, or how many dots can be crammed in a fixed size. But at the same time, we don't want a 400x600 low-resolution picture if we're trying to print an 8x10 photo. But also at the same time, we don't want a noisy photo from a shitty phone camera sensor, which is totally independent of resolution.
I'm pretty sure we are all saying the same thing.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News