>>3985946>No it's not. That would be photons per two pixels. It is not per pixel. Write this on the chalk board 100x.
>Every proper definition I've read defines it as such.>"every definition i decide is right says i'm rigth"Ignoring the obvious fallacy, you have not provided a single source that says shot noise is per pixel. Two sources have been provided to you stating that shot noise is a statistical phenomenon, sqrt of total events counted. This is consistent with all available evidence, evidence you could look up yourself (pic related).
>I have articles describing shot noise on a per pixel basis, Which you've never linked to? Doesn't matter because they would be wrong.
>A MFT camera should be able to take 25% of the image a FF camera did, and do it just as clean.Just as clean as 25% of a FF image? Yes. As clean as the entire thing? Not with equal exposure which means the FF sensor counts more photons.
>>>3985824>I haven't found any definition that agrees with you. It's per pixel.Wikipedia you idiot. If you had the IQ required to understand what shot noise is, you would understand that it could not be "per pixel." As I've said before, this is not only true in the domain of photography. WTF do you think happens with a phased array antenna?
>I've provided sources and quotes documenting this, No you have not, not one link has come from you.
>all you've done is link wikipedia, which doesn't even touch on this."Since the standard deviation of shot noise is equal to the square root of the average number of events..."
>>If it was per pixel then higher density sensors, same format, would have more noise. They do not.>Yes they do, but they have lower resolution.Higher density sensors have lower resolution? Really?
