>>3611445For the hundredth fucking time you stupid fucking cunt,
That's the equation for snr for a single photo site, not an entire photo.
Do you view single pixels on their own? You're a Brain dead abortion of a human.
>>3611458>it is pixel size that mattersNo, it isn't, you stupid cunt.
If you wanted to print a 2mp image from a Bayer camera, it makes zero difference if you use a 6mp ff sensor or a 60mp ff sensor. They will give very similar noise performance, despite one having ten times larger photosites. But if we used only 10% of the 60mp sensor, it would have much worse noise performance, despite having identical pixel sizes.
Not even a toddler should struggle to understand this as badly as you. This has been literal years, and it's only you and limp anon that have your train of thought.
>>3611460Pixel sizes don't magically change depending on your jpg output resolution, you dumb cunt.
>>3611463>the only way is to consider as 1 pixelNo, you fucking idiot. If you know how many samples you have, you can calculate for the entire sensor.
>muh output resolutionHun,go back to your equations, show me where it accounts for different output resolution.
I don't know why a man without downs needs this spelled out so many times.
>>3611465>mft has 1/4 the noise of ff, even when they have identical pixel pitch sizes, but pixel size dictates noise alone. No
>samplingYes, so account for that in your snr equation. This isn't tough.
>>3611491Ff to mft is 2 eV, mft is 1/4 the size.
>>3611512>do you disagree with eitherHunny, show me in either of those papers where it considers the total sensor size. They are discussing individual pixel sites, which is completely meaningless to this argument.
Giannis, do yourself a favour. Stop searching for papers that you barely understand, it just makes you look more stupid. If you want to understand them, go get an actual education.
