I did learn some things from that link.
A quote from your hyperlink.
"An example of large versus small pixels and the effects on image quality is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4a and 4b shows the full scene recorded by two cameras set at the same ISO (ISO 400), same f/stop (f/4.5), and same exposure time (1 second). The pixel pitch (the distance from one pixel to the next; the actual pixel area sensitive to light is slightly smaller) is 8.2 microns for the large pixel camera (Canon 1D mark II) versus the small pixel camera (Canon S70). Both cameras have almost identical read noise at ISO 400: 5.6 electrons for the 1D Mark II and 4.3 electrons for the S70, thus the S70 has a slight advantage! But despite the read noise advantage, the larger pixels of the big camera collects so much more light per pixel that the image quality is much better than the small pixel camera (Figure 5). The light is delivered by the lens, and the lens is the real reason the large pixels are able to collect more light. "
If you look at the photos of the books between the two cameras with different pixel sizes you can see that the camera with the small pixel size has a more lighted photo compared to the larger pixel sized camera. You brought up a bunch of crap about picture noise, iso, shutter speed, and what not. I may not know every little detail about digital cameras but i do know that there is a lot more to a more well lighted photo than just pixel size. You went on this wild rant about everything you know and you still did not prove a point at all. I may not have been 100% correct with my answer and neither were you. There is a trade off at pixel size to resolution, to color quality and light quality at certain resolutions. The larger the pixel size, the less color and light quality you have because the pixels are larger and only contain one of either red, green, or blue in each pixel or else you will have a grey scale picture. Smaller pixels show more detailed red, green, blue light captured in the pixels because of more pixels which equals a better resolution. But at the same time higher pixel count does not mean anything by any standards. A larger pixel sizes does not mean you will have a more lighted photo but more light can be collected to a viewing stand point with color (not the brightness of a photo) before zooming. With a large pixel when a photo is taken, will collect more light to that pixel, which will give that pixel an energy level. But since its either red, green, or blue for one pixel it does not mean the photo will be brighter since there are other factors along with determining how bright the photo will be.
"Because good digital cameras are photon noise limited, the larger pixels will always have higher signal-to-noise ratios unless someone finds a way around the laws of physics, which is highly unlikely. Important to remember, however, is larger pixels enable more light to be collected, but it is the lens that delivers the light. An analogy is buckets of water. A large bucket will hold more water than a small bucket. But if you want to collect more water in a given time, one must turn the faucet on higher. So too with cameras and lenses: the bigger lens collects more light and delivers it to the sensor."
True with larger pixels there is less dead space between them. But if you want to compare buckets to how light and pixels work, its a bad analogy. Light is basically instantaneous, there is no waiting around for it to fill a bucket. A smaller pixel will receive the same amount of light per size ratio as a larger pixel. The analogy works in a sense that the larger pixel will require more light ( or longer exposure) to fill that pixels energy rating but at the same time a small pixel will be filled quicker with the same exposure given the same lens. Either way it is put, any pixel size to the ability of a pixel to collect more light to have a more well lit photo is all determined by other factors. If you have two squares that are covered from a light source that is larger than both, ones 1cm square and the other is a 1in square. Light is constant and always there. Once the cover is removed, the light will fill the squares at the same time because each has its own surface area that is being filled by a light source that is larger than each square. This is how pixels works, its not rain going into a bucket. The longer the light is there, the brighter the image will be. In a sense the brightness should be exactly the same in each pixel unless other factors are involved.
A quote from your hyperlink.
"An example of large versus small pixels and the effects on image quality is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4a and 4b shows the full scene recorded by two cameras set at the same ISO (ISO 400), same f/stop (f/4.5), and same exposure time (1 second). The pixel pitch (the distance from one pixel to the next; the actual pixel area sensitive to light is slightly smaller) is 8.2 microns for the large pixel camera (Canon 1D mark II) versus the small pixel camera (Canon S70). Both cameras have almost identical read noise at ISO 400: 5.6 electrons for the 1D Mark II and 4.3 electrons for the S70, thus the S70 has a slight advantage! But despite the read noise advantage, the larger pixels of the big camera collects so much more light per pixel that the image quality is much better than the small pixel camera (Figure 5). The light is delivered by the lens, and the lens is the real reason the large pixels are able to collect more light. "
If you look at the photos of the books between the two cameras with different pixel sizes you can see that the camera with the small pixel size has a more lighted photo compared to the larger pixel sized camera. You brought up a bunch of crap about picture noise, iso, shutter speed, and what not. I may not know every little detail about digital cameras but i do know that there is a lot more to a more well lighted photo than just pixel size. You went on this wild rant about everything you know and you still did not prove a point at all. I may not have been 100% correct with my answer and neither were you. There is a trade off at pixel size to resolution, to color quality and light quality at certain resolutions. The larger the pixel size, the less color and light quality you have because the pixels are larger and only contain one of either red, green, or blue in each pixel or else you will have a grey scale picture. Smaller pixels show more detailed red, green, blue light captured in the pixels because of more pixels which equals a better resolution. But at the same time higher pixel count does not mean anything by any standards. A larger pixel sizes does not mean you will have a more lighted photo but more light can be collected to a viewing stand point with color (not the brightness of a photo) before zooming. With a large pixel when a photo is taken, will collect more light to that pixel, which will give that pixel an energy level. But since its either red, green, or blue for one pixel it does not mean the photo will be brighter since there are other factors along with determining how bright the photo will be.
"Because good digital cameras are photon noise limited, the larger pixels will always have higher signal-to-noise ratios unless someone finds a way around the laws of physics, which is highly unlikely. Important to remember, however, is larger pixels enable more light to be collected, but it is the lens that delivers the light. An analogy is buckets of water. A large bucket will hold more water than a small bucket. But if you want to collect more water in a given time, one must turn the faucet on higher. So too with cameras and lenses: the bigger lens collects more light and delivers it to the sensor."
True with larger pixels there is less dead space between them. But if you want to compare buckets to how light and pixels work, its a bad analogy. Light is basically instantaneous, there is no waiting around for it to fill a bucket. A smaller pixel will receive the same amount of light per size ratio as a larger pixel. The analogy works in a sense that the larger pixel will require more light ( or longer exposure) to fill that pixels energy rating but at the same time a small pixel will be filled quicker with the same exposure given the same lens. Either way it is put, any pixel size to the ability of a pixel to collect more light to have a more well lit photo is all determined by other factors. If you have two squares that are covered from a light source that is larger than both, ones 1cm square and the other is a 1in square. Light is constant and always there. Once the cover is removed, the light will fill the squares at the same time because each has its own surface area that is being filled by a light source that is larger than each square. This is how pixels works, its not rain going into a bucket. The longer the light is there, the brighter the image will be. In a sense the brightness should be exactly the same in each pixel unless other factors are involved.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram