What… Pixels are not it?

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,285
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes



The PIXEL is a widely used term. I used it like everyone, since there was
a need to define the measure of what is a good enough density to print
in the fast evolving applied technologies.

I got to learn about the PIXEL when I started to have my photos scanned
for printing… in what media, what medium and what size.

Then, the PIXEL was NOT known in the darkroom —where pictures were
not really printed but enlarged and impressed onto "photo-sensitive bases"
called emulsions like films were. BUT it was familiar to all craftsmen in the
printing industry and peripheral activities as the smallest desirable part of
an image to be printed… for magazines, newspapers etc.

Photography had nothing to do with it, wanted nothing to do with it, And this
new idea, concept, was just digging deeper the gap between the techniques
and artistry of both the graphic arts and photography.

So, the PIXEL — from pictures elements to picts elements to pictsel to pixel —
was accepted and used and defined as the smallest element of a picture in
the printing industry… that was not too slowly shifting to digital workflow with
the growing numbers of computers in the prepress rooms.

THE POINT IS that photography still has nothing to do with PIXEL… that is
until, from a converter, data will be published — read converted to an image
of any format that is THEN an image defined by PIXEL and DENSITY.

Before that publishing, conversion, there are two other states.
Prior to capture, the sensel or sencel— read sensor cell — is all that matters.
Along with the exposure triangle, it is an important element to consider — like
lenses, filters etc — and an integral part of the shooting parameters prior to SR.

Post SR & Post-Production
Here, the recorded information is not an image, so it is not to be defined by PIXEL
but by Bytes — MB eventually — because it is only data and MB refers to the
total amount of recorded data in a given RAW data file.

In post, one cannot read and appreciate that data but will be presented a visual,
or converted, version of the said data that will reflect it and all the tweaks.

Prior to SR: sencel or sensel
In Post: Bytes
In prepress: pixel

HNY!
 
HNY to you also Daniel!
In post - Bytes - hmmm. In post - the digital image at that stage surely is a kind of grid generated from the sensor output, each element of which is assigned an rgb (or cmyk) value, and is called a pixel?
 
In post - Bytes - hmmm. In post - the digital image at that stage surely is a kind of grid generated from the sensor output, each element of which is assigned an rgb (or cmyk) value, and is called a pixel?


I am not an expert in these things, I'm just a photographer
that was assigned as photojournalist to cover a conference.

I am just reporting on what I learned, understood, but could
not engage in any argumentation as the knowledge of the
engineerings involved I don't have.

Right, the data is sliced in BGB channels (not CMYK) but still,
no sign of pixel in there.
 
Picture is a grid, right?

A grid of what, then?

Pixels! Sensor output translated to pixels in order to be displayed and processed.
 
Picture is a grid, right? A grid of what, then?
A picture is a grid of pixels. So far, so good BUT
Pixels! Sensor output translated to pixels in order to be displayed and processed.
NO, from what I understood, the sensor output is the recorded
data of three slices of RGB data. These slices are read by the
converter and translated to a screen image this IS made of pixels
otherwise could not be displayed. The PP is applied to the data,
reflecting the tweaks and the screen image is a temporary one.
 
Last edited:
They're called photosites over here. Not sensels.


Right, I heard that before… this is where they lost me:
Why the discussion about sensel or sencel when there
is photosites already???
 
The PP is applied to the data,
reflecting the tweaks and the screen image is a temporary one.
Yes but by that time and for anything going forward from there pixels have become the thing!?
 
Yes but by that time and for anything going forward from there pixels have become the thing!?


Nope, Rog, they don't exist yet… not until publishing!
There are the three slices in the RAW file, the sidecar
files that reflects the tweaks and it stops there. :cool:
 
This is all fine and dandy - but what use it this knowledge to us as photographers?
 
How deep is deeper, Søren?
Why aren't you happy with your actual pixels?
Hmm that was a Ted Forbes joke on the iPhone X anouncement.
Sorry it was childish. Oh I forgot an :D emoticon in my last post
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what use it this knowledge to us as photographers?


The sensor has no pixels but photosites, sensels or sencels.
If sensors had pixel, no togger would be happy.

There is a floating misunderstanding and misusage of these
terms and these conferences are suggesting the future standards
 
Oh I forgot an :D emoticon in my last post


Forgiven… as long as you don't forget
anymore for the rest of the year! :ROFLMAO::wacky:

Have a good one, my friend!
 
So they are going to call the tiny parts on the camera sensor sensels photo sites instead of pixels ?
I've no idea how the technology works just how to use the camera :D
 
So they are going to call the tiny parts on the camera sensor sensels photo sites instead of pixels ?


I understand, Pete. The main difference is that the sensor cell
or sensor element is an input device as the pixel is an output
unit
with options in its density. HNY! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Nope, Rog, they don't exist yet… not until publishing!
There are the three slices in the RAW file, the sidecar
files that reflects the tweaks and it stops there.
Never mind publishing - as soon as we look at an image on screen - it's in pixels!
- but what use it this knowledge to us as photographers?
None in particular!
 
I think it helps not to think about all this too much :D

As a teenage apprentice electrician something I was taught and used to chant along with all the other youngsters was "Don't try to understand it just make it off and gland it." That attitude served me well in pressured environments and later when I made a living fixing stuff (I was quite good at what I did :D) I remember having a conversation with someone who wasn't quite so good or quite so quick and I think our philosophies explained a lot as he tried to understand everything and believed that if he did he could be a better engineer whereas I focussed on why something didn't work and how I could get it working again and only tried to understand things if I absolutely had to.

So, my advice is to stop thinking about things too much as all this can lead to wasted time, confusion and head aches. Maybe pixels exist and maybe they don't, maybe they're just a concept to make it all seem easier to understand.
 
I understand, Pete. The main difference is that the sensor cell
or sensor element is an input device as the pixel is an output
unit
with options in its density. HNY! :cool:
Ahh I see thanks so it's the sensor cell that's captures the light and the pixel outputs the data
 
so it's the sensor cell that's captures the light
Yes, exactly! :cool:
the pixel outputs the data
No Pete… the other way around!
The converter will output an image from the data and the pixel IS the
smallest element of the published image in any format — tiff, jpg, png, etc.
 
Yes, exactly! :cool:

No Pete… the other way around!
The converter will output an image from the data and the pixel IS the
smallest element of the published image in any format — tiff, jpg, png, etc.
Ahh I see thanks
I learned something today :):D
 
This is all fine and dandy - but what use it this knowledge to us as photographers?

It is just part of one's 'general ignorance' that forms the web of knowledge that underpins one's life. It is part of the journey towards enlightenment.

What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? :thinking:







Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable.


Wisdom is having the sense not to put it in a fruit salad. :banana:

Happy New Year to you Dan, and everyone else!
 
What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? :thinking:

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable.

Wisdom is having the sense not to put it in a fruit salad. :banana:

Happy New Year to you Dan, and everyone else!

And if you put 'philosophy' in as the third pillar,.............it is a Love Apple

Language and its usage is IMO is about ~ the word, its literal meaning, how it is used & does it mean the same thing to all those that see it in use.

Be it science or any other aspect, context is all!
 
It is just part of one's 'general ignorance' that forms the web of knowledge that underpins one's life. It is part of the journey towards enlightenment.

What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? :thinking:
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable.
Wisdom is having the sense not to put it in a fruit salad. :banana:
Happy New Year to you Dan, and everyone else!


I love all that Thanks, Simon… HNY to you too! :cool:
 
I think it helps not to think about all this too much :D

As a teenage apprentice electrician something I was taught and used to chant along with all the other youngsters was "Don't try to understand it just make it off and gland it." That attitude served me well in pressured environments and later when I made a living fixing stuff (I was quite good at what I did :D) I remember having a conversation with someone who wasn't quite so good or quite so quick and I think our philosophies explained a lot as he tried to understand everything and believed that if he did he could be a better engineer whereas I focussed on why something didn't work and how I could get it working again and only tried to understand things if I absolutely had to.

So, my advice is to stop thinking about things too much as all this can lead to wasted time, confusion and head aches. Maybe pixels exist and maybe they don't, maybe they're just a concept to make it all seem easier to understand.
Now I know why they build all the great cars in Germany and Japan and almost none in the UK.
 
Language and its usage is IMO is about ~ the word, its literal meaning, how it is used & does it mean the same thing to all those that see it in use.


When one teaches some 27 students a week plus the
irregular — but always present — mentorees, having
clear concepts, precise definitions, and proper usage,
are key to the education, formation of creative minds.
 
The idioms of a modern age!

One simply cannot move from one age to another age without having to 'invent' new means of expression - thereby, wisdom sometimes collides with knowledge and reality (usually, with contradictory or confusing results)

You, yourself alluded to the chemical process of photography. Photography literally (IMO) refers to the process of 'drawing with light' but it does not portray or least of all, define it as art, without some application of wisdom!

The medical profession has radically changed and embraced new techniques and terminology over the decades. A lancet is still a surgical tool though, be it laser or cold steel. The objective is still the same - a curative/restorative state. A picture, whether digitally or chemically processed, has the same overall objective - a visual image be it print or screen.

Don't sweat the detail - just keep taking your fine photos! Happy New Year Daniel :)
 
Now I know why they build all the great cars in Germany and Japan and almost none in the UK.
I think that's a dig at me and my philosophy :( so let me bite and add a little more...

But firstly you do know that we still make a lot of stuff in the UK don't you? We even make cars and as an example there's one factory here that at least one year made more cars than were made in the whole of Italy :D I think I'm right in saying that but you can go away and check :D For example a quick Google will tell you that UK vehicle production hit a 17 year high in 2016 at 1.72m. One stat I've forgotten is how many engines are made in the UK but I do know it's a lot :D OK, Germany made a lot more vehicles but to say that almost no great cars are made here is a bit wrong :D

Anyway, I didn't design or make cars, I fixed computers and peripherals and I fixed a lot of them hence the need for speed and not sitting around trying to figure out exactly how it all worked as very often the guy or gal fixing it doesn't need to know everything about a thing to fix it. Honest :D

I did later work for companies who made bits that went into German cars and I therefore saw and read the technical requirements and I can confirm what BMW themselves said at the time and what they said was that they couldn't match the dimensional accuracy of Toyota. Well, actually that wasn't true as all car manufacturers have access to the same technologies so it wasn't that they couldn't do it and more that they chose not to spend the money and expend the effort to even try to do it. Not that dimensional accuracy is the be all and end all but I think it points to a culture and philosophy. The Japanese are sometimes obsessed with real world quality and the Germans talk a good game.

Will you have a crack at getting away from the hype and marketing double speak and the mystique the British in particular seem to have about stuff made in Germany even when it isn't and is made in Poland, South Africa or somewhere else (whisper it... some German components are even made in the UK) and instead look at the nuts and bolts failure stats and then come back and eat some humble pie? I doubt it :D

And a PS.
A working life with manufacturers and third party service providers has shown me that sometimes some the very best stuff is... Drum Roll.... British. But who cares about that when you can post one liners like this...

Now I know why they build all the great cars in Germany and Japan and almost none in the UK.

I've wasted enough time on this. Back to cameras :D
 
The sensor has no pixels but photosites, sensels or sencels.
If sensors had pixel, no togger would be happy.

There is a floating misunderstanding and misusage of these
terms and these conferences are suggesting the future standards

Explain the Sigma Quattro or the Foveon Chip then?

Mike
 
Explain the Sigma Quattro or the Foveon Chip then? Mike



I am not an expert in these things, I'm just a photographer
that was assigned as photojournalist to cover a conference.

I am just reporting on what I learned, understood, but could
not engage in any argumentation as the knowledge of the
engineerings involved I don't have.

… from post #3.
 
Explain the Sigma Quattro or the Foveon Chip then?

Mike
Foveon still has photosites, it just stacks the photosensitive diodes within a single photosite, so no need for ‘demosaicing’.
Sigma Quatro is the same thing, perhaps a generation later, but basically the same.
 
Foveon still has photosites, it just stacks the photosensitive diodes within a single photosite, so no need for ‘demosaicing’.
Sigma Quatro is the same thing, perhaps a generation later, but basically the same.

Yes, I know how they work and the interesting point I wanted to get to is how much they have in common with a Pixel i.e. a dot with all of its associated RGB components

Mike
 
Yes, I know how they work and the interesting point I wanted to get to is how much they have in common with a Pixel i.e. a dot with all of its associated RGB components

Mike

Yup. 1:1 mapping between the number of inputs (photosites) to outputs (pixels).
You still need to map the analogue voltages of the separate diodes within each photosite to a discrete red, green or blue value though, and map that to a colourspace and output the value before you can use it to set the value of a pixel on a display medium though.
 
how much they have in common with a Pixel i.e. a dot with all of its associated RGB components


At this point, Mike, the point you're looking for does not
yet exist. No colour space ever in a RAW file! Nor colour,
nor anything but RAW data.

That RAW data may be read by a converter that will create
a preview image for the screen… but not sign of pixel any-
where but in the screen preview — converted form the data
but not in the data.

Pixels will appear only at conversion.
 
At this point, Mike, the point you're looking for does not
yet exist. No colour space ever in a RAW file! Nor colour,
nor anything but RAW data.

That RAW data may be read by a converter that will create
a preview image for the screen… but not sign of pixel any-
where but in the screen preview — converted form the data
but not in the data.

Pixels will appear only at conversion.


I did not say they were the same, I said they had many similarities

My argument would be that at this point pixels in my earliest learning of the meaning do not appear unless there is a 1:1 mapping of the image file to the display device
 
Last edited:
My argument would be that at this point pixels in my earliest learning of the meaning do not appear unless there is a 1:1 mapping of the image file to the display device


Cheers Mike! :beer:
 
Back
Top