In most engineering and scientific applications, quantitative analysis almost always take precedence over qualitative analysis. The latter only takes a supporting role, if ever, in decision making.
Part of the reason is that qualitative analyses or tests are usually subjective and varies from person to person hence, it does not offer a very solid foundation from which to base decisions on. It is better to base decisions on something which everyone has a common idea.
If you are a chemical engineer tasked to procure a pump for, say, corrosive liquid transfer, you’ll find it easier to defend your choice if you have the metrics. Suggesting that pump A will increase your production capacity “because it has an output of 50 gallons per minute more than the other option” is better than “because it generates a louder sound hence, it must be pumping out more”.
Had you used the latter argument, another colleague of yours might say: “yes, the sound pump A generates seem louder but that of pump B has a higher pitch so pump B must be pumping out more”. Another might say that she does not hear any difference. Now you have a problem.
In digital cameras, however, it would seem like we are better served if we take a different approach and give qualitative analysis more weight than quantitative analysis.
The often used metric in determining the perceived picture quality of digital cameras is the megapixel count. But this is not accurate. More megapixels does not mean better picture quality.
Picture quality is more dependent on sensor size, sensor sensitivity and lens quality than on mere pixel count. But sadly, these qualities do not have convenient metrics which could be used for comparison; that’s why most people still use megapixels in comparing cameras just like they would use horsepower in comparing cars.
Marketing takes advantage of this and more models are released with more megapixels as the main attraction. Other companies are also forced to release models with more megapixels to keep up with the competition.
But there is a downside. A point is reached when adding more pixels would decrease picture quality instead of increase it because each individual pixel sensor will be smaller, less sensitive, and generally have lower quality than larger ones.
In effect, the consumers will suffer from this pixel count war. This has to stop. But before that will happen, consumers should know that pixel count is not the be all and end all in terms of picture quality. Then, they must be willing to trade pixel count for lens quality and other features which have more direct bearings on picture quality.
When the marketers realize this, they will hopefully change their focus to more substantial features. As it is today, competition among camera makers is harming consumers instead of benefiting them.
Posts
Nice and genuine information,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this post,
that explained why my 7 MP camera is not that clear.. that is also more obvious with mobile phones.
Its a war, people goes with numbers, the larger the number the better (or you can go with them the other way round)
People like to compare, they compare by numbers easiest way.
"Marketing takes advantage of this and more models are released with more megapixels as the main attraction. Other companies are also forced to release models with more megapixels to keep up with the competition."
unfortunately this is so true
@Hussein, thanks for dropping by. You are right that people compare using numbers as it is the easiest and most obvious way.
ReplyDeleteIf you recall, AMD had this problem with their processor naming convention. They can't use actual clock speed because they have lower numbers than that of Intel chips with the same performance.
They solved this by using the plus (+) suffix to indicate equivalence e.g. 3200+ which means their chip might be running only at 3000MHz but is equivalent to an Intel chip with 3200MHz.
Yes,
ReplyDeleteAMD had to play it from a legal point of view and also to satisfy the customers who aim for numbers only.