Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 120MP Canon  (Read 4766 times)
PatrikR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« on: August 24, 2010, 02:07:28 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html

Canon's new 120MP APS size chip. Pretty exciting... Maybe soon there will be cameras that record video at 4k resolutions or more.

Medium format or APS format... Who cares if it works. 120MP camera weighing at 450 grams would definetely be cool.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 02:11:03 AM by PatrikR » Logged

Patrik Raski - Espoo, Finland
elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2010, 02:21:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Cool, diffraction starts at f2.5  Shocked  I hope they produce some fast lens to go with it.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2010, 03:00:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course you would need a tank to mount it on for sufficent stability..
Logged

gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2010, 03:02:29 AM »
ReplyReply

OK Canon, we know you know a thing or two about CMOS design but stop all this obsessing about APS-H size chips.

Use some of that know how and technology and stick it in a MFD back/camera and hopefully we might see some innovation rather than exaggeration....  Angry
Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
ced
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2010, 03:12:38 AM »
ReplyReply

All of 2,2 micron pixel size... 
Will it be noisy?
Logged
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2010, 05:54:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok, that's what I call Pixel density.  The question of image quality remains. But the chips is an amazing feat.  Not only in terms of pixel count but also in terms of speed : 9.5 FPS. The only issue is that frame speed appears to stress image quality too, due to noise. But who nows? 
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2010, 05:58:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Cool, diffraction starts at f2.5  Shocked  I hope they produce some fast lens to go with it.
A question: How important is this? If I understand correctly the diffraction will just reduce the effective resolution, and since it is so high the effect could be easily accepted.  What I mean is: If diffraction halves the resolution, it's still a 60mpixels APS sensor
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3412


« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2010, 06:02:08 AM »
ReplyReply

All of 2,2 micron pixel size...  
Will it be noisy?

If anything, it won't help dynamic range. Sensels of that size will hold (maybe) the charge from some 7250 photons. If (a big IF) the read noise can be limited to 5 electrons, then the maximum dynamic range (engineering definition) would be 10.5 stops. In practice that will probably mean something marginally useful at low ISO. Downsampling will help a bit, but the well depth sets the limit.

With regards to diffraction, it will mean that diffraction can be sampled quite accurately and overall sharpness will benefit (after proper sharpening), but the MP count doesn't necessarily translate directly into magnification potential.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 07:59:22 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
PatrikR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2010, 07:24:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a few years ago anything under 9 microns was considered the limit. Anything under 9 microns would not yield acceptable quality. But we all now those challenges are history.

Things change.  Smiley
Logged

Patrik Raski - Espoo, Finland
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2010, 11:25:50 AM »
ReplyReply

This is great news - since my current camera has 18MP, this new sensor will improve my photography 7-fold!
Logged

schaubild
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2010, 11:39:08 AM »
ReplyReply

......

Things change.  Smiley

The laws of physics stay.    Wink
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6730


« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2010, 11:53:59 AM »
ReplyReply

…since my current camera has 18MP, this new sensor will improve my photography 7-fold!
I'm not so sure about that but your memory cards will fill up 7 times faster!
 Grin
Logged

Francois
JBerardi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2010, 12:53:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course you would need a tank to mount it on for sufficent stability..

You'll also need a computer so powerful that you run the risk of it achieving self-awareness and rising up against it's human masters...


Logged
ivokwee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2010, 02:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

At that resolution the quality of the lens becomes the limiting factor, like in the film days. Maybe at such sensor resolution Bayer interpolation is not needed anymore?
Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 649



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2010, 04:25:25 PM »
ReplyReply

This would speed up shooting the gigapixel panos:)
Logged

JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2010, 05:19:50 PM »
ReplyReply

The laws of physics stay.    Wink

I have to agree here.  I just think that the glass refraction index is too high to allow you to make lenses that could resolve the image enough for pixels that small.  Plus, I believe that the best lenses in the world can only create line pairs at 5 microns with a contrast difference of 20% (if I am reading the charts rights).  Maybe when we figure out a way to make diamonds big enough for lens, it will be usable.  Also, I believe that a sensor that dense would produce a significant amount of heat when processing the images.  

Plus, do we really need resolutions this large?  Come on, it's practically useless, unless your are in the spy game.  
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 05:33:49 PM by JoeKitchen » Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820



« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2010, 05:33:32 PM »
ReplyReply

If anything, it won't help dynamic range. Sensels of that size will hold (maybe) the charge from some 7250 photons. If (a big IF) the read noise can be limited to 5 electrons, then the maximum dynamic range (engineering definition) would be 10.5 stops. In practice that will probably mean something marginally useful at low ISO. Downsampling will help a bit, but the well depth sets the limit.

Canon already get below 3 electrons readnoise for their 7D, 50D, IDIV and 5DII (at medium ISOs), so beating 5 electrons shouldn't be a problem. The well depth is small enough to permit, at low ISO, the sort of gain that these other cameras employ at medium ISO.

With regards to diffraction, it will mean that diffraction can be sampled quite accurately and overall sharpness will benefit (after proper sharpening), but the MP count doesn't necessarily translate directly into magnification potential.

Cheers,
Bart

You are correct.

But the real problem will be finding lenses which have sufficiently low aberrations to even approach being diffraction-limited, across the field, at such fast f-stops. The way that compact digicams, with similarly tiny pixels, manage it is by being designed for sharpness on-axis, and let the off-axis fall as it may. And that's for a chip where "off-axis" stops 2 - 3 mm from the centre. Just imagine how such a lens would cope when illuminating an APS chip with the same pixel density, and its "off-axis" stopping a relatively whopping 13 - 14 mm from the centre!

L glass won't be enough...L^2 glass will be called for (looks like an L lens; but the weight, number of elements and price are all squared  Cheesy )
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7737



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2010, 06:40:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not too sure to understand why they bothered doing this.

I'd be the first one to applaude a breakthrough camera from Canon, but I am not an OEM looking for a sensor. Anybody can create a 120 mp sensor that is not checked for image quality and real usefulness as part of a camera.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062


« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2010, 10:27:30 PM »
ReplyReply

it seems to me there might be some usefulness to a lot of pixels with some cleverness -- improved dynamic range per Fujii, pixel binning at high-iso.  granted, Canon hasn't shown particular interest in cleverness so far, but we're getting pretty near the manufacturing limits for 35mm lenses with the latest offerings from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, and Leica.  pixel density for pocket cameras have (fortunately) hit the wall.  my s90 gives quite good RAW results in good light at base ISO, but the overall IQ is not much better than 2 or 4 year old pocket cameras with lower pixel density.

i'm concerned that SLRs continue a pixel race that results in no practical benefits.  as much as i like the features of my 7D, high ISO is no better than the 40D and practical resolution is only incrementally better - both significantlly less than the 5D2.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2010, 02:02:51 PM »
ReplyReply

OK Canon, we know you know a thing or two about CMOS design but stop all this obsessing about APS-H size chips.
The use of 29.2 x 20.2 mm format (which is not even in the same 16:9 shape as the actual APS-H film format of 30.2 × 16.7 mm, so I do not understand why Canon persists in that silly naming) is because this sensor is probably a "because we can" technology show piece, rather than a product intended for sale, and so Canon has combined its smallest current CMOS pixels with the largest sensor size it can make without the hassles of stitching, to get the biggest pixel count in the headlines. Canon did a 50MP CMOS sensor of the same size a few years ago, never used in any actual product.

I continue to doubt that Canon cares to invest in MF sensors for the sake of increasing its total sensor sales by the 0.1% or so that MF sensors would contribute. Better to leave MF with inferior sensor technology and so help its 35mm format camera and lens sales.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad