Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: megapixel
5 megapixel - 14 (3.9%)
10 megapixel - 67 (18.8%)
15 megapixel - 91 (25.6%)
20 megapixel - 60 (16.9%)
25 megapixel - 47 (13.2%)
30 megapixel - 18 (5.1%)
35 megapixel - 59 (16.6%)
Total Voters: 29

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: megapixel  (Read 27028 times)
williamrohr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2005, 12:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

The point I am trying to make is that if one views the "old" technology of silver halid executed at its best we're not there yet (Stephen Johnson's work aside) with digital.  I am as guity as the next guy at "pixel peeping" and "MTFing" my lens purchases to death ... but when you see those old B & Ws even the nonphotgraphers grasp that they capture a different (pleasing) quality.  All the science aside concerning the eye's blur circle etc., those old photos capture some characteristic not measured in our laboratories (I suspect some interaction between resolution and contrast is at least part of the issue).  Even such kluges as stitching don't capture what I am struggling to describe.  To me the promise of digital is the possibility(by increasing the signal to noise ratio relative to film) that it will eventually capture that essence in an easily executable form.  Please see Miles Hector/ Norman Koren's article on "Digital Camera Image Quality" in the archives, if interested.  Pixel count is only part of the equation ... and unfortunately the one that is easiest for camera makers to differentiate and sell their products ... thus its current focus.  
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #81 on: April 17, 2005, 10:17:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I think those are good insights Didger.  The constant search for the best possible camera is one of declining returns.

Even with a fixed-focus, fixed aperture/shutter camera one can produce excellent photographs under those conditions that are matched to the camera's ability.  A more flexible (more expensive) camera increases the conditions under which one can produce quality images.  

There's no camera which will work in every single situation.  If one can identify a camera that allows them to shoot the majority of what they want to capture then it's probably time to quit shopping and start shooting....
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 537



WWW
« Reply #82 on: August 19, 2005, 05:13:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Not silly, actually. I shoot to print, which is the most demanding application in terms of pixels. The largest print I would ever want is 20x24. That computes to dimensions of roughly 7200x6000 pixels at 300dpi or (drum roll please) 42MP.  

39MP is close enough. 16bit is also good enough. Permanently. This is interesting because it demonstrates that the technology has matured (or is on the cusp of maturing) to a point where it fulfills virtually any need (and exceeds most).  

Now we wait for the price to reach us poor non tax-deducting amatuers.  

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
jrm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #83 on: September 22, 2005, 05:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

This is an incredibly interesting project by people who built digital sensors for Astronomical applications. (**The result is a digitally scanned film based system using military-derived optics).

http://www.gigapxl.org/technology.htm

I've linked direct to the technology pages of the site describing their camera, and more interestingly, their approach to building the gigapixel camera. (These guys get genuine gigapixel images from a single exposure rather than the stitching approach mentioned earlier in the thread!)

The image galleries are stunning - especially the crops at full resolution.

**edited for clarity
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #84 on: September 22, 2005, 09:30:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Very, very, very[/i] interesting. There's lots of informative stuff on the cumulative effects of loss of contrast in atmosphere, lens, film and scanner, there, which gives a real insight into the problems faced by diehards who attempt to argue the superiority of film over digital sensors, ie. just how important it is to choose your subject well, to use a film that has a sufficient MTF response and a scanner which Nyquist limit is well beyond the image resolution you are hoping to capture. In fact, their 3.3 pixels per line pair requirement implies a 4000 dpi Nikon scanner has a useful resolving limit of about 48 lp/mm. Beyond that, detail is so faint that it's probably insignificant.

It also seems quite extraordinary that at this level of the technological cutting edge, a film based camera is far lighter, cheaper and more convenient to use.

Performance

Quote
The facial expressions of an half a stadium of fans can be captured at passport resolution in a single instant as they react to events on the field.

Weight

Quote
When the camera body (without protective cover) and a fully loaded film magazine are coupled together, their collective weight is 71.7 pounds. Adding the heavy-duty tripod brings the total to 108.5 pounds.


(Hey! That no heavier than a bag of cement  )

Equivalent digital camera

Quote
The digital imaging systems in $200M-$1000M advanced imaging satellites are roughly comparable to the Gigapxl™ camera in resolution. However, they are far from commercially available, require the cold of space for low-noise operation, and are about the size of a school bus.
Logged
jrm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #85 on: September 23, 2005, 05:47:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm still astounded by both these images in particular, as the presence of people in the frame really hits home the resolution they achieve.

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-Bixby.htm

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-AngelWindow.htm

(I adore the shuttle one too, purely as I'm a bit of a space-nut  )
Logged
gr82bart
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



WWW
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2005, 12:12:57 PM »
ReplyReply

What format?

My 12MP Nikon D2X is OK for me right now at 35mm. I'd like to see what a 30MP or 45MP sensor on a 645/6x6 looks like. I agree with several comments about the limitations of the glass though. Once that technology improves...what the hell, let's see what 100MP+ looks like.  

Art.
Logged

Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com or my online portfolios at APUG and Model Mayhem
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad