Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Up-sampling: Your thoughts?

« on: October 21, 2011, 06:46:45 AM »

Modern inkjet printers usually use printing resolutions like 2880 dpi which results in printing data of around 800 Megapixels for a A4 print.

sorry but that´s wrong.

DPI for a printer means DOTS per inch.. a DOT is a INK point from one of the nozzles in the printer head.  it´s not a PIXEL.  multiple DOTS make one PIXEL.

beside resolution you need more of the INK DOTS if you want better color, because you can mix the color finer with more DOTS.

so you cant compare these two as long as you don´t knwo how many DOTS a printer use to create one Pixel on paper.

I know that and I hoped to make it clear what happens. In fact, modern inkjet printers ARE able to mix colors within a single dot (to a certain amount), and they certainly do not use a fixed number of dots to represent a pixel.
It's rather a inbetween thing, just like a bayer sensor's true resolution ability is higher than a fourth of a foveon sensor with the same amount of pixels.

Like I tried to point out, inkjet printers are indeed able to render sharp edges with full DPI-resolution because they do NOT use fixed half-tone rastering but different kinds of error-diffusion dithering algorithms.

In any case upscaling ALWAYS happens when printing to high-resolution printers.
(this is what I was trying to point out)

2

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D mrk. II

« on: October 20, 2011, 01:50:35 PM »

If it is capable of 12 fps then nobody will buy the 1D Mark IV anymore.
Personally I'm hoping for an NTFS-like file system that supports files over 4 GB, and I expect more megapixels.

NTFS will never come to cameras (licensing & too complex).

But there is exFAT for this purpose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Up-sampling: Your thoughts?

« on: October 20, 2011, 01:46:56 PM »

Granted, up-sampling cannot add detail where none exists, but why should it be difficult to take a studio portrait shot at 18 mp and increase the effective resolution by two or three times, interpolating the data from existing pixels?

Look at it another way:
Upsampling ALWAYS happens when printing.
It has to, because printers do have a MUCH higher resolution than cameras.

Modern inkjet printers usually use printing resolutions like 2880 dpi which results in printing data of around 800 Megapixels for a A4 print.
Of course printers do not have full-color-pixels and rather have to mix and dither colors, but they are able to render sharp edges with full resolution.

By the way, the Bayer-pattern that is used on most image sensors implies another kind of "upsampling" (or better: resampling) just because there are no 18 million full-color-pixels in the 1DX.

Upsampling cannot add detail, but it can make the image look like there would be more resolution (just like sharpening).

Upsamling can and is always being used - the question is, how far can you go and how closely will the audience view your prints?

4

Canon General / Re: 16GB CF PANIC!

« on: September 08, 2011, 10:14:15 AM »

I usually simply Cut&Paste images from my Sandisk 16GB within windows explorer which will MOVE the images (= copy and delete immediately).
I'm doing this since the good old SmartMedia days (mid-90s) and never had ANY problem with this technique.

5

Canon General / Re: Canon 3 Layer Sensor (Foveon Type?) Patent

« on: July 07, 2011, 04:35:54 AM »

Could this be future HDR enabled sensor...?? Anyone?

We all have HDR enabled sensors since every DSLR records 10, 12, 14 or more bits of luminance.

Or what is your definition of "HDR"?

6

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & 7D Mark II Within a Month! [CR1]

« on: April 10, 2011, 09:05:55 AM »

I would never trust a Media Markt sales clerk for anything...

7

Canon General / Re: Cool Tamron Patent - from 2001?

« on: February 21, 2011, 11:28:56 AM »

A patent no of "2001-33692" lets me think that this is a patent from 2001.
So I don't expect that there will be a product...

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon at CES 2011. A Vague Initial Report.

« on: December 25, 2010, 06:59:22 PM »

My guess would be new calculators (maybe with built-in webcam).

9

EOS Bodies / Re: The Radical 1Ds Mark IV [CR1]

« on: September 27, 2010, 04:47:52 AM »

I don't think so.
It's better to increase pixel density and scale down afterwards. Remember, Bayer pattern sensor do deliver more details than a Foveon sensor with 1/4th pixel count.

Can you substantiate this?

It's obvious, isn't it?
Any Bayer pattern sensor definitely has FULL luminance resolution while chroma resolution is 1/4 of its nominal resolution.

Bayer 24MP: 1 luminance, 1/4 chroma
Foveon 8MP: 1/4 luminance, 1/4 chroma

And we all now, luminance resolution is much more important to the eye than chroma resolution, this is why JPEGs often use chroma channel downsampling without loosing too much quality.

In reality this means that Bayer sensor deliver resolutions comparable to a Foveon with ~2/3 of this resolution (16MP in this example).

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011

« on: September 25, 2010, 08:14:05 AM »

I would love a 3D/5DmkIII with 32 MPixels. (no, they DON'T add noise)
Bring them pixels :-)

11

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV Saga

« on: September 16, 2010, 09:09:28 AM »

What's sure by now is that if there is any more new Canon body to be released it won't be a 2000D, that would be laughingly anticlimactic after the 60D vs. D7K debacle.

Like I've said before, a 5D Mk.IIN should be an easy, no-brainer minor model change. Just stuff all the 7D goodies into the current 5D2 body.

NEVER!
Because that would be major changes and make a 3D, and not a 5D MkIIN or MkIII

I'm 100% sure that the 5D series will never get more fps than the 1Ds series.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV Saga

« on: September 16, 2010, 06:38:58 AM »

A follow-up on the D10 would be nice, especially since the D10 has the problem that the lens is to fragile under rough conditions!

A D10 successor would be nice because the D10 is u-g-l-y as hell.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: The Radical 1Ds Mark IV [CR1]

« on: September 13, 2010, 02:05:01 PM »

Foveon-type true RGB sensel array, after all, they already have a patent for their version of it, as do Nikon. No more AA LPF, crisp pixels even at 100% pixel-peeping view.

I don't think so.
It's better to increase pixel density and scale down afterwards. Remember, Bayer pattern sensor do deliver more details than a Foveon sensor with 1/4th pixel count.
As the total amount of light does not increase with Foveon sensors, there's no noise advantage either.

I'd prefer a 24 MP Bayer pattern sensor over a 8 MP Foveon sensor any time.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: The Radical 1Ds Mark IV [CR1]

« on: September 13, 2010, 11:20:53 AM »

Your right if we are talking about Bigger Pixel site areas!

No, I'm talking about overall sensor size. Pixel size does not matter (much) for overall image noise. I'm getting tired to explain why, but to keep it simple: more light = less noise. Bigger pixels gives more light per pixel, but less pixels, so the overall amount of light (and thus noise) is roughly the same.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: The Radical 1Ds Mark IV [CR1]

« on: September 13, 2010, 07:23:39 AM »

A bigger sensor to archieve what? Same resulotion but better S/R and sensitiity or Higher resolution at same level of S/R and sensitivity? What does this tell us: 'we' hit the limits within the 36x24mm sensor size, 'we' cant no longer improve on one aspect without substantially sacrificing other aspects of the sensor?

I'm starting to repeat myself, but SNR is mostly dependent on sensor surface area. So a physically larger sensor would mean better SNR regardless of its resolution.
And if you can't reduce noise significantly (because technology is at its limits) the only thing you can do is enlarging the signal (equals to "more light" equals to "larger sensor").