December 04, 2016, 05:39:53 AM

Author Topic: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)  (Read 16432 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4753
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2011, 04:33:12 PM »
Thats like the argument that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. For years science has claimed that as an unmovable barrier but now there are experimental results that show that is simply not true.

Just because present sensor and lens technologies have certain theoretical limits I believe it is a mistake to think that this can never be "side stepped". I know that lens design is just a case of pouring money at the problem and sensor design may well develop in future in directions we can only dream about.

experiments which most, including those who carried them out, suspect will eventually be found to have been flawed (although most hope they won't, since that would be interesting)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2011, 04:33:12 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4753
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2011, 04:35:14 PM »
I just see these ISO people wanting a 1Dx for the 5d3 price.

I just see these AF people as wanting a 1D X for the 5DIII price.   :P

Seriously, while we'd all like a 5DIII pro-level AF ('cuz Nikon does it, right?), higher ISO, better DR, fully-sealed build, and we'd all like it for the price of a 60D, it's just not going to happen.  It's not even going to happen for the price of a 5DII.  With the 5DII, Canon used the same sensor as the 1DsIII flagship - but does anyone really think the 5DII was a 'baby 1Ds'?  No - an the 5DIII will not be a 'baby 1D X.'  Either the 5DIII will be 'handicapped' in some (many) ways compared to the 1-series, or it will cost much more.

once upon a time canon did see fit to make such bodies as the EOS 3, don't forget....

contrastny

  • Guest
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2011, 07:13:19 PM »
Interesting, but all of this is getting confusing... I might wait for the 5D mkIII to come out and buy the 5D II, hopefully at a discount and pair it up with a Zeiss 18mm, since I mainly shoot landscapes.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2003
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2011, 08:51:36 PM »
Canon's newest L-series lenses (mark II's and newer releases from the last few years) can resolve up to around 45mp worth of resolution in a FF image circle.

How does 737MP strike you (18 * 4^2 * 1.6^2) with the old 400/2.8?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37493247

tjshot

  • Guest
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2011, 03:42:50 AM »
But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult...

Yes, diffraction imposes an upper limit on pixel density. No, we are not there yet, and a 35-45 MP FF sensor would yield benefits in fine detail and maximum print size.

That's actually the case.
On a previous post I proposed a simulation of performance increase for different sensor densities, assessing the effective performance boost (both resolution and contrast) stepping up from 21 to 36 an then 50 mpxls.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1902.0.html
There is also discussed how the concept of a sensor "outresolving" a lense is definitely prone to misconception.
In a few days I'll be posting a similar scenario based on real glossy prints (Epson R1900) from artificially generated targets simulating the same sensors; it could be useful to assess how camera performance is related to effective increase in print quality.
Test results confirm that with proper sharpening applied, despite diffraction, a 50 Mpxls sensor will perform at ISO A2 print size exactly the same as an actual 21 Mpxls one at ISO A3 size and a 36 Mpxls sensor at 16x enlargement (i.e. betwen A3+ and A2).
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 04:36:27 AM by tjshot »

Edwin Herdman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 541
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2011, 01:37:45 AM »
But, I think it's likely that by the time we progress to breaking the diffraction limit, the dSLR will have gone the way of the dodo.  Picture Canon's 'wonder camera' combined with a plenoptic camera, then fit that into a cell phone - that's just one step along the road...
I don't think light field cameras have anything to offer over traditional sensor tech, for almost all applications.  They certainly throw away much of the advantages of high resolution (and, correspondingly, would only aggravate the high sensitivity problems of sensors as small as those found in cell phone cameras, because to get anything like a reasonable final image size you need many, many more pixels to waste in capturing the light field).  Plenoptic technology is silent in the mirrored / mirrorless camera debate, as well (the concept can work in either physical system just as well or as badly).

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2011, 01:43:12 AM »
I have very high opinions of where science and imaging technology will go.  Can the diffraction limit be overcome?  Yes.  In the 19th century, Ernst Abbe (friend of Carl Zeiss and one of the pioneers of microscopy and optics) postulated that no amount of glass refinement or lens design could escape the limit of resolution for visible light, which is about 0.5µm.  Today, we have superresolution microscopy that breaks that limit (one approach to which actually does use lenses with metamaterials). 

But, I think it's likely that by the time we progress to breaking the diffraction limit, the dSLR will have gone the way of the dodo.  Picture Canon's 'wonder camera' combined with a plenoptic camera, then fit that into a cell phone - that's just one step along the road...

Just to make sure I'm clear...when you say "diffraction limit", are you actually talking about the "diffraction cutoff frequency"? I ask because of this statement:

Quote
"...postulated that no amount of glass refinement or lens design could escape the limit of resolution for visible light..."

The diffraction limit is a limitation of an entire imaging system ultimately affected by the resolution of the imaging medium and the aperture of the lens. Given your reference to the wavelength of green light, I think you actually mean to refer to the diffraction cutoff frequency, which would be the point at which the resolution of a lens approaches the wavelengths of the light its imaging. As a simple matter of physics, that would be the hard limit, and literally unbreakable in any normal optical system.

Superresolution, even optical solutions, rely either on oscillations and multiple images, or information fabrication, and while they can break the diffraction limit of any given imaging system, I don't know that they can actually image detail beyond the wavelength of light (unless they fabricate it, which leads to a debate unto itself.)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2011, 01:43:12 AM »

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 749
    • AprilForever.com
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2011, 03:15:04 AM »
Canon's newest L-series lenses (mark II's and newer releases from the last few years) can resolve up to around 45mp worth of resolution in a FF image circle.

How does 737MP strike you (18 * 4^2 * 1.6^2) with the old 400/2.8?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37493247

Impressive!!! I eagerly await the 7D mkII and the more megapixels hopefully to come...
What is truth?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19985
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2011, 06:28:16 AM »
Superresolution, even optical solutions, rely either on oscillations and multiple images, or information fabrication, and while they can break the diffraction limit of any given imaging system, I don't know that they can actually image detail beyond the wavelength of light (unless they fabricate it, which leads to a debate unto itself.)

I routinely do brightfield optical microscopy at the Abbe limit (1.4 NA oil objectives and 1.4 NA oil condensers).  Near-field scanning can image detail smaller than the wavelength of the illumination (for fluorescent samples), because the illumination is effectively compressed into a source that is smaller than the wavelength of visible light. 

But you're right that most practical implementations of superresolution (e.g. STED) rely on software-intensive processes and image combination.  Still, a relevant analogy is the use of HDR to increase the dynamic range of current sensors. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

K-amps

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1783
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2011, 03:03:18 PM »
... Still, a relevant analogy is the use of HDR to increase the dynamic range of current sensors.

Not picking on you John, but Isn't HDR a misnomer? I mean what we are really doing is "reducing" the dynamic range to display on our monitors... in reality it is Dynamic range compression, is it not?
EOS-80D & Pentax K1
EF Mount Rok 14mm F2.8; ∑ 24-105mm F4 A; 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; 100-400mm L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; 100mm L F/2.8
Pentax D-FA 15-30 F2.8 & 28-105mm

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #55 on: December 09, 2011, 03:09:38 AM »
... Still, a relevant analogy is the use of HDR to increase the dynamic range of current sensors.

Not picking on you John, but Isn't HDR a misnomer? I mean what we are really doing is "reducing" the dynamic range to display on our monitors... in reality it is Dynamic range compression, is it not?

Its a misnomer in the context and manner its normally used, yes. In the context of a 32-bit (or greater) float per color channel pixel HDR image (where the potential value range for each color channel in a pixel is on the order of 0.000000001 to 100,000,000,000), then and only then is the term actually valid. The moment you downconvert a source HDR image into a 16-bit/8-bit integer per color channel pixel image, you are once again limiting your DR. I've always had the same beef with "HDR"...

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 749
    • AprilForever.com
Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2011, 04:01:17 AM »
I have always had a hard time figuring HDR with PS out... My pictures always look pretty bad... I tried ColorEfex, it it seemed to work a lot better...
What is truth?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2011, 04:01:17 AM »