December 02, 2016, 07:41:38 PM

Author Topic: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]  (Read 41001 times)

Kahuna

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #75 on: March 15, 2012, 12:52:33 PM »
I wonder what life would be like if Steve Jobs was involved with DLSR's?
then we wouldn't be able to save photos, only view them on the icloud at $1 per view

Ouch.  Just came crashing back down to earth. I'll think next time before I post something so stupid next time.
 
You are correct sir.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #75 on: March 15, 2012, 12:52:33 PM »

Tuggem

  • Guest
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #76 on: March 15, 2012, 02:04:56 PM »
Stop down to f/5.6 and you can't resolve more than 22mp APS-C worth, and anything beyond that current sensors are already outresolving lenses.

Interesting information
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33770775

KitH

  • Guest
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #77 on: March 15, 2012, 02:41:18 PM »
I wonder what life would be like if Steve Jobs was involved with DLSR's?
then we wouldn't be able to save photos, only view them on the icloud at $1 per view

Ouch.  Just came crashing back down to earth. I'll think next time before I post something so stupid next time.
 
You are correct sir.


Don't worry,  I enjoyed that one anyway.   I was thinking he's probably too caught up arguing with St Peter about the Pearly Gates having rounded corners to have much time to take pictures.   He'll have to make the case by himself, all the lawyers are in the other place.



Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2003
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #78 on: March 15, 2012, 05:47:48 PM »
I'm not arguing 99% vs. 100% accuracy here,

I was talking about more like 67% versus 100%, which is more like a factor of 2 in pixel count.  You're ignoring that.

Quote
The table there is based on Norman Koren's work. If you have issues with his work, you better take it up with him, as he is highly respected when it comes to lenses, film & sensors, resolving power, sharpness, contrast, etc.

I've read, created spreadsheets from, and quoted Norman's work many times.  What I'm saying is entirely consistent with that work.

Quote

Real-world tests of Canon lenses at maximum aperture have NEVER demonstrated resolutions much above 70lp/mm,

Shot through an Optical Low-Pass Filter!  Do you not see the difficulty in that approach?

Quote
Magnification and spatial resolution are NOT the same thing. Adding on a 1.4x TC changes magnification, it does not increase spatial resolution.

It does increase system spacial resolution if you are undersampling the optics without it.  That's exactly what we're doing.

If you don't believe me, go outside with any 200mm lens you like attached to a Canon 1.6-crop 18MP sensor with no TCs and see if you can get a picture of Jupiter that looks like this:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3105%20old.jpg
Or a picture of the moon that looks like this:
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3054%20edited.jpg
Quote

Your still talking about magnification, not spatial resolution.


Fine - show me the images with the same spacial resolution as those shot the way I said.  I'll help you out - you can't.  I've already done this experiment, and the teleconverters do indeed drastically improve the overall system spacial resolution despite very slightly decreasing the optical resolution.  This is exactly why we need more pixels, and a whole lot more - so we aren't undersampling the optics in the first place.

Have you ever wondered why the best amateur planetary imagers operate pixels that are about the size of those on the 40D through optics set at f/30?  According to you, they're way, way beyond the capability of those optics, yet they increased focal length to that level in an effort to preserve maximum detail.  Why would they use expensive barlows (Televue Powermates) if those small pixels were extracting all the detail from their bare f/11 optics in the first place?  Answer - they don't.  And that's with monochrome sensors with no OLPFs!!!

Have a look.  This was shot at about f/30 with pixels that are about 40D sized:

http://damianpeach.com/barbados10/2010_09_12pic.jpg

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4547
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #79 on: March 15, 2012, 07:04:54 PM »
I wonder what life would be like if Steve Jobs was involved with DLSR's?
then we wouldn't be able to save photos, only view them on the icloud at $1 per view

Ouch.  Just came crashing back down to earth. I'll think next time before I post something so stupid next time.
 
You are correct sir.


Don't worry,  I enjoyed that one anyway.   I was thinking he's probably too caught up arguing with St Peter about the Pearly Gates having rounded corners to have much time to take pictures.   He'll have to make the case by himself, all the lawyers are in the other place.

LOL
Actually i think you'll find the pearly gates are now a svelte brushed aluminium with a cool white glowing logo.
and st peter now wears a blue tshirt that says "genius"
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 07:06:38 PM by wickidwombat »
APS-H Fanboy

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #80 on: March 15, 2012, 09:18:37 PM »
Fine - show me the images with the same spacial resolution as those shot the way I said.  I'll help you out - you can't.  I've already done this experiment, and the teleconverters do indeed drastically improve the overall system spacial resolution despite very slightly decreasing the optical resolution.  This is exactly why we need more pixels, and a whole lot more - so we aren't undersampling the optics in the first place.

Have you ever wondered why the best amateur planetary imagers operate pixels that are about the size of those on the 40D through optics set at f/30?  According to you, they're way, way beyond the capability of those optics, yet they increased focal length to that level in an effort to preserve maximum detail.  Why would they use expensive barlows (Televue Powermates) if those small pixels were extracting all the detail from their bare f/11 optics in the first place?  Answer - they don't.  And that's with monochrome sensors with no OLPFs!!!

Have a look.  This was shot at about f/30 with pixels that are about 40D sized:

http://damianpeach.com/barbados10/2010_09_12pic.jpg

Ok, this is my last attempt. Words are certainly insufficient, so hopefully some visual demonstrations will clear things up. Some facts:

1. Diffraction limits resolution at narrow apertures
2. Optical aberrations limit resolution at wide apertures
3. The more lens elements, the more optical aberrations introduced
4. The longer the focal length for a fixed physical aperture, the smaller the relative aperture (i.e. add TC's)

Lets assume we have a hypothetical 200mm lens capable of producing a 1"x1" image circle. Lets assume lens is capable of1.97lp/mm in terms of spatial frequency of the virtual image at the sensor, would roughly translate into a 50x50 "pixel" area within which our subject is resolved. Lets assume spatial resolution is not impacted by the addition of teleconverters. Lets assume our sensor resolution is infinite in the context of this discussion, so we don't have to factor in its effects on resolution. We are JUST talking lens resolution in this case.

Our subject is a small moon.

At 200mm without TC's, the moon is 14 "pixels" in size in the center of our frame. If we slap on a 2x TC and a 1.4x TC, our subject grows to 44 "pixels" in size, nearly filling the frame. Our SPATIAL RESOLUTION is CONSTANT, however we are suddenly able to observe FAR GREATER detail in our subject. If we reduce our spatial resolution by 50%, the more magnified subject IS STILL MORE DETAILED than the original, unmagnified subject (an exaggerated example of the effect of stacking on multiple TC's...which at the very least are going to increase diffraction and therefor reduce spatial resolution.)

This effect can be seen below in this simple animated gif (frame 2, unmagnified; frame 3, magnified same spatial resolution; frame 4, magnified w/ 50% less spatial resolution). Note, I've purposely kept resolution the same or lower do demonstrate the effect of, say, magnifying Jupiter such that it fills the frame (rather than being a small dot in the center of a largely empty frame) without changing spatial resolution:



Two TC's are added to a lens increasing magnification, spatial resolution remains constant, yet we are capable of "seeing" more detail in our much larger subject, even at a LOWER spatial resolution. Magnification and spatial resolution are not the same. Magnification and spatial resolution are disjoint concepts that can vary independently. Increasing magnification by adding teleconverters, while keeping spatial resolution constant, DOES increase the apparent detail we are capable of observing...because OUR SUBJECT IS LARGER RELATIVE TO THE FRAME FOR A GIVEN RESOLUTION.

Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.

Fandongo

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #81 on: March 16, 2012, 02:54:20 AM »
They need to hurry with the 4K C-DSLR. Sony is kicking Canon's A$$ now in video and a LOT of people have switched to the Sony FS-100, especially now that the Metabones adaptor allows full electronic interface with the FS-100 and Canon lenses. Canon could have owned that market, but they slept on it, so Sony took advantage and came out on top.

The 5D3 is shaping up to be a real disappointment in video since it's still has the soft, up-res'd false HD (at least in the early test models). So yeah, the 4K C-DSLR really needs to come out. And have a FLIP SCREEN for God sake. We need it for video.

If it's not soon, I'm going to have to buy the Sony FS-100. I'm not thrilled about it since I now hate shooting with the video camera form, but I need a better picture.

If the 4K DSLR came out at NAB in April, I would buy it the next day even it it is $6000. I need a better video solution and I cannot wait much longer.

And NO, that is not going to be the high mega-pixel camera from Canon. Video requires low mega-pixels because then the processor has less work to do to down-scale the image into a 2K output (or in this case a 2K to 4K) output.

I can't imagine the 4k DSLR coming out before Winter for one reason:
Summer is the only time you can shoot (without actors whining/dying) in much of the world.

I'm expecting around $6k for 4k as well, but I don't see it happening...
unless they offer $13,000 rebates on the stupid C300.

Don't buy the FS-100.
Buy 10 Gh2s instead.

Nobody can wait much longer for a solution, especially Canon.  The ONLY reason the 5Dii broke every camera sales record ever was video.  "Video cameras" were poised to destroy film, but they forgot to make them anything like film.

DSLRs swooped up everyone looking for the "film look" for not the price of a car ("video" cams) and not the price of a house (film).
But it's only a matter of days before phones are shooting 4k, global shutter.

We'll be rotobrush/gaussian blurring phone footage to look like the DSLR that never was.
Hollywood is a perpetually dazed Raiden.
FINISH HIM!!

=)
"There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those too weak to seek it."

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #81 on: March 16, 2012, 02:54:20 AM »

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2003
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #82 on: March 16, 2012, 10:00:05 AM »
Fact is that you will get to better result by doubling the number of pixels than using 1.4x converter and 4-doubling the number of pixels will be better than 2x converter. Only if the converters were ideal they could compete with increasing the number of pixels.

Yup...100% right!  Fortunately, TCs are pretty good.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2003
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #83 on: March 16, 2012, 10:10:45 AM »
Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.

Believe me, I understand the science here quite well.  You just aren't reading what I wrote.

"It (the addition of TCs) does increase system spacial resolution if you are undersampling the optics without it.  That's exactly what we're doing."

Note the word "system", meaning lens + sensor + processing.  Ideal TCs can only preserve optical resolution (as you seem fond of pointing out, regardless of the fact that this point is not in dispute), not increase it, but they can increase system resolution if the sensor is undersampling the optics without them.  Since we can extract more real detail with TCs than without them even on our exiting 1.6-crop 18MP sensors, we are obviously undersampling the optics without the TCs.  The question is, by how much?  And the answer is, A LOT.  I can easily demonstrate that we are undersampling by at least a factor of 4 in pixel count, and others have shown up to a factor of 16 on the best lenses.  So the idea that 18MP (or 20, or 22 or whatever) is all we'll ever need to squeeze everything out of the best optics is just not even close to correct.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #84 on: March 16, 2012, 11:59:44 AM »
Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.

Believe me, I understand the science here quite well.  You just aren't reading what I wrote.

"It (the addition of TCs) does increase system spacial resolution if you are undersampling the optics without it.  That's exactly what we're doing."

Note the word "system", meaning lens + sensor + processing.  Ideal TCs can only preserve optical resolution (as you seem fond of pointing out, regardless of the fact that this point is not in dispute), not increase it, but they can increase system resolution if the sensor is undersampling the optics without them.  Since we can extract more real detail with TCs than without them even on our exiting 1.6-crop 18MP sensors, we are obviously undersampling the optics without the TCs.  The question is, by how much?  And the answer is, A LOT.  I can easily demonstrate that we are undersampling by at least a factor of 4 in pixel count, and others have shown up to a factor of 16 on the best lenses.  So the idea that 18MP (or 20, or 22 or whatever) is all we'll ever need to squeeze everything out of the best optics is just not even close to correct.

Here is some reality:

Fact: A Canon 5D III full-frame sensor resolves (at best) 80lp/mm.
Fact: A "perfect" 200mm f/2 lens @ f/8 is physically capable of resolving an absolute maximum of 86lp/mm.
Fact: Two "perfect" 1.4x TCs attached to that perfect 200mm lens reduces f/8 to f/22, limiting the physically possible absolute maximum resolution to 31lp/mm.

Fact: At apertures of f/9 or narrower, even the least-dense sensors of today outresolve lenses.
Fact: Artifacts caused by waveform interference, such as moire, could be minimized or eliminated by increasing sensor resolution up to 2x beyond lens resolution, however sharpness and contrast will not increase (and likely decrease relative to 1x sampling at 100% crop.)
Fact: A sensor with 2x lens resolution will produce photos that, when viewed at 100% crop, appear very soft.
Fact: Increasing sensor resolution beyond 2x lens resolution produces minimal or imperceptible returns at increasingly disproportionate cost.

Fact: An oversampled photo at 80lp/mm would have to be reduced to an image size with equivalent resolution to 31lp/mm in order to restore original sharpness that was lost to diffraction and oversampling.

FACT: A "perfect" 560mm lens achieved via combining a 200mm f/2 with two 1.4x TCs shot at an aperture of f/8 (which is an effective aperture of f/22) can resolve at best 31lp/mm, and a sensor capable of recording 80lp/mm is capable of resolving every last scrap of detail from that lens...and then some. Total system resolution is 31lp/mm of (sharp) actual resolution when the final output is downsampled to the lens native resolution, or 62lp/mm of (soft) oversampled resolution without artifacts when left at native camera resolution.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 12:01:52 PM by jrista »

ebrakus

  • Guest
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #85 on: March 16, 2012, 05:52:24 PM »
Lee Jay, you were THIS close to having it right ;D

Lets go back to the question you asked..... Why does the mag seem to make the image come out better.

You guys contest if the lens or sensor is the limiting factor in this system.   For sake of argument and example, lets assume the lens has just a bit of headroom left above the sensor.

In that case the magnification will improve (here is the important part) the resolution of your OBJECT OF INTEREST.
It will do this wile simultaneously reducing your system resolution through additional artifact producing elements in LOS.
The (reduced) system resolution is better applied to your magnified object.

Now if we blow away the starting premise, that the lens has some headroom over the sensor, the mag doesn't do a bloody thing for you, it just gives your more precision of less accuracy.

Regarding sensor or lens in this case?  Sounds to me like both your guys are operating in the magin of error.

Great posts though, plenty of people reading them would have found the thread to be a good mini-tutorial.

cheers
-E



jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #86 on: March 16, 2012, 07:04:44 PM »
@ebrakus: Good way to explain it with "resolution of the OBJECT OF INTEREST". ;) Like that.

@those-still-interested:

For reference, here is a little bit of math on "system" resolution. Every element of a system has its own independent resolution that combine to create the final outcome system resolution. System resolution is never as high as the independent resolutions of each component. Converting element resolution into a "blur circle" gives you the finest size "dot" that can be resolved with that element, regardless of the actual size of the source dot that is being resolved. The total resolution of a system is the square root of the sum of the squares of each elements blur circle. In other words:

Code: [Select]
totalBlur = sqrt(blur1^2 + blur2^2 + ... + blurN^2)
Total blur increases as you add elements to the system, based on the formula above. Assuming we have a lens @ f/4 and a sensor that both produce a 5.3 micron blur circle. Total system blur is greater than 5.3 microns:

Code: [Select]
sqrt(5.3um^2 + 5.3um^2) = 7.5um
Add a teleconverter that produces the same 5.3 micron blur, and your total system blur increases:

Code: [Select]
sqrt(5.3um^2 + 5.3um^2 + 5.3um^2) = 9.2um
Given that there are 1000 um/mm, and twice the airy disc diameter produces a line pair for MTF 50% (um/lp), we can calculate spatial resolution in lp/mm as such:

Code: [Select]
lp/mm = 1000/(totalBlur * 2)
With our base lens + sensor system, spatial resolution at f/4 would be:

Code: [Select]
1000/(7.5 * 2) = 1000/15 = 66.665 lp/mm
When we stack on the TC (lets say 2x), we either lose resolution both due to the additional lens element and narrower aperture (since our focal length increased), or we lose resolution both due to the additional lens element and the need to use a wider aperture. Assuming we actually have a perfect lens and used a wider aperture, we would then only lose resolution due to the additional lens element. We can demonstrate the first and last cases (as computing lens aberrations is a lot more complex than diffraction). If we leave the aperture as-is, the blur circle for both elements increase to 10.65um:

Code: [Select]
sqrt(10.65um^2 + 5.3um^2 + 10.65um^2) = 16um (airy disc size)
1000/(16 * 2) = 1000/32 = 31.25 lp/mm

Adding a single 2x TC has cost us over 50% resolution when keeping the aperture setting the same. If we widen the aperture by 2x to compensate for the TC, assuming perfect optics:

Code: [Select]
1000/(9.2 * 2) = 1000/18.4 = 54.35 lp/mm
Even with perfect optics, adding on a TC and increasing the aperture has cost over 18% resolution.

Tuggem

  • Guest
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #87 on: March 16, 2012, 07:33:45 PM »
Actually Lee Jay is the one who is more correct here.
The system resolution of the object will be the same with an ideal 1.4x as with doubling the number of pixels. If you can gain object resolution with TC you can do the same by increasing the number of pixels.

It has also been shown that 7D with 18MP APS-C doesn't fully oversample a lens at f22 but some more MP is needed as according to the link above.

Lens resolution and sensor resolution are just two completely different things.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #87 on: March 16, 2012, 07:33:45 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #88 on: March 16, 2012, 10:55:29 PM »
Actually Lee Jay is the one who is more correct here.
The system resolution of the object will be the same with an ideal 1.4x as with doubling the number of pixels. If you can gain object resolution with TC you can do the same by increasing the number of pixels.

Assuming a wide enough aperture that does not lose resolution to optical aberrations, and is not yet blurring detail beyond the diffraction limit of the sensor, sure. If you start out with a sensor that is limited by diffraction at f/8, doubling its resolution would approximately halve its DLA to around f/4.5. You probably could gain more resolution that way, although I would expect the TC to outperform a larger sensor unless you also widened the aperture when shooting with a larger sensor (and you run the risk of introducing optical aberrations at that point.) As such, I find converting magnification into megapixels to be misleading on both ends...the TC reduces aperture, and a denser sensor requires a wider aperture, to normalize to the same results...so its a very rough approximation. Saying your 2x 1.4x TC stack on a 200mm lens resolves 144mp is extremely misleading, when you are actually "resolving" less with the TC. Thats all my point has really been.

Quote
It has also been shown that 7D with 18MP APS-C doesn't fully oversample a lens at f22 but some more MP is needed as according to the link above.

That would only be the case at an 9% contrast, which would resolve 68lp/mm, requiring 136lp/mm for 2x oversampling (which is a bit higher resolution than the 7D). Detail with that low contrast is barely discernible by the human eye. The primary vision center of the human eye is packed with 0.5 micron cones and rods, some 8.6 times smaller and considerably more sensitive than the 4.3 micron photosites in the 7D. If you account for the random distribution of cones and rods, and varying degree of separation of cones from each other of anywhere from less than 0.1 microns to as much as 1 micron, you would have to figure the minimum blur circle for the eye is around 0.7um (for color vision). That would lead to a spatial resolution of about 714lp/mm. Thats just about right to oversample 2x the 370lp/mm resolution our lenses project at the average pupil diameter of 4mm (f/4.1) in normal light.

Its not surprising the eye can discern detail at only 9% contrast, but its harder for a digital sensor to do the same, and if you could, probably only do it at a very low ISO where noise has the least impact. I guess parts of the surface of the moon (such as a mare) might be a subject wherein you could extract and record greater spatial resolution from than your average photographic subject. Whether you could actually extract 68lp/mm...need to do some careful experimentation and measurement to be convinced (assuming a 4.3 micron 7D pixel...despite the greater sensitivity of say a 5D III or 1D X pixel, they have considerably lower spatial resolution, and are insufficient to double oversample 68lp/mm.) The sample moon photos that Lee Jay has linked a few times, however, clearly exhibit very pronounced diffraction blurring and considerable loss of detail (I assume due to the f/22 aperture.) Some of that may be due to noise reduction (I have to imagine a higher ISO is used at 560mm f/22, so there was probably a lot of noise, and thus a lot of noise reduction.)  I have a hard time believing 68lp/mm system resolution there, although I guess wouldn't be surprised if more than 30lp/mm was indeed being resolved.

Quote
Lens resolution and sensor resolution are just two completely different things.

Yes, they are. Each have their own detractors that operate in different ways to degrade resolution. However their spatial capabilities can both be described the same way using the same units. Same would go for film, even though film is also a very different thing with its own nuances.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2003
Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #89 on: March 17, 2012, 07:01:18 PM »
Here is some reality:

Fact: A Canon 5D III full-frame sensor resolves (at best) 80lp/mm.
Fact: A "perfect" 200mm f/2 lens @ f/8 is physically capable of resolving an absolute maximum of 86lp/mm.

Not sure where you got that.

1/(0.000550*8) = 227 lp/mm at MTF 0.  I'm guessing you're using MTF 50 which is crazy talk for extinction.  Even the Rayleigh criterion is MTF 9, and many people use MTF 5 for extinction.  Plus, people do shoot at faster than f/8, and many lenses, such as the 200/2, are diffraction limited at much faster apertures than f/8.

Quote
Fact: Two "perfect" 1.4x TCs attached to that perfect 200mm lens reduces f/8 to f/22

Uh...no, that would be f/16, not that it's relevant.

Quote
Fact: At apertures of f/9 or narrower, even the least-dense sensors of today outresolve lenses.

That's not a fact.  Well, it might be if you use the crazy MTF 50 as your criteria.  But that's not remotely realisitc.

Quote
Fact: Artifacts caused by waveform interference, such as moire, could be minimized or eliminated by increasing sensor resolution up to 2x beyond lens resolution, however sharpness and contrast will not increase (and likely decrease relative to 1x sampling at 100% crop.)

This is where your thinking has gone off the rails.

Fact:  If you are getting pixel sharp shots at 100%, you are undersampling the optics.

In such a case, using more pixels of a smaller size would get you better detail resolving power.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« Reply #89 on: March 17, 2012, 07:01:18 PM »