1DXR Speculation

[Loswr]

He's an Internet bully and his laughing is a form of bullying by making fun of you.

You appear ignorant of basic facts and are reprehensibly unwilling to make even feeble attempts to verify your information before posting it. If you sound like an idiot (e.g., "The 1D C isn't a dSLR,"), don't be surprised when someone characterizes your statements as idiotic. But...because I call you on your constant gaffes and point out your repeated failures, you feel justified in labeling me inappropriately? Well, it's no surprise – you've thoroughly established your complete lack of credibility.

 

[Mikehit]

Are these specs are scientifically impossible?

Probably not. Why does that matter?

I'm trying to understand why you were laughing.

Was your post a wish list, or like the thread subject, was it speculation?

Yes and yes.

"I want it all! I want it all! I want it all! I want it all and I want it now!" - Queen

If its a wishlist why stop at 50MP at 10 fps?
If it is supposed to be a stab at what is technically feasible the killer question is 'so why have they not done it'?

I am sure Canon would love to do it and would have done it if it was (a) feasible and (b) marketable.

 

[unfocused]

He's an Internet bully and his laughing is a form of bullying by making fun of you.

You appear ignorant of basic facts and are reprehensibly unwilling to make even feeble attempts to verify your information before posting it. If you sound like an idiot (e.g., "The 1D C isn't a dSLR,"), don't be surprised when someone characterizes your statements as idiotic. But...because I call you on your constant gaffes and point out your repeated failures, you feel justified in labeling me inappropriately? Well, it's no surprise – you've thoroughly established your complete lack of credibility.

I'm sure he thoroughly researched the topic before he claimed that The C-Fast card glitch had to be Canon's fault since he couldn't find anything on the internet about C-Fast cards failing in Nikons. That is, until I pointed out that anyone putting a C-Fast card in a Nikon would be guaranteed a failure.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm sure he thoroughly researched the topic before he claimed that The C-Fast card glitch had to be Canon's fault since he couldn't find anything on the internet about C-Fast cards failing in Nikons. That is, until I pointed out that anyone putting a C-Fast card in a Nikon would be guaranteed a failure.

That depends on what you term a "failure" and I would argue that since you can't use a C-Fast card with a Nikon (not supported) then it can't fail

Otherwise if I were to use your logic then you can state that all EOS lenses are failures since they don't work on Nikon cameras or that all EOS lenses are failures because they don't work 100% on <insert random other non-EOS mount camera.>

"Not supported" or "incompatible" is not the same as "failure".

One thing I do know, no Canon camera has ever had an issue with XQD cards, and Nikon cameras have a 100% failure rate with CFast cards.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm sure he thoroughly researched the topic before he claimed that The C-Fast card glitch had to be Canon's fault since he couldn't find anything on the internet about C-Fast cards failing in Nikons. That is, until I pointed out that anyone putting a C-Fast card in a Nikon would be guaranteed a failure.

That depends on what you term a "failure" and I would argue that since you can't use a C-Fast card with a Nikon (not supported) then it can't fail

Otherwise if I were to use your logic then you can state that all EOS lenses are failures since they don't work on Nikon cameras or that all EOS lenses are failures because they don't work 100% on <insert random other non-EOS mount camera.>

"Not supported" or "incompatible" is not the same as "failure".

One thing I do know, no Canon camera has ever had an issue with XQD cards, and Nikon cameras have a 100% failure rate with CFast cards.

This is in good spirit! Now all we need is Sabaki to throw in some Chuck Norris jokes and we can call it a day.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Are these specs are scientifically impossible?

Probably not. Why does that matter?

I'm trying to understand why you were laughing.

Was your post a wish list, or like the thread subject, was it speculation?

Yes and yes.

"I want it all! I want it all! I want it all! I want it all and I want it now!" - Queen

If its a wishlist why stop at 50MP at 10 fps?
If it is supposed to be a stab at what is technically feasible the killer question is 'so why have they not done it'?

I am sure Canon would love to do it and would have done it if it was (a) feasible and (b) marketable.

My wishlist is compatible with my planned computer hardware upgrades.

 

[jeffa4444]

2.2. Spatial Resolution and System MTF versus Pixel Size
For a fixed sensor die size, decreasing pixel size increases pixel count. This results in higher spatial sampling
and a potential improvement in the system's modulation transfer function (MTF) provided the resolution
is not limited by the imaging optics. For an image sensor, the Nyquist frequency is simply one half of the
reciprocal of the center-to-center pixel spacing. Image frequency components above the Nyquist frequency
cannot be reproduced accurately by the sensor and result in aliasing. The system MTF measures how well
the system reproduces the spatial structure of the input scene below the Nyquist frequency and is defined to
be the ratio of the output modulation to the input modulation as a function of input spatial frequency.7'8
Under certain simplifying assumptions, the system MTF can be expressed as the product of the optical
MTF, geometric MTF, and diffusion MTF.7 Each component causes low pass filtering, which degrades the
response at higher frequencies. In our study, we only account for the optical and geometric MTF. Figure 2(b)
plots system MTF as a function of the input spatial frequency for different pixel sizes. The results are again
for the O.35i process mentioned before. Note that as we decrease pixel size the Nyquist frequency increases
and MTF improves. The reason for the MTF improvement is that reducing pixel size reduces the low pass
filtering due to geometric MTF.
In summary, a small pixel size is desirable because it results in higher spatial resolution and better MTF.
A large pixel size is desirable because it results in better DR and SNR. Therefore, there must exist a pixel size that is "optimum".

This is taken from a Stanford paper. If Canon goes ahead with a 120MP Full Frame camera how many of your existing lenses will benefit from those smaller pixels? How much of that spatial resolution will you achieve? and what will the system MTF be?
Clearly Canon are upgrading their lens line-up and know what they are working on for the future. The EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM, the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS ISM II, the EF 35mm f1.4L II are all examples of lenses with optical improvement. But always remember dramatically changing pixel size changes system MTF and therefor the "system" needs to reflect that change.

 

[Donkey_Kong]

LOL 1DXR...I had a good chuckle when I read that ;D

 

[StudentOfLight]

2.2. Spatial Resolution and System MTF versus Pixel Size
For a fixed sensor die size, decreasing pixel size increases pixel count. This results in higher spatial sampling
and a potential improvement in the system's modulation transfer function (MTF) provided the resolution
is not limited by the imaging optics. For an image sensor, the Nyquist frequency is simply one half of the
reciprocal of the center-to-center pixel spacing. Image frequency components above the Nyquist frequency
cannot be reproduced accurately by the sensor and result in aliasing. The system MTF measures how well
the system reproduces the spatial structure of the input scene below the Nyquist frequency and is defined to
be the ratio of the output modulation to the input modulation as a function of input spatial frequency.7'8
Under certain simplifying assumptions, the system MTF can be expressed as the product of the optical
MTF, geometric MTF, and diffusion MTF.7 Each component causes low pass filtering, which degrades the
response at higher frequencies. In our study, we only account for the optical and geometric MTF. Figure 2(b)
plots system MTF as a function of the input spatial frequency for different pixel sizes. The results are again
for the O.35i process mentioned before. Note that as we decrease pixel size the Nyquist frequency increases
and MTF improves. The reason for the MTF improvement is that reducing pixel size reduces the low pass
filtering due to geometric MTF.
In summary, a small pixel size is desirable because it results in higher spatial resolution and better MTF.
A large pixel size is desirable because it results in better DR and SNR. Therefore, there must exist a pixel size that is "optimum".

This is taken from a Stanford paper. If Canon goes ahead with a 120MP Full Frame camera how many of your existing lenses will benefit from those smaller pixels? How much of that spatial resolution will you achieve? and what will the system MTF be?
Clearly Canon are upgrading their lens line-up and know what they are working on for the future. The EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM, the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS ISM II, the EF 35mm f1.4L II are all examples of lenses with optical improvement. But always remember dramatically changing pixel size changes system MTF and therefor the "system" needs to reflect that change.

All of my lenses will benefit from more resolution. But that is not to say that given a 120MP camera that I would use the camera as 120MP for every image. I see myself using the captured data for a superpixel interpolation resulting in a higher-bit-depth 30MP file.

 

[Mikehit]

All of my lenses will benefit from more resolution. But that is not to say that given a 120MP camera that I would use the camera as 120MP for every image. I see myself using the captured data for a superpixel interpolation resulting in a higher-bit-depth 30MP file.

I have no idea if this technique is used already, but and (for example) a 120MP sensor would it be feasible to have 2 sets of circuitry - one to carry data pixel-by-pixel to the processor, each pixel with its own noise level giving 120MP resolution; and one circuit that combines the signal from 4 pixels in a way that would swamp noise and give a 30MP resolution. You choose the circuitry to suit the occasion.

 

[Jack Douglas]

So would it be feasible to combine two shots in camera to get the best of both worlds? Dumb question?

Jack

 

[privatebydesign]

So would it be feasible to combine two shots in camera to get the best of both worlds? Dumb question?

Jack

That is what NASA's latest HDR video camera is doing. http://gameon.nasa.gov/2016/08/06/revolutionary-camera-recording-propulsion-data-completes-groundbreaking-test/

 

[Jack Douglas]

So would it be feasible to combine two shots in camera to get the best of both worlds? Dumb question?

Jack

That is what NASA's latest HDR video camera is doing. http://gameon.nasa.gov/2016/08/06/revolutionary-camera-recording-propulsion-data-completes-groundbreaking-test/

Thanks! Is there a good consumer level text description of the process, that you've read?

Jack

 

[jeffa4444]

Maybe a long while before we see a consumer version!