An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild

[Eldar]

After you have achieved focus, you could either combine the halves into a single pixel, use them as separate pixels, or change the ISO on one side of each pixel pair and combine them as a 16 stop DR pixel, possibly up to 20 stops...

16-20 stop DR would make my year

 

[Skulker]

It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset

I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...

Also do you live on the east coast? That might effect your point of view on sunsets.

 

[Northstar]

It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset

I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...

Also do you live on the east coast? That might effect your point of view on sunsets.

funny skulker...but...

Our california coast sunset is much prettier than your east coast sunrise....way more dynamic range and the colors are better. didn't you read the latest dxo report on it? : ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

Try Cape Cod – you get both sunrise and sunset over the water…

 

[Northstar]

Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.

[/quote]

jrista, i get your point and I agree with you. participating in this forum should be enjoyable and civil, sometimes it's not and that is unfortunate.

the problem is that the world is full of people that just love a good debate, like to disagree, like to point it out when others are wrong, enjoy criticizing, and just can't accept another point of view....and humans are emotional.

and when you can do all of the above without ever looking the other person in the eye, well, the bottom line is.....

these "debates" will never end....a fact.

 

[jrista]

Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.

jrista, i get your point and I agree with you. participating in this forum should be enjoyable and civil, sometimes it's not and that is unfortunate.

the problem is that the world is full of people that just love a good debate, like to disagree, like to point it out when others are wrong, enjoy criticizing, and just can't accept another point of view....and humans are emotional.

and when you can do all of the above without ever looking the other person in the eye, well, the bottom line is.....

these "debates" will never end....a fact.
[/quote]

Yeah. Sad fact.

 

[jrista]

It's like arguing that a sunrise is prettier than a sunset

I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...

Also do you live on the east coast? That might effect your point of view on sunsets.

funny skulker...but...

Our california coast sunset is much prettier than your east coast sunrise....way more dynamic range and the colors are better. didn't you read the latest dxo report on it? : ;D

LOL! +100! ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

these "debates" will never end....a fact.

I dispute your 'fact'.

 

[Bruce Photography]

I don't believe Canon would dream of really putting an 80 mp camera into the market just yet. These companies all drip feed technology to the consumer: I'm sure we'll see something in the resign of 35 - 40 first.

Nikon jumped the consumer grade FF from twelve to thirty six in a bid to grap more market share of that sector.

Didn't work.

Didn't Work? I've got the D800 and D800E and they work every day when I'm out in the field. For mostly price reasons I picked up the D7100 and I'm really impressed with the detailed sharpness with the lack of the AA filter and no moire. Since the D800 came out I've been buying all Nikon equipment and not Canon (sounds like the Nikon strategy worked on me). I've really learned a bunch about improved dynamic range and an easier to use menu system as well as not being limited to six my menu items and many, many more custom controls. I will never part with my 14-24mm - it is a dream.

I'm not giving up on Canon because I know someday they WILL actually deliver a 40+ MP camera so I'm keeping all of my Canon lenses and Canon cameras for now. Canon still has the BEST tilt shift lenses and BEST tilt shift designs. Nikon could really learn something there.

Although I have recently bought some new Canon stuff. The price reduced Canon EOS-M is sure cute and I decided to buy 2 so I could have them in different colors with extra battery and charger -- the cameras are a little more that $125 when you take into account the $200 amount for the lens and the price of the battery and charger. I really like the red one for using around non-photographers. Non-photographers all seem to really like the screen with its bright colors. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe a third rear lens cap camera.....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon jumped the consumer grade FF from twelve to thirty six in a bid to grap more market share of that sector.

Didn't work.

Didn't Work? I've got the D800 and D800E and they work every day when I'm out in the field. For mostly price reasons I picked up the D7100 and I'm really impressed with the detailed sharpness with the lack of the AA filter and no moire. Since the D800 came out I've been buying all Nikon equipment and not Canon (sounds like the Nikon strategy worked on me).

Unfortunately for Nikon, you don't represent the majority fraction of the dSLR market...

 

[Northstar]

these "debates" will never end....a fact.

I dispute your 'fact'.

:'(

 

[Bruce Photography]

Nikon jumped the consumer grade FF from twelve to thirty six in a bid to grap more market share of that sector.

Didn't work.

Didn't Work? I've got the D800 and D800E and they work every day when I'm out in the field. For mostly price reasons I picked up the D7100 and I'm really impressed with the detailed sharpness with the lack of the AA filter and no moire. Since the D800 came out I've been buying all Nikon equipment and not Canon (sounds like the Nikon strategy worked on me).

Unfortunately for Nikon, you don't represent the majority fraction of the dSLR market...

Neuro - you are quite correct.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...

Well on this we agree at least ;D.

 

[CarlTN]

I won't argue about which is prettier, but I appreciate sunsets a lot more because I don't have to get up early to shoot them...

Well on this we agree at least ;D.

I feel the same...anyone notice sunrises usually have more pink and blue hues, while sunsets are more "orange"? I'm sure someone will be happy to tell me I'm wrong, but I do notice it...usually I see more sunsets than sunrises, though.

 

[PVS]

Life is unfair - kill yourself or get over it.

 

[CarlTN]

Heh...you missed my point entirely. The debates that spring up everywhere really aren't about the equipment, which is better, which isn't. They are just a response to the antagonism...which is what everyone gets in almost every thread now. Stop the antagonism, stop the debates...regardless of what the equipment is.

jrista, i get your point and I agree with you. participating in this forum should be enjoyable and civil, sometimes it's not and that is unfortunate.

the problem is that the world is full of people that just love a good debate, like to disagree, like to point it out when others are wrong, enjoy criticizing, and just can't accept another point of view....and humans are emotional.

and when you can do all of the above without ever looking the other person in the eye, well, the bottom line is.....

these "debates" will never end....a fact.

Yeah. Sad fact.
[/quote]

Sad fact? Isn't this your Raison d'être?

 

[jrista]

Canon's best pixel is the tiny 1.84 micron one in the G15.
I would love to have such 24x36mm camera / sensor with this tiny pixels regardless Im out in the nature or in the studio

That would be pretty awesome. A FF with that pitch would clock in at 256mp.

These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P

Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image. To maintain a 10fps rate, we would need an image processor with a data throughput rate of 150Gbit. To support a 30 frame buffer, the camera wold need 64GB of memory. Ironically, these numbers are not unheard of. A basic desktop gaming computer GPU can process at a much higher rate, and tends to have more memory. By the time FF sensors have pixels this small, one should figure a 150Gbit data path and throughput rate, and 64GB of the necessary memory, would be a no brainer.

Processing a 2Gb RAW image in Lightroom 10, however...that might be a whole different matter...

 

[Pi]

These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P

Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image.

The numbers of bits should actually drop. Something like 8 bits would suffice then, maybe even less. The RAWs would still be much larger though; after all, you get more information.

The future higher mp cameras will downsize the RAW files into smaller pseudo-RAW ones, like the ones we have today, in camera. This would require faster chips, indeed. I am not sure that they will reach 1 Gp, but 100mp+ is in the near future. They will make beautiful 20mp files, and everybody will be happy. This forum will be closed because there would be nothing to argue about.

 

[jrista]

These days, there are even smaller pixels, though. Some of the latest tech is down to 1.1µm, and the next generation is supposed to be 900nm (0.9µm)! A 900nm pixel on FF would allow a gigapixel sensor. Or 1,066,680,000 pixels, to be exact. ;P

Assuming we were still only using 14 bits per pixel when that sensor rolls around, it would mean a whopping 1.9GB file size per image.

The numbers of bits should actually drop. Something like 8 bits would suffice then, maybe even less. The RAWs would still be much larger though; after all, you get more information.

The future higher mp cameras will downsize the RAW files into smaller pseudo-RAW ones, like the ones we have today, in camera. This would require faster chips, indeed. I am not sure that they will reach 1 Gp, but 100mp+ is in the near future. They will make beautiful 20mp files, and everybody will be happy. This forum will be closed because there would be nothing to argue about.

True, you could get away with less bit depth.

Having used mRAW and sRAW quite a bit when I first got my 7D, I am not sure I would want such a thing...even with a Gigapixel sensor. Those pseudo-RAW formats limit your editing latitude. They are like a TIFF, far more than they are like a RAW. I spent a couple months playing with mRAW, and you don't have the same kind of highlight or shadow recovery you do with RAW. When you do any kind of even moderately extreme pushing and pulling in post, the difference becomes clear in an instant. White balance corrections, most color corrections, or any significant tweaking of the tone curve only go so far before you either see the limitations, or start encountering artifacts.

If they do produce gigapixel sensors at some point in the future, I'll happily take my true RAW. ;P

 

[Pi]

Having used mRAW and sRAW quite a bit when I first got my 7D, I am not sure I would want such a thing...even with a Gigapixel sensor. Those pseudo-RAW formats limit your editing latitude. They are like a TIFF, far more than they are like a RAW. I spent a couple months playing with mRAW, and you don't have the same kind of highlight or shadow recovery you do with RAW. When you do any kind of even moderately extreme pushing and pulling in post, the difference becomes clear in an instant. White balance corrections, most color corrections, or any significant tweaking of the tone curve only go so far before you either see the limitations, or start encountering artifacts.

If they do produce gigapixel sensors at some point in the future, I'll happily take my true RAW. ;P

They will just have to do it differently. I believe a good solution exists.

I used mRAW for an event shooting with the 5D2. All shots were indoors, high ISO, meant to be posted on the web. It worked well for me. In good light, the 100% sharpness is the same as at full resolution instead of being slightly better; clearly the demosaicing algorithm is on the softer side to keep noise under control. Some aliasing can occur but that was dependent on the converter, which was strange.