Canon 120mp DSLR Information

scyrene said:
LovePhotography said:
jrista said:
AcutancePhotography said:
210mb files? Yikes! Those terabyte(s) hard drives are looking pretty weak all of a sudden. ;D

That's a whole heapin' helpin' of megabytes!

LOL

You guys should get into astrophotography. Then a 210mb data file will seem like nothing. I regularly work with 250-750 megabyte 32-bit or 64-bit floating point FITS files. My average project size on disk is 50-70 gigabytes. I usually have a variety of active projects taking up disk space at any given point. I've filled up a 3TB drive with astro work on multiple occasions. I periodically delete intermediate working files and archive the rest to BluRay disk to free up space.

But yeah. This is the trend. Higher and higher resolution. In a few years, I wouldn't be surprised if 80-100mp cameras become the norm.

+1

You are usually the most rational poster in this forum.

Yeah, some areas of photography already involve that sort of data throughput. I do a lot of focus stacking and panorama stitching these days and again, the files can get huge - 60-150MP images can amount to well over a gigabyte if exported as psd files, and a hundred or more megabytes as a tiff. I only have a middling MacBook but it can handle it, albeit slowly sometimes. We'll manage!

The main issue I have with 'big' files, over 2GB, is that LR can't see them. Once you go over 2GB .psd's have to change to .psb's, LR doesn't recognise them which is very annoying for DAM.
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
scyrene said:
LovePhotography said:
jrista said:
AcutancePhotography said:
210mb files? Yikes! Those terabyte(s) hard drives are looking pretty weak all of a sudden. ;D

That's a whole heapin' helpin' of megabytes!

LOL

You guys should get into astrophotography. Then a 210mb data file will seem like nothing. I regularly work with 250-750 megabyte 32-bit or 64-bit floating point FITS files. My average project size on disk is 50-70 gigabytes. I usually have a variety of active projects taking up disk space at any given point. I've filled up a 3TB drive with astro work on multiple occasions. I periodically delete intermediate working files and archive the rest to BluRay disk to free up space.

But yeah. This is the trend. Higher and higher resolution. In a few years, I wouldn't be surprised if 80-100mp cameras become the norm.

+1

You are usually the most rational poster in this forum.

Yeah, some areas of photography already involve that sort of data throughput. I do a lot of focus stacking and panorama stitching these days and again, the files can get huge - 60-150MP images can amount to well over a gigabyte if exported as psd files, and a hundred or more megabytes as a tiff. I only have a middling MacBook but it can handle it, albeit slowly sometimes. We'll manage!

The main issue I have with 'big' files, over 2GB, is that LR can't see them. Once you go over 2GB .psd's have to change to .psb's, LR doesn't recognise them which is very annoying for DAM.

Wow, I didn't know that! How annoying. I only use the psds temporarily, for editing (in Affinity), so they'd be deleted in the long run. But I imagine they'll have to raise that limitation sooner or later!
 
Upvote 0
To all those who think more Mpx is useless..
Yes, as home user and amateur photographer, yes.
To landscape photographer and A3 or big poster, it makes already more sense.
But, I have worked (as web-specialist) for a company who make interior decoration and ceiling (stretched-ceilings).
Some special customers (high end) or home architect, needs sometimes a texture or an image printed on the ceiling. like a sky, or trees-top of a jungle (viewed from bottom).
We had some special hard times to 1-find the right image (although we had a good stock), 2- find a enough-good quality image that could fit. (and not 2000x3000 px).
When you have a hotel-hall ceiling that is 30 m long x 20 m large.. you have hard time..
Of course we made composition of many photo-parts to success, but we had never the "right ressource" as photos..

So for this application, we would have needed something like :
- go hiking in a tropical forest.
- take your wide angle and your 120 Mpx (or 50 Mpx) camera
- point it to the sky
- make your photo
- give us a photo that can fit a 150 to 200 dpi for 30 meters x 20 meters..

Be happy that the ceiling is at 5 or 6 meters high and not 2.5 meters, so that people don't see it closely...

This is a special case where a 250 Mpx camera makes sense..
 
Upvote 0