neuroanatomist said:brad-man said:
So? Storage is cheap, and my computers are fast.
Yeah, but it will take 10 hours to backup 10 photos to another HD.
And maybe 10 months to back up a a trip.
Upvote
0
Canon Testing a 75+ Megapixel EOS-1 Body? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, but it will take 10 hours to backup 10 photos to another HD.
And maybe 10 months to back up a a trip.
rs said:
I can't wait for such retina displays. I hope NEC PA series makes one too since it needs to also be wide gamut and have a nice 14bit 3D LUT too.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 368647
Guest
It seems to me that we're overlooking one possibility. Most of us probably use the highest possible resolution that our camera is capable of taking. With my 5D3 I rarely shoot sRAW but instead go for the full 21.1 megapixels. This makes the most sense to me since I often crop my shots and print fairly large. At this resolution I've rarely been disappointed in the ultimate print.
However, if the 5D3 were capable of 75 megapixels I would soon start choosing my resolution based on my anticipated use for the photo. I'd probably shoot mostly in the 30-40 megapixel range and only rarely go up to 75 megapixels.
Thus, having 75 megapixels available would provide another variable that I could control, just as I control WB, f-stop and shutter speed.
Thoughts?
- Pete
However, if the 5D3 were capable of 75 megapixels I would soon start choosing my resolution based on my anticipated use for the photo. I'd probably shoot mostly in the 30-40 megapixel range and only rarely go up to 75 megapixels.
Thus, having 75 megapixels available would provide another variable that I could control, just as I control WB, f-stop and shutter speed.
Thoughts?
- Pete
Upvote
0
Pete said:
Possibly. Computational capacity increases exponentially however, including camera pixels, so 70MP seems only natural. Are we suddenly now at a point where we want to change number of pixels on a per-shot basis? Why, other than to optimize disk usage that will be twice as cheap in a year?
Anyhow going 20MP to 70MP seems an unlikely marketing move, 40-50 is surely more likely.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 368647
Guest
Although disk storage is certainly becoming quite inexpensive, there are also bandwidth issues to be considered. Having a camera with 75+ megapixels would permit me to use 40 megapixels now but switch up to 75 when PC technology makes that quick and cheap.
Upvote
0
Pete said:
Bandwidth is going up a lot faster than pixel count.
Where I work, we are wired end-to end with 1Gbit or faster links. 10GigEthernet is starting to come to the desktop.... quite a change from when I first started connecting computers with Thickwire and vampire taps...
USB has jumped from 1.5Mbps to 4.0Gbps, firewire at 400Mbps has become Thunderbolt at 10Gbps... IO speed has gone up by three orders of magnitude while sensor sizes (if it really is 75Mpixels) has gone up by one order of magnitude....
Upvote
0
Disk storage is cheap, but software like NR or layered actions requires a lot of horsepower in a computer. I upgraded to the latest I7 and a Samsung 512GB 840 Pro, and it finally handles the rendering of my old D800 images with all the NR I had to apply. I'd pass on a 75GB camera, but I can see some uses for one like landscape.
Canon lenses can handle the resolution, but it requires a lot of care by the photographer to prevent motion blur. You will need a much higher shutter speed for non-IS lenses, or a very stable tripod.
Canon lenses can handle the resolution, but it requires a lot of care by the photographer to prevent motion blur. You will need a much higher shutter speed for non-IS lenses, or a very stable tripod.
Upvote
0
mb66energy said:neuroanatomist said:brad-man said:
So? Storage is cheap, and my computers are fast.
I upgraded yesterday from Pentium 4 3GHz-PC to a Core i7 CPU-Machine: What a progress ... its computing power is great but data transfer might become a bottleneck during backup etc. ...
Agreed. Although that extra CPU/RAM boost will definitely aid in processing those potentially hefty image files, if you throw in a couple SSDs in RAID configuration, your startup times and data transfers would be greatly enhanced. Plus, they are relatively cheap these days
My preference is to set up two SSDs in RAID 0 and use that for my applications and data that I need fast access to, then I'll use a couple terabyte 7200 rpm drives in RAID 1 for the rest of my storage needs. Never had a problem in over 10 years.
Upvote
0
Very interesting. I just hope that one of the big MP cameras we keep hearing about comes with 16-bit DR. I can care less about any camera with more than 40MP and doesn't have 16-bit DR...
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:LetTheRightLensIn said:Yeah, but it will take 10 hours to backup 10 photos to another HD.
And maybe 10 months to back up a a trip.
Maybe if you're using USB2. At 10 Gbps with Thunderbolt, it'll be plenty fast.
Even with USB 3.0 (or TB) backing up a few 3-4TB drives is still a MAJOR drag.
This is the biggest downside IMO.
That said bring on the MP, one way or another people will deal.
Upvote
0
Picture this, in the 70D, Canon now has a reliable two-pixel bin for which the alternate channels can be used for AF, but combined for imagery. Now, let's take that same general tech up to full frame, giving us approximately 80 semi-pixels. Now refine the tech ever so slightly and:
1. Allow the bins to be broken so each semi-pixel is individually addressable for maximum spatial detail of 80m px.
2. Allow octal bins (dual-semipixel, binned Bayer quads) for maximum color fidelity and DR at around 10 mpx.
1. Allow the bins to be broken so each semi-pixel is individually addressable for maximum spatial detail of 80m px.
2. Allow octal bins (dual-semipixel, binned Bayer quads) for maximum color fidelity and DR at around 10 mpx.
Upvote
0
What confuses me most about this news is why it is in CR's Canon General section and not in the EOS Body Rumo(u)r section. 
Apart from that, it's great news.
Apart from that, it's great news.
Upvote
0
If you can care less, then why don't you ?RGomezPhotos said:
As far as 16-bits....now that is something I could not care less about. Because 16 bits will not give you more DR. Just bigger files with the extra bits quantizing noise.
14 bits will do just fine.
Upvote
0
Not particularly believable.
For this product to work, it needs several other pieces of the puzzle:
1. Higher resolution on the same size CCD/CMOS means a process shrink of around 40% to add that many pixels. It isn't directly comparable to say a CPU, which can do other things like make large chips, rearrange the internal parts. Given that a cameras chip is made of few components AND have to keep to a similar size/aspect ratio, there is less flexibility to use these methods.
2 . Better Digic processors to move the data off the chip onto memory cards. You wouldn't go for a camera that has higher resolution and lower frame rates would you? I wouldn't.
3. Given the influx of new 4k video cameras and monitors capable of displaying the images, people would probably want this also, and if you have the sensors and DSP capable of the above, you would want this.
4. Storage space for the resulting photographs/video and CPU capable of editing/storing it would be fairly large but not out of this world expensive. Most people would need to upgrade.
1 and2 are possible, 3 would make this camera compete with their "C" series video cameras and 4 would be a new expense for the camera buyer to pay for..
2015-16 maybe. Not 2014 unless its some "leak" to keep people from upgrading to a Nikon
For this product to work, it needs several other pieces of the puzzle:
1. Higher resolution on the same size CCD/CMOS means a process shrink of around 40% to add that many pixels. It isn't directly comparable to say a CPU, which can do other things like make large chips, rearrange the internal parts. Given that a cameras chip is made of few components AND have to keep to a similar size/aspect ratio, there is less flexibility to use these methods.
2 . Better Digic processors to move the data off the chip onto memory cards. You wouldn't go for a camera that has higher resolution and lower frame rates would you? I wouldn't.
3. Given the influx of new 4k video cameras and monitors capable of displaying the images, people would probably want this also, and if you have the sensors and DSP capable of the above, you would want this.
4. Storage space for the resulting photographs/video and CPU capable of editing/storing it would be fairly large but not out of this world expensive. Most people would need to upgrade.
1 and2 are possible, 3 would make this camera compete with their "C" series video cameras and 4 would be a new expense for the camera buyer to pay for..
2015-16 maybe. Not 2014 unless its some "leak" to keep people from upgrading to a Nikon
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
