Techblast

Techblast

Lives in United States - DFW, TX, United States
Joined on Aug 11, 2005

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
On ISO 25600 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

JamieTux: This still looks remarkably useable!

The rat is losing some detail and it's beginning to look a bit washed out but considering the conditions and the ISO wow!

This is why pixel size is so critical - to capture light. When image sensors strain to identify low levels of light, a larger pixel presents a better output signal relative to inherent noise.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Techblast: OK. Wonderful lecture. That means 4 micron is the right size to match what physics already knows. So there is your standard based upon the electromagnetic spectrum called visible light and when you multiple this pixel measurement by FF dimension, you have the practical limits of FF resolution before "shot" artifacts become an increasingly worsening phenomenon. OK. So Canon ID-X should provide the best possible rendition of light and resolution for FF and that if you need a larger printout you will need to resize up and accept the inherent loses or you will need to go up to a MF sensor solution. This applies to all FF manufacturers and not just Canon. Excellent lecture! Thanks!!

PS. The assumption is that is 6.95 micron = 18.1 megapixels, then 4 micron = 31,754,385 pixels.

It looks like Canon, Nikon and others FF equipment providers are either going to have to investing a lot of money in R&D in order to find new methods for photsensor device fabrication that can accurately capture light on smaller photosensor sites and hence can avoid MF sensors or will find themselves quickly approaching the limits that a FF sensor can deliver and face having to develop MF camera solutions for the high end professional market within the next 4-5 years.

It will be interesting in a few years to see how this plays out.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2011 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

Techblast: OK. Wonderful lecture. That means 4 micron is the right size to match what physics already knows. So there is your standard based upon the electromagnetic spectrum called visible light and when you multiple this pixel measurement by FF dimension, you have the practical limits of FF resolution before "shot" artifacts become an increasingly worsening phenomenon. OK. So Canon ID-X should provide the best possible rendition of light and resolution for FF and that if you need a larger printout you will need to resize up and accept the inherent loses or you will need to go up to a MF sensor solution. This applies to all FF manufacturers and not just Canon. Excellent lecture! Thanks!!

Rick, if you read Canon's release statements concerning their new 1D-X, they claim a 6.95 micron pixel size adn a 6.4 micron pixel size for the 5D MKII. If for example 4 micron does turn out to be the point where further shrinkage does not necessarily advance resolution detail when enlarged to 100% size, then you can surmize that a FF sensor will max out around 31 - 32 Megapixels, which is good. For me, it would be somewhat fruitless to pay $3K, $4k, $11K for individual lens only to distort IQ with undersized pixels. Canon has made it clear, at least to me, that pixel size provides a higher signal to noise ratio, a cleaner replication of light and a sharper image.

So, it would seem that once Canon gets to ~30MP on their FF sensor, that Canon, Nikon and others may have to ask the critical question as to whether to embark upon Medium Frame sensors in order to provide higher resolutions while maintaining Image Quality

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2011 at 14:11 UTC

OK. Wonderful lecture. That means 4 micron is the right size to match what physics already knows. So there is your standard based upon the electromagnetic spectrum called visible light and when you multiple this pixel measurement by FF dimension, you have the practical limits of FF resolution before "shot" artifacts become an increasingly worsening phenomenon. OK. So Canon ID-X should provide the best possible rendition of light and resolution for FF and that if you need a larger printout you will need to resize up and accept the inherent loses or you will need to go up to a MF sensor solution. This applies to all FF manufacturers and not just Canon. Excellent lecture! Thanks!!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2011 at 21:31 UTC as 16th comment | 7 replies
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4