olypan: Drip, drip, drip.......
That's a nasty cold you have there. I hope you've got a handkerchief close to hand.
Shouldn't this just be called the Stalin app as he famously made people disappear from photographs.
ozgoldman: Its very clear that many submitting comment to this particular forum have no understanding of copyright law.Copyright is a complex and diverse subject with a myraid of outcomes that may be somewhat confusing to a lay person.
I do point out however, that the law of defamation appears to have been breached here regarding derogatory comment directed towards the judge in several of the contributions, and could in the UK be subject to legal process.
@ozgoldman I suggest that you look up the law regarding defamation. You cannot be successfully sued for defamation on something that's an expression of personal opinion. You have to make a statement false statement of fact. For instance, claiming corruption or claims of intent. To call somebody a fool or an idiot is not actionable, and neither is a disagreement on the judgement made.
So on that basis, I'll quite happily say that you appear to be ill-informed when it comes to the law of defamation in England & Wales.
Idiot judge, plain and simple...
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!!
Your calculations are faulty. You have performed a linear calculation when it's the area that matters. If 6.95 microns pitch gives 18.1 MPiX, 4 microns will give 3.02 x as many photosites, or 54.6 MPiX.
More directly, 24mm x 36mm at 4 microns provides for 6,000 x 9,000 = 54MPiX. (And consistent with the Sony A77 24MPiX sensor which has a, near enough, 4 micron pitch on APS at 4,000 x 6,000 photosites). A FF sensor has 2.25 x the area of a 1.5 crop factor APS-C; 2.25 x 24 = 24MPiX.
So a 54MPiX FF sensor is certainly technically feasible using a scaled up version of current technology, although it might be sub-optimal in other ways (read rate, power dissipation etc.).
Personally I have doubts we'll see CMOS MF sensors as the R&D costs might not justify the relatively limited market.
It's worth noting that the colour sampling (at least for red and blue channels) at twice the photosite pitch, so smaller photosite might assist that.
I wonder why the bayer pattern dominates. Given that low energy red photons have the lowest QE, and my subjective impression is red chroma noise is most prevalent, would it make more sense to have two red sensors per cell?
One thing I'd be interested to know if consideration has ever been given to sensors which do not use regular grid patterns. The eye's rods and cones are certainly not layed out with the regimented regularity of a CMOS or CCD sensor, and neither is film. A pseduo-random pattern might disrupt things like moire patterns. Of course the changes required to image processing all the way through the stack would be fairly horrible to consider, but I'm pretty sure the brain's optical perception systems do not work through regular grids.
michaelrz: The V1 holds up very well against the best of the 4/3s. This is quite remarkable.
Nikon acted very wisely to limit the sensor to "just" 10 MP and resist the megapixel craze.
I wish I could say the same about Sony and the NEX7...
The photosites on the Sony NEX-7 sensor are 30% bigger in area than the Nikon 1 series. But then when did facts overcome received wisdom? The Nikon 1 series is not primarily aimed at still photography.