-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the fight against large pixel count here at Dpreview forum over?
- Thread starter berleconi
- Start date
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
No it's not over but fight what?
The makers do what they want and we have little influence on what they bring to the market.
I personally think 24mp on APS-C is a step too far and for the life of me I can't help but be concerned they might even move to 30+ mp on crop sensors. Eventually we might end up with compact camera IQ with massive file sizes and little real gain.
But I also think Bayer sensors will be on the way out in a few years, replaced with 3 layer colour sensors which can allow better resolution, with no AA filter and at a lower pixel density.
Let's be honest how many people can currently complain about "not enough resolution" be it full frame or crop sensors? It's time for makers to look beyond marketing numbers and start to work on other important areas.
The makers do what they want and we have little influence on what they bring to the market.
I personally think 24mp on APS-C is a step too far and for the life of me I can't help but be concerned they might even move to 30+ mp on crop sensors. Eventually we might end up with compact camera IQ with massive file sizes and little real gain.
But I also think Bayer sensors will be on the way out in a few years, replaced with 3 layer colour sensors which can allow better resolution, with no AA filter and at a lower pixel density.
Let's be honest how many people can currently complain about "not enough resolution" be it full frame or crop sensors? It's time for makers to look beyond marketing numbers and start to work on other important areas.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
No; the trend is not going that way at all. The image level noise has generally gone down as sensors have become denser. Naysayers ignore the trend and isolate progressions that suit their beliefs, comparing two successive models that have a very small change in pixel density but a large change in the real ISO bias of the camera, and NR methods, viewing at 100% pixel view.
That's a recipe for disaster. You can't drop an AA filter on an APS-C until you have at least 150MP for the sharper lenses, without distracting aliasing. Aliasing cameras like Sigmas and Leicas are niche products, and are not acceptable to many people for general purpose use.
Anyone doing wildlife does not have enough resolution all the time, unless they like a sharp, pixelated, unnatural look.
Unfortunately, no.
We had so many years of dpreviews pixel-density metric and "less megapixels is better" indoctrination that it will take a long time to get rid of it. Look at Nikon users - from 12mp D700 to 36mp D800, higher resolution and better dynamic range/noise and some people still think megapixels are somehow evil and will kill them while they sleep.
Last edited:
Maybe that's a good thing?
Since I'm a Nikon user, here's an example - years ago we had a ton users saying we don't need better sensors, we don't need full frame, we don't need low noise, our horrible 6mp D70 was awesome and no one needed better. Every single one of those users bought a full frame camera, as soon as it became available. Last thing manufacturers should do is listen to what some clueless Uncle Jerry asks on dpreview.
I remember when people said the same thing about 12mp. Then they all bought it. Then they bought the 16mp APS-C cameras.
Anyone dreaming about Foveon today, should first check those other aspects of sensor performance they always ask for, like noise and color. Be careful what you wish for.
As for removing AA filter, I have a unique medical condition - allergy to aliasing. It would be ok, but only when we get to much, much higher densities.
This brings to double standards existing between how people view cameras and lenses. High resolution cameras are somehow bad, but lenses are ok, no one says "keep your soft $100 lens, you don't need to buy that obscenely sharp Canon 70-200/2.8 II".
And those other important areas have greatly improved too. Resolution improvement has come alongside improvements in those other equally important areas like DR/noise.
Last edited:
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
It's less to do with a technical discussion about sensor noise, much more to do with a "practical field thing" ie are the needs of most photographers satisfied right now?
I would have to say the resolution debate is purely academic unless you want to buy 20TB HDD's in the future and dig through 100mp raw files with your 15 core CPU pc
From a consumer perspective "bigger/more" is always more appealing, but I think we've moved well beyond the days of complaining that digital resolution is not good enough.
I suppose you missed the patents that Fuji and Sony filed recently Bayer is on the way out so bookmark this post and we'll talk in a few years time. It is very clear that Bayer is a stop gap solution right now.
I'm sure that the D800 users who do wildlife shooting are not entirely unhappy with their razor sharp huge prints.
The problem with megapixel fans is they are like Alcoholics (excuse the comparison just seems so right) whatever you give them it's "never enough" and they always want more.
If you give people 80 megapixels it still won't be enough. I would use the term ill informed consumer, but we know big numbers sell.
Point is good enough was reached a while back
yes, and Sony won
remember, at the start canon reigned supreme. canon even
put out a white paper documenting that "8 megapixels was the best"
remember, at the start canon reigned supreme. canon even
put out a white paper documenting that "8 megapixels was the best"
DUSTY LENS
Senior Member
This could be true for now , but when High ISO noise and color permits or supports greater Pixel counts , this philosophy will probably become more nonsense .Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
It's less to do with a technical discussion about sensor noise, much more to do with a "practical field thing" ie are the needs of most photographers satisfied right now?
I would have to say the resolution debate is purely academic unless you want to buy 20TB HDD's in the future and dig through 100mp raw files with your 15 core CPU pc
From a consumer perspective "bigger/more" is always more appealing, but I think we've moved well beyond the days of complaining that digital resolution is not good enough.
Well , it seems that you are making a decision for all photographers , when you actually should allow others to make this decision based on their own needs and preferences of artistic taste .
Many photographers have had experience with large format film cameras and many of those really do prefer the clarity and detail observable and enjoyed in these mediums on fine grained color films .
Naturally many of these would like to be able to duplicate this quality with the new digital technology for the many advantages it holds open to them .
If you used and enjoyed fine color film in large format , you might wish for the day that you could repeat those results with your digital camera too .
The point of good enough has not been reached for these people , but with the rate of development and technological discoveries it could be within reach for the small hand holdable cameras of future times .
Giving up and deciding it is of no consequence for all photographers is the wrong headed path to the future . It flies in the face of what our world has been teaching us . It is the self fulfilling prophecy of failure .
Who would have known there would have been very high quality digital cameras during the 1950's ?
It could be a matter of years or decades , maybe never , but don't say it is something nobody wants or needs , and don't decide for all that there is nothing to be gained with greater pixel counts . Let the science make this decision .
My opinion ,
Dusty
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,633
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
To me it seems like the resolution debate in the future is going to be less about ISO performance and more about whether lenses can actually make use of any extra resolution.
I think Canon's 18MP ASPC sensor was already pushing up agenst these limates but with the new 24MP ASPC and 36MP FF sensors boarder and large appature performance really does seem to be becoming an big issue.
I think it becomes more of an issue when you consider who actually wants this extra resolution, I'd guess that landscape photographers are top of the list and there obviously going to value boarder performance.
My guess is that digital will ultimately end up in a situation closer to film with optics and formast size governing quality far more than sensor performance albeit with smaller format sizes offering better quality than in film.
I think Canon's 18MP ASPC sensor was already pushing up agenst these limates but with the new 24MP ASPC and 36MP FF sensors boarder and large appature performance really does seem to be becoming an big issue.
I think it becomes more of an issue when you consider who actually wants this extra resolution, I'd guess that landscape photographers are top of the list and there obviously going to value boarder performance.
My guess is that digital will ultimately end up in a situation closer to film with optics and formast size governing quality far more than sensor performance albeit with smaller format sizes offering better quality than in film.
sshoihet
Senior Member
I don't know about killing me in my sleep but a D800 drank all my beer and then stole my girlfriend...
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
I know how the consumer market works you try to convince people that they "need more" (add your more of choice) and they buy it. If they actually need it is another area for debate.
We know full well that right now the needs of most are met in terms of resolution, yes there are LF shooters who want tons, but like 35mm days this is a relatively small number overall.
Nothing to do with failure, everything to do with camera company profits
Consumers are suckers for "more" let me put it like this how many entry level users actually need or effectively use 24mp shots? Probably a few but most won't even touch that.
goetz48
Veteran Member
to go with pixel pitch below the Nyquist value of the lens. And that's the case for the 24 Mpix APS-C sensors, and the FF ones are at the edge. But there are a lot of people who say that's nonsense, we want as many pixel as possible for filling up our computer drives.
Do you know how many mega pixels you need for a 50mm F1.4 lens on apsc camera
to out resolve the Nyquist limit for green light.
I have done that in the past.
As far I remember then number is far in the future or even impossible to do.
Berl.
to out resolve the Nyquist limit for green light.
I have done that in the past.
As far I remember then number is far in the future or even impossible to do.
Berl.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
Most people only need to see who or what is in the picture; what does that have to do with the needs of people who want realistic photography?
Anyone who is interested in real imaging quality needs higher pixel densities. The low densities we are suffering through today are a joke; they don't come anywhere near emulating analog capture.
Who cares about the needs of people who are just snapping reminders of where they were, and who they were with?
Anyone who doesn't need a 24MP shot (I would say 200MP), just isn't serious about accurate imaging. Today's huge pixels through away all kinds of detail, and information useful for better lens corrections and more intelligent noise reduction (you can't tell as easily what is noise when it appears at the same pixel frequencies as coarse details).
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
Lenses do not have Nyquist values. Sampling systems do. To properly sample the red and blue channels with a Bayer CFA, you need 10 to 12 lines of pixels for a line pair of the highest desired frequency. We are used to ugly abstractions created from aliased color channels with big pixels. Even with a Foveon-like sensor, you need 5-6 lines to sample a line pair properly.
I look forward to virtual-analog photography.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
No, it's actually not. The diffraction-limited resolution, according to the Rayleigh criterion (not Nyquest, as John points out), is 2.44 λ / f.
For an f1.4 lens, and green (photopic peak) that's
- 2.44 * 560nm * 1.4 = 1920nm
- For APS-C, 24x16mm, that's 416mp.
Now, do we need that high a resolution? Probably not. It's near impossible to achieve, as at f1.4, the plane of focus for diffraction-limited resolution is insanely thin, and the steps you have to take to avoid subject and camera motion are difficult.
So, like all things in the world, the true answer is somewhere between theory and practical experience. Right now, we're just seeing Nikon and Pentax experimenting with offerings where they remove optical anti-aliasing filtering (now we're talking Nyquest) and rely on other resolution limiters (diffraction, subject motion, camera motion, DOF) to mitigate the aliasing. But we're seeing sufficient aliasing in those offerings to know we're nowhere near the required resolution point, today. We're just at the tip of the iceberg.
Again, same criterion, anywhere from 938mp to 3.75 Gp, depending on how you define resolution.
And some that believe your assertions are such.
Actually, computer drives have been growing at a higher rate than pixel counts, so the situation improves every year.
There also isn't really a need to save all the pixels. Look at the Nokia N800, the "shape of things to come". Right now, we save "almost fully" raw files, because cameras don't have enough onboard processing to extract the optimal balance of resolution, noise, and freedom from artifacts from raw sensor data that's close to Nyquist frequency limits. As the resolutions climb, the algorithms needed for optimal processing get simpler. A 416mp sensor and some simple on-camera processing can produce a 52mp demosaiced "semi raw" file that has "brick wall" resolution right out to 52mp (like a Foveon sensor, LOL) but no aliasing, and no need for complex, 10 second/file raw processing algorithms like VNG, PPG, AHD, AMaZE, etc.
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
What is realistic photography?
I base my remarks on what people print (the few who actually do print that is)
Image quality or "quality images"?
Not sure what your goal is there is a lot more to IQ than just resolution.
I don't have to remind you there were plenty of serious 35mm shooters such as Galen Rowell using a mere 35mm camera most times. I guess he was just "snapping" away withhout a care in the world too?
John you represent the techy geek side of photography which is fine this is fairly interesting, but it's entirely irrelevant to producing quality photos, which has nothing at all to do with megapixels or technology.
It's called "real photography" some call it the art/craft but it's no more than "images that are good"
Measuring photography is about as useful as measuring "poetry" I therefore remind you of this classic movie scene...
If only we could hear forums ripping!
Also you missed the continued patents for multi coloured layer sensors, I again predict Bayer is going to be "old news" quite soon. But of course you can still take nice photos even with a dated bayer sensor and without that many pixels.
New “foveon” style sensor patent. | sonyalpharumors
Egami (translation here) spotted the next 3 layer sensor patent from Sony. Lately we have so many of these patents that a camera featuring a sensor like that may come in the near future. This would certainly be a quantum leap forward of Sony can do this. Imagine no more Aliasing problems, true...
www.sonyalpharumors.com
I'd rather have a great 3mp image than a ho hum 24mp one
goetz48
Veteran Member
If your theory was right lens resolution had to decrease with 1/f. Why are the MTF50 diagrams flat and not falling according to 1/f? That's only true for small apertures.
But o.k., dream about a 100 Mpix sensor, I do not.
But o.k., dream about a 100 Mpix sensor, I do not.
If there are samples of where resolution over >20MP enabled some fantastic advantage over what observers would notice with 10MP, or even a mere 4MP, it would be interesting to see.
If most images are apt to be seen on an iPhone screen, or even a 9" retina display, I can't fathom the need for tremendous resolution, unless the viewer has spectacular optical accuity or an insatiable compulsion to blow everything up to the finest detail level. Human eyes are simply too frail, and the available time to absorb excess doses of images just too scarce. There are other things in imaging too: content, composition, light. There are other things in life too.
A recent Sony paper indicated that many people in a theater cannot distinguish between 2k and 4k video on a large screen, unless they sit very close to the screen or have 20x10 or better distance vision. Focal vision tends to fix on a relatively small portion of a large screen anyway.
It hardly matters if aliasing or noise are better controlled than a few years ago. This is fine, but the absolute advantage must be weighed against the diminishing margin of return in terms of what people see.
Plenty of stuff that hangs in fine galleries is grainy and low res, without that affecting how it is praised or priced at auction.
Cropping? Yes, a nice thing to be able to do. A 50% crop of a 10MP file leaves enough resolution for a good print, with plenty to spare for screen display. A crop of 10% of the content a 30MP shot, on the other hand, probably won't have much use, or be of low quality do to limitations of the lens, ligthing, or exposure setting. What would it be anyway? A bump on a nose? A distant animal in the haze or shadows? A license plate number?
Large files simply hog memory, slow down editing, and result in masses of disc space consigned to stuff no one will ever have time to work with, or possibly never even see.
If most images are apt to be seen on an iPhone screen, or even a 9" retina display, I can't fathom the need for tremendous resolution, unless the viewer has spectacular optical accuity or an insatiable compulsion to blow everything up to the finest detail level. Human eyes are simply too frail, and the available time to absorb excess doses of images just too scarce. There are other things in imaging too: content, composition, light. There are other things in life too.
A recent Sony paper indicated that many people in a theater cannot distinguish between 2k and 4k video on a large screen, unless they sit very close to the screen or have 20x10 or better distance vision. Focal vision tends to fix on a relatively small portion of a large screen anyway.
It hardly matters if aliasing or noise are better controlled than a few years ago. This is fine, but the absolute advantage must be weighed against the diminishing margin of return in terms of what people see.
Plenty of stuff that hangs in fine galleries is grainy and low res, without that affecting how it is praised or priced at auction.
Cropping? Yes, a nice thing to be able to do. A 50% crop of a 10MP file leaves enough resolution for a good print, with plenty to spare for screen display. A crop of 10% of the content a 30MP shot, on the other hand, probably won't have much use, or be of low quality do to limitations of the lens, ligthing, or exposure setting. What would it be anyway? A bump on a nose? A distant animal in the haze or shadows? A license plate number?
Large files simply hog memory, slow down editing, and result in masses of disc space consigned to stuff no one will ever have time to work with, or possibly never even see.
Pedagydusz
Veteran Member
The problem is, Barry, you keep saying thinks like "For me...", but it is not only for you!
And also, you keep writing "Good enough has been reached..." (or similar words). But, technology (in general, not just photography) has reached todays point not by aiming to "Good enough" but by trying to go beyond that, in every possible way!
Remember "To boldly go where no man has gone before"?
Some photographers don't need that? But they are not put at disadvantage with something better, are they? Did we need AF? Av, Tv choices? 12500 ISO? Even colour photography? In retrospect, yes, but at the time it did not seem so, to many!
Well, it is true that sometimes the new thing stinks, but it usually is put right in one or two generations. (Of the product, that is, not mankind...)
And also, you keep writing "Good enough has been reached..." (or similar words). But, technology (in general, not just photography) has reached todays point not by aiming to "Good enough" but by trying to go beyond that, in every possible way!
Remember "To boldly go where no man has gone before"?
Some photographers don't need that? But they are not put at disadvantage with something better, are they? Did we need AF? Av, Tv choices? 12500 ISO? Even colour photography? In retrospect, yes, but at the time it did not seem so, to many!
Well, it is true that sometimes the new thing stinks, but it usually is put right in one or two generations. (Of the product, that is, not mankind...)
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum