Diffraction Limit

Started Aug 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Steen Bay Veteran Member • Posts: 6,978
Re: Nicely stated.

azazel1024 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:

I do personally believe that due to LENS limitations, I don't think we are likely to see much of a gain beyond about a 24mp m4/3 sensor. I just don't think the majority of even the really good m4/3 primes are going to be able to resolve a whole lot better once you push them that far out. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Don't know if there is an adapter that fits, but it would be theoretically possible to mount e.g. the 75/1.8 on Pentax Q that has app. the same pixel density as a mFT sensor with 94 MP. Could be interesting to see the result.

Hey is someone wants to do that, more power to them. If they can confirm that the 75/1.8 or the handful of other lenses that are in that ballpark resolution wise than awesome (the 45/1.8, PL 25/1.4, Voigts and it looks like the Olympus 60 macro and sigma 60 are all close enough for arguments sake and a lot of the other good m4/3 primes aren't super far behind). If that kind of pixel density can manage to resolve usable amount of increased real resolution, than I demand a 100mp m4/3 some day.

I am willing to wait a couple of decades for storage and processing technology to catch up to the point that tossing 100mp files around is just as easy as 16mp files today though.

Realistically I'd be more than happy if m4/3 settled around 24mp (+4 to -2) by the end of the decade, gained 14 bit RAW, 3 stops of DR and 2 more stops reduced noise. Actually scratch that, I'd be excited, not happy, if we got to that point before the decade was out.

Good post. However, understand that increased pixel counts are ruled by the law of diminishing returns. That is, going from 6 MP to 12 MP results in a greater increase than going from 12 MP to 24 MP which results in a greater increase than going from 24 MP to 48 MP, etc.

That said, if you have enough pixels, you don't need an AA filter, as diffraction, even wide open, will serve that purpose. Of course, that's a lot of pixels by that point.

Oh certainly. I deffinitely do realize that, as lens abberations dominate the higher the resolution of the sensor. That is completely ignoring the practicality of needing that many pixels. Though it can lead to a lot of interesting things.

You can do deeper cropping. Remove the AA filter (as you mentioned, though I suspect that is the direction a lot of manufacturers are now leaning with our current pixel counts) Or a big one, if you have a boat load of pixels and you generally don't need all of them, pixel binning at high ISO. If you can bin at high ISO and get a 2 stop gain in ISO (I really don't know that math on it, but I'd think if you did really smart pixel sampling you might be able to net a couple of stop gain, more? Less? I haven't paid too close attention to the cameras that do pixel binning), even if it means a reduction in resolution by 4x it doesn't matter as much if you have super high resolution to begin with. I wouldn't downgrade from 16mp to 4mp to get a 2 stop gain in noise, but I'd probably be willing to do it to go from 32 to 8 if it turned ISO25,600 in to 6,400 equivelent or better.

A simple downsampling will pretty much do the same job as pixel binning.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow