Is the megapixel race over?

Perhaps we should rename this forum - instead of "Open Forum" we could call it "Beat the sh*t out of anyone I don't agree with Forum" ?

Regards

Dave

Barramundi said:

Agree with Petteri,

Lets get this reinierv and beat the sh*t out of him.
Wish this forum had a feature to beat others remotely.
So what you where doing reading this anyways.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

DSLRS already have more dynamic range than slide films like Velvia.
As most landscape photographers use Velvia, that means digital is
already the better option.

Where DSLRs can't yet compete is with negative films which have a
lot wider DR.

One thing I don't understand about DR limitations in sensors is why
individual pixels don't just reset themselves to zero after they
have blown out, capture a few more photons then add the second
capture to the first lot to produce a combined value - this kind of
approach would easily allow any DR you wanted....

Click to expand...

I don't know how the data from the sensor is read, isn't the area 'swept' rather than each site read individually?

If it's possible to read each site individually then you've suggested what sounds like a great technique.

But it sounds like one would need a separate processing system for each site. You'd have to read the site as 'full' and then count the number of times the site fills before the shutter closes.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Dusk on the Buriganga'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

Petteri Sulonen said:

Leon Wittwer said:

It would be nice to have more fstops but most if not all
applications for images are limited to 256 tone levels and a
limited ratio of the white and black points. The main advantage in
more fstops of DR would be to ensure that you have captured all the
info for later processing.

Click to expand...

Yep.

In any case, the eye can't detect much more than 256 levels. The
cool thing about 16-bit is precisely that you can select which 256
levels to pick for the final image from the 32000-odd that are
available. It greatly expands the creative options...

Click to expand...

Not to mention what you can do with curves on such an image - special effects all the way. And a perfect thing for wedding photographers - a 16 bit sensor would capture ALL the details of BOTH the groom's black suit and bride's white dress. With proper post-processing (local levels and curves) you could make a fantastic image.

Petteri Sulonen said:

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

Click to expand...

--

'Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be ready within 10 years,' Alex Lewyt, of the Lewyt Corporation, a vacuum maker, predicted in The New York Times on June 10, 1955.
--- A warning to all technophiles

Igor R. said:

what about snapshoot cams, I think the race will end at about 6
megapixels for 2/3" sensors and about the same resolution for
1/1.8" but surely, lust ones will have bad dynamic range, colors,
everithong, as they do now.

Click to expand...

Right, so why can't we simply have 3 MP on a 2/3" sensor? That'd be sufficient to keep many of us happy. I couldn't care less about prints anyway - the computer screen is perfectly good enough for image projection - hence 3 MP is all I need. But not one of the manufacturers will let me buy that 3 MP camera with a 2/3" sensor.

I would gladly exchange the 5 MP sensor in my Coolpix 5000 with a 3 MP one if that could reduce noise and improve dynamic range.
--
Tore . C P 5 0 0 0

reinierv said:

Start making pictures rather then debat the latest commercial trend
in equipment. You'r pictures won't become better with the latest
technology, it remains garbage in is garbage out.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough - they will. As in the past, an idiot that used Nikon F5, Canon EOS 1V, or Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7 or 9 with a capable brand 28-70/2.8 lens, with the camera set to 'full auto,' with professional negative (to allow exp. latitude) film loaded taking pictures in bright sunlight with a powerful flash (especially distance-encoding Nikon and Minolta systems), and having then those pictures printed in a pro lab at 20x30 cm ( 8x12 in.) on a professional high quality paper would get exceptional results - pleasing enough for an amateur (or an idiot) at least. He wouldn't even have to think when taking the picture - the camera has taken it for him.

Sadly, but the case has become even more prominent in the case of digital SLRs. Any fool with a Canon EOS 1Ds + 24-70/2.8 will make better portraits than anyone with a 'prosumer' camera with the same focal length and speed lens. Worse overall image quality, noise, less dynamic range and less resolution will make every picture made by the photo idiot worse than any picture made by a professional with a 'prosumer' camera. Less interesting - of course, but with the same conditions the idiot with better equipment will make a better picture.

Of course - we can completely disregard image and camera quality discussions. But what for? If image quality was unimportant, we would get 300x200 with 9 bit colour output sensors in modern SLRs - they would yield images, of course. Wouldn't they be ARTISTIC?

Funnily enough, while 'artists' disregarded camera body discussions, elbowed lens discussions, and shunned composition issues (artistry again) they embraced film and paper various qualities and uses discussions.

Now they are in a difficult situation. No more film. Paper is similar, and it seems everyone can make exceptional inkjet paper, even some 'upstart' like hp, completely disregarding (again) that they have decades of experience in office papers, including exclusive bright white, high resolution graphics, and other kinds, and that those improvements can be included in their photographic papers.

But no more film. Now, sensors are the film. But sensors come in cameras. And there is really very little variety of sensors available, and you can't get a Nikon camera with a Canon sensor, and you never will. How many modern SLR sensors are out there? 10 of them, I believe. Every one yields different images. Not better, not worse, only different. What to discuss? Cameras??? GET SERIOUS! Lenses? Pah! You can take a picture with a pinhole. I believe that is the main reason film vs. digital discussion will keep on raging without providing any advantages of one above the other. I, for one, prefer film to digital if only for one reason - film print images please me more than digital prints. That is enough of a reason.

You know what the saddest thing is? The ones that raise 'artist issues,' and say that it's 'not important what camera and lens and medium you use,' are usually the ones with the most professional equipment, i.e.: the best available body, all F2.8 zooms in the entire focal length range, the best high quality F3.5-F4.5 standard zoom for best contrast and sharpness in a compact housing, all the fast primes, and most of the exotic lenses, not to mention all compatible flash equipment. And they say they could do just as good without that equipment. If that is true, I will gladly switch my Minolta Dynax 5 with the kit lens for your equipment - you can do the same quality pictures with my camera, right? I can't even afford professional film, so my images will always be worse quality than theirs. Does it mean I'm a worse photographer? I don't think so. Just recently I was going through my pictures, especially those experimental ones. My first picture with panning came out tack sharp, with very interesting composition (one far background, blurred and moving). And it was not luck. It was all planned with the camera set to A mode and I have actually expected to take a pan picture, but I guess it's hard to express my excitement when I was taking the picture, right afterwards, and the pride I had taking prints from the developer.

I only wished it was not made on an Agfa vista 100, but on Fuji Velvia 100F, or Provia 100F, and not printed on Kodak paper, but either Agfa Prestige, or Fuji Super Gloss. And not at 10x15 cm, but 20x30 cm. What if I had a Canon EOS 1Ds (aside from the fact I don't like Canons)? I would perhaps ruin the picture by opening the lens up to the full F2.8, and even at ISO 100 it would make the shutter too fast to allow that much movement... But if I was to think, I would stop the lens a bit, and get a much better image than from my film SLR.

Ah, I vented...

--

'Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be ready within 10 years,' Alex Lewyt, of the Lewyt Corporation, a vacuum maker, predicted in The New York Times on June 10, 1955.
--- A warning to all technophiles

Tore Lund said:

Right, so why can't we simply have 3 MP on a 2/3" sensor? That'd
be sufficient to keep many of us happy. I couldn't care less about
prints anyway - the computer screen is perfectly good enough for
image projection - hence 3 MP is all I need. But not one of the
manufacturers will let me buy that 3 MP camera with a 2/3" sensor.
I would gladly exchange the 5 MP sensor in my Coolpix 5000 with a 3
MP one if that could reduce noise and improve dynamic range.

Click to expand...

You can buy better one, if you're glad with 3M, you can buy now Canon D30 on Ebay used for about $450, and $150 lens, that will give you quality equal to your Coolpix5000, with all real DSLR features including 12 bit RAW, interchangable lenses, everithing!

DavidMillier said:

DSLRS already have more dynamic range than slide films like Velvia.
As most landscape photographers use Velvia, that means digital is
already the better option.

Click to expand...

Yes, Velvia has exxellent (the best for color film) reslution, but limited to about 7 stops range, it maybe even less then DSLR.

DavidMillier said:

Where DSLRs can't yet compete is with negative films which have a
lot wider DR.

Click to expand...

Negatives have huge, 11-12 range, all movies shoot on negative.

DavidMillier said:

One thing I don't understand about DR limitations in sensors is why
individual pixels don't just reset themselves to zero after they
have blown out, capture a few more photons then add the second
capture to the first lot to produce a combined value - this kind of
approach would easily allow any DR you wanted....

Click to expand...

No, because pixel has its phosical lmitation, it is controlled by aperture and/or shutter.

There is interesting situation now, slide film has more resolution and better saturation, negative has better DR and digital stands between. But I can argue that maximum resolution of negative film is 12 megapixels.

Igor R. said:

There is interesting situation now, slide film has more resolution
and better saturation, negative has better DR and digital stands
between. But I can argue that maximum resolution of negative film
is 12 megapixels.

Click to expand...

Maximum theoretical resolution perhaps..way beyond most people's capability though. The discussions about film vs. digital always surround high res low ISO film, but at ISO 200 and above I would argue there are very few films that can compete for overall image quality with a 6MP DSLR. ISO800 shots from my *istD are so clean that they are perfectly usable for large prints up to A3 without NR, or larger with a careful NI application. This is a revelation to me. The noise in such shots is way less than the equivalent film grain.

However, no DSLR can so far compete with good B&W negative film. Possibly this is a good reason to keep a film camera in the kit lineup, for those odd days when you want to shoot B&W. For DR, nothing comes close. However this is one area where a stacked sensor could compete since it measures luminosity at every site. A 6MP foveon would be an interesting sensor.
Steve

toughluck said:

reinierv wrote:
Sadly, but the case has become even more prominent in the case of
digital SLRs. Any fool with a Canon EOS 1Ds + 24-70/2.8 will make
better portraits than anyone with a 'prosumer' camera with the same
focal length and speed lens.

Click to expand...

This paragraph:

toughluck said:

Worse overall image quality, noise,
less dynamic range and less resolution will make every picture made
by the photo idiot worse than any picture made by a professional
with a 'prosumer' camera. Less interesting - of course, but with
the same conditions the idiot with better equipment will make a
better picture.

Click to expand...

should be:

Worse overall image quality, noise, less dynamic range and less resolution will make every picture made by the professional (with a 'prosumer' cam) worse than any picture made by the ignorant with a professional camera. Boring - true; dull - of course, less interesting - yes; but with the same conditions the idiot with better equipment will make a better picture.

*isteve said:

Maximum theoretical resolution perhaps..way beyond most people's
capability though. The discussions about film vs. digital always
surround high res low ISO film, but at ISO 200 and above I would
argue there are very few films that can compete for overall image
quality with a 6MP DSLR. ISO800 shots from my *istD are so clean

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've printed A3 from Kodak profoto100 film, and image is very clean, almost no grain and resolution impressed me, it really shows new details on A3. Later I printed coluple A3 prints from Agfa 200 film, and grain is allready visible and realution linit is reached, for this film it is about A4.

*isteve said:

that they are perfectly usable for large prints up to A3 without
NR, or larger with a careful NI application. This is a revelation
to me. The noise in such shots is way less than the equivalent film
grain.

Click to expand...

6 megapixels is litle not enough for A3, yes it will look clean, but resolution limit of 6M is A4, you can say like ISO200 film.

*isteve said:

However, no DSLR can so far compete with good B&W negative film.
Possibly this is a good reason to keep a film camera in the kit
lineup, for those odd days when you want to shoot B&W. For DR,
nothing comes close. However this is one area where a stacked
sensor could compete since it measures luminosity at every site. A
6MP foveon would be an interesting sensor.

Click to expand...

You know, I thnik there is no point to shoot 35mm BW film. If you want really large prints from BW, you better shoot MF. As for me, think i will be glad with next generation of DSLRs, when cameras of 300D,D100,10D,*ist level will be 12M. I guess then D2H level cameras will reach 8M and 1Ds level will reach 20M. I think when these times will come, it 35mm production can be discontinued. UPS, almost forgot about DR, yes, it will be nice if DR of digital will be 10-11 stops. I not sure about current range, but it is lower. BTW what camera do you hav,e maybe you can do DR measurement for us here?

You assume that storage capacities will stagnate. But storage doubles even faster than Moore's law for processors. I have no doubt that someday we will have 100 gig cards in digital cameras. We already have 6 gig CF cards!

Just 8 years ago I had a 40 MB hard drive that was pretty large for the time. Yes megabytes. Now I have a 300 GB! I already deal with 12mp S2 files. When the S3 is 12 real MP 24MP interpolated the megapixel race will be over for me.

I say bring on the huge files! As long as lenses and noise levels can keep up.

Regards,
Sean

toughluck said:

Matsu said:

It's not even close to over.

If a 2/3rds sensor can house 8MP, then a 4/3rds sensor could house
32MP. 32 very noisy MP, but it could house them, and FF could grow
40-60MP if processing power could deal with it.

So that brings up a few questions. What's the pixel pitch of a 3MP
2/3rds sensor? Is it around 5-6um ? Because that should make a
12MP 4/3rds, or at least an APS, more than possible, one with good
ISO 800 plus performance too.

But then there are other things to consider. Foveon type, layered
sensors; opponent process two color technologies that Fuji was
playing with a while back, and multi sensor backs? Provided they
get cheaper, why not two or three sensors in a camera (when power
usage and battery tech permit it) ???

And finally, once someone works it out, true "digital" sensors,
which given similar advances to "digital" amplification, would
allow for dramatically better performance from small photosites.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Matsu said:

Do you realize that there's a project underway to bring "digital
film" to hollywood? UHDTV 4000x2000 !!! I shudder at the thought
of moving that much 24fps, 24 bit info around, but already some one
somewhere is hard at work developing both it and the supporting
computer technologies to make it workable. Might not see it for
7-8 years, but it will come.

Buck up. You won't ever have a final product that never gets
eclipsed, but you will have some even better stuff to play with in
the future.

I only see that as a good thing.

Click to expand...

I agree, but digital film in hollywood is already a reality. Don't need much more than 2MP to equal 35mm movie film when projected. Just look at Star Wars Episode 2 all shot in digital with LESS than 2MP resolution! And I saw it projected onto IMAX flawlessly. Yes, even less than HDTV! Did you notice any difference when you saw it, other than some scenes were noise free? If it is good enough for George Lucus, you know it is good!

Regards,
Sean

toughluck said:

As one of the vacuum cleaner industry giant president once said
back in the 1950s.
Moore's law is starting to become less feasible nowadays. We are
hitting single-atom structures which are fast, but too expensive to
build. Designers would basically need a scan microscope for every
chip which would be time-consuming and expensive. Let's say a scan
microscope's output would be 1 chip per 10 hours at 100% yield
(theoretically possible). Let's see, how many they would need to
maintain current rates of production? How many was that? 10
million chips a month? I believe more, but let's say it's that 10
million. During an 'average' 30 day month they would have 720
hours, so 72 chips would leave one scan microscope. They would need
138 THOUSAND of those buggers to maintain current rates, and they
don't grow on trees, nor do they cost a trifle.

Click to expand...

Who says that technology will also stagnate. People were predicting the death of Moore's law also years ago. Similar to the Vacuum prediction you love. Did not pan out. We are on the verge of a huge increase of computing power when we switch from the old transister on silicon approach to computing to a new technology.

toughluck said:

As for quality - some people will never be satisfied with what they
have, if only to keep up with the Joneses, but we're talking about
physics barrier here. Too much resolution will outperform lenses,
as Petteri said. Too tight pixel pitches will cause diffraction for
red, green and then blue wavelengths. The sensor would basically
stop working.
What would you rather have? A 6 megapixel 6X (red, green, blue,
yellow, violet, skyblue) Foveon sensor with all problems ironed
out, 16 bit accuracy, 12 stops dynamic range (for each colour) - it
would have 36 megawords (at 16 bit accuracy) to handle, no noise,
ISO ratings up to 6400 (and pushed up to 25000), etc., or a 144
megapixel (FOUR TIMES the megasomethings) with 16 bit accuracy, 12
bit noise, 6 stops DR, ISO up to 1600, forced to 3200,
outperforming the lens AND having diffraction problems up to the
green wavelength? It would record blue, barely green (wth a lot of
light falloff) and no red. YES!!! THIS IS THE SENSOR I WANT, right?

Click to expand...

Yes I would be happy with that.... but so far Foveon is not impressing me. They really need to prove that they can scale up their sensor. And also move to other lens mounts. What is taking them so long?! I hope they get their act together though. I also would be happy with a 12mp Fuji S3 interpolated to 24MP and with better dynamic range.

Regards,
Sean

Leon Wittwer said:

It would be nice to have more fstops but most if not all
applications for images are limited to 256 tone levels and a
limited ratio of the white and black points. The main advantage in
more fstops of DR would be to ensure that you have captured all the
info for later processing.

Click to expand...

Correction on "most applications limited": Most consumer level applications are limited, and we don't need more than 256 levels per colour channel for viewing, but professional level image editors such as Adobe Photoshop or Picture Window Pro 3.5 from Jonathan Sachs at Digital Light and Colour (www.dl-c.com) process 16 bits per channel so that one can do as discussed without developing visible colour banding in the images.

Regards, GordonBGood

--Hi.
I just want to remind the guys of the Dinamic Range (DR) talk,
that one thing is to have a certain DR in the negative film,

and another very different is to have it on the print picture of that same negative.
On that respect, Digital is not so bad, actually is very good.
I printed hi quality black and white and color prints for many years,
and I can say a like the digital prints a lot. They don't seem to lack DR,
but, alas, I have not used a densitomer on them yet.
And about the megapixel war reaching its limits.............
remember what Bill Gates said back in 1981 about computer memory:

'640K ought to be enough for anybody.'

• Bill Gates, in 1981

E R A
Light is everything : )
http://www.pbase.com/image/3093370

E R A 2 0 0 0 said:

--Hi.
I just want to remind the guys of the Dinamic Range (DR) talk,
that one thing is to have a certain DR in the negative film,
and another very different is to have it on the print picture of
that same negative.
On that respect, Digital is not so bad, actually is very good.
I printed hi quality black and white and color prints for many years,
and I can say a like the digital prints a lot. They don't seem to
lack DR,
but, alas, I have not used a densitomer on them yet.
And about the megapixel war reaching its limits.............
remember what Bill Gates said back in 1981 about computer memory:

'640K ought to be enough for anybody.'

• Bill Gates, in 1981

Click to expand...

Yes, but that was one person doing the talking. The fact is, some PC applications (not "Windows programs") do not require more than 512 KB RAM memory. Some of them require much more disk space, some of them require just that small bit of memory and a floppy drive. Not convinced? Telnet access to libraries using Linux consoles. One floppy can contain an entire OS with a native support of telnet (and SSH), and you don't need much memory to run it.

Truth is, for some people even 1 gigapixel will not be enough, but the majority will accept the modest resolutions. Myself? 12 megapixel (4200x2800) Foveon or 16 megapixel (4800x3200) Fuji would be more than enough for me.

More important is the DR and bit depth. I have considered what I said about 16 bit DR, and now I'm not so convinced. 16 bit DR and 16 bit colour depth would mean less colour info within a given stop of DR.

I would more than happily settle for 14-16 bit colour depth and 10-12 stop dynamic range (mind you, it's still huge).

E R A 2 0 0 0 said:

E R A
Light is everything : )
http://www.pbase.com/image/3093370

Click to expand...

--

'Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be ready within 10 years,' Alex Lewyt, of the Lewyt Corporation, a vacuum maker, predicted in The New York Times on June 10, 1955.
--- A warning to all technophiles

Igor R. said:

Yeah, I've printed A3 from Kodak profoto100 film, and image is very
clean, almost no grain and resolution impressed me, it really shows
new details on A3. Later I printed coluple A3 prints from Agfa 200
film, and grain is allready visible and realution linit is reached,
for this film it is about A4.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is less resolution, just visible noise in a print at A3. ISO 400 film has visible noise in a A4 print.

Igor R. said:

6 megapixels is litle not enough for A3, yes it will look clean,
but resolution limit of 6M is A4, you can say like ISO200 film.

Click to expand...

I see FAR more detail in an A3 print from a 6MP camera than in an A4 print and because they are relatively clean they can stand post processing to improve sharpness and contrast, and this holds true at least up to ISO800.

Steve

toughluck said:

Yes, but that was one person doing the talking. The fact is, some
PC applications (not "Windows programs") do not require more than
512 KB RAM memory. Some of them require much more disk space, some
of them require just that small bit of memory and a floppy drive.
Not convinced? Telnet access to libraries using Linux consoles. One
floppy can contain an entire OS with a native support of telnet
(and SSH), and you don't need much memory to run it.

Truth is, for some people even 1 gigapixel will not be enough, but
the majority will accept the modest resolutions. Myself? 12
megapixel (4200x2800) Foveon or 16 megapixel (4800x3200) Fuji would
be more than enough for me.
More important is the DR and bit depth. I have considered what I
said about 16 bit DR, and now I'm not so convinced. 16 bit DR and
16 bit colour depth would mean less colour info within a given stop
of DR.
I would more than happily settle for 14-16 bit colour depth and
10-12 stop dynamic range (mind you, it's still huge).

Click to expand...

toughluck said:

'Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be ready within 10
years,' Alex Lewyt, of the Lewyt Corporation, a vacuum maker,
predicted in The New York Times on June 10, 1955.
--- A warning to all technophiles

Click to expand...

--I agree with you 100%.
I think I would be more than happy with a 12 megapixel SLR camera.
Even now, my 6 megapixels, are enough for most of my needs.
....About those nuclear vacuum cleaners..........let me now when they are ready,
I certainly need one!
E R A
Light is everything : )
http://www.pbase.com/image/3093370

Agree. I do my processing in Photoshop at 16 bits most of the time. I was referring to the end point display application. I look at processing as a "resource allocation" problem. How do I best use the limited number of tonal levels between the white and black points?

GordonBGood said:

Correction on "most applications limited": Most consumer level
applications are limited, and we don't need more than 256 levels
per colour channel for viewing, but professional level image
editors such as Adobe Photoshop or Picture Window Pro 3.5 from
Jonathan Sachs at Digital Light and Colour (www.dl-c.com) process
16 bits per channel so that one can do as discussed without
developing visible colour banding in the images.

Regards, GordonBGood

Click to expand...

--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm

Stitching shots is a useful approach to the megapixel problem. For a lot of my shots, 6 MP (10D) is overkill and poses a bit of a processing and handling load. On the other hand, I sometimes take multiple shots and stitch to get larger than 6 MP images. It is a useful compromise despite the learning curve.

E R A 2 0 0 0 said:

--I agree with you 100%.
I think I would be more than happy with a 12 megapixel SLR camera.
Even now, my 6 megapixels, are enough for most of my needs.
....About those nuclear vacuum cleaners..........let me now when
they are ready,
I certainly need one!
E R A
Light is everything : )
http://www.pbase.com/image/3093370

Click to expand...

--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm