More pixels?

Started Mar 2, 2014 | Discussions
Kuvasauna Contributing Member • Posts: 847
Why not if RAW-S option is available and no speed limits

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I'll gladly take more mp but only on two conditions:

-We get RAW-S options

-Huge amount of data does not limit the speed of operation or frames/s too much

54mp sensor would be great if there were 2 smaller RAW options.

Personally I would prefer to save RAW-S + jpeg on one card and full size RAW on another. And 99% of the time the full size file would stay unused.

Rservello
Rservello Senior Member • Posts: 1,157
Re: Why not if RAW-S option is available and no speed limits

Kuvasauna wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I'll gladly take more mp but only on two conditions:

-We get RAW-S options

-Huge amount of data does not limit the speed of operation or frames/s too much

54mp sensor would be great if there were 2 smaller RAW options.

Personally I would prefer to save RAW-S + jpeg on one card and full size RAW on another. And 99% of the time the full size file would stay unused.

I wouldn't expect a medium format from nikon anytime soon. S-RAW (which is what I'm assuming you mean) is canon proprietary and not a true raw format. So kinda pointless.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Nikon D600 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II +4 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 56,782
Re: Why not if RAW-S option is available and no speed limits
1

Rservello wrote:

Kuvasauna wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I'll gladly take more mp but only on two conditions:

-We get RAW-S options

-Huge amount of data does not limit the speed of operation or frames/s too much

54mp sensor would be great if there were 2 smaller RAW options.

Personally I would prefer to save RAW-S + jpeg on one card and full size RAW on another. And 99% of the time the full size file would stay unused.

I wouldn't expect a medium format from nikon anytime soon. S-RAW (which is what I'm assuming you mean) is canon proprietary and not a true raw format. So kinda pointless.

RAW-S is the new Nikon equivalent to SRAW, introduced in the D4s. We don't know how it works yet.

Rservello
Rservello Senior Member • Posts: 1,157
Re: Why not if RAW-S option is available and no speed limits

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

Kuvasauna wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I'll gladly take more mp but only on two conditions:

-We get RAW-S options

-Huge amount of data does not limit the speed of operation or frames/s too much

54mp sensor would be great if there were 2 smaller RAW options.

Personally I would prefer to save RAW-S + jpeg on one card and full size RAW on another. And 99% of the time the full size file would stay unused.

I wouldn't expect a medium format from nikon anytime soon. S-RAW (which is what I'm assuming you mean) is canon proprietary and not a true raw format. So kinda pointless.

RAW-S is the new Nikon equivalent to SRAW, introduced in the D4s. We don't know how it works yet.

Interesting. I would rather see the ability to more effectively use the sensor to render lower mp and get higher burst rates with the same dr.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Nikon D600 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II +4 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 56,782
Re: Why not if RAW-S option is available and no speed limits

Rservello wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

Kuvasauna wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I'll gladly take more mp but only on two conditions:

-We get RAW-S options

-Huge amount of data does not limit the speed of operation or frames/s too much

54mp sensor would be great if there were 2 smaller RAW options.

Personally I would prefer to save RAW-S + jpeg on one card and full size RAW on another. And 99% of the time the full size file would stay unused.

I wouldn't expect a medium format from nikon anytime soon. S-RAW (which is what I'm assuming you mean) is canon proprietary and not a true raw format. So kinda pointless.

RAW-S is the new Nikon equivalent to SRAW, introduced in the D4s. We don't know how it works yet.

Interesting. I would rather see the ability to more effectively use the sensor to render lower mp and get higher burst rates with the same dr.

They'd need on-chip charge binning to do that, and it gets complicated with Bayer sensors.

Rservello
Rservello Senior Member • Posts: 1,157
Re: Why not if RAW-S option is available and no speed limits

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

Kuvasauna wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I'll gladly take more mp but only on two conditions:

-We get RAW-S options

-Huge amount of data does not limit the speed of operation or frames/s too much

54mp sensor would be great if there were 2 smaller RAW options.

Personally I would prefer to save RAW-S + jpeg on one card and full size RAW on another. And 99% of the time the full size file would stay unused.

I wouldn't expect a medium format from nikon anytime soon. S-RAW (which is what I'm assuming you mean) is canon proprietary and not a true raw format. So kinda pointless.

RAW-S is the new Nikon equivalent to SRAW, introduced in the D4s. We don't know how it works yet.

Interesting. I would rather see the ability to more effectively use the sensor to render lower mp and get higher burst rates with the same dr.

They'd need on-chip charge binning to do that, and it gets complicated with Bayer sensors.

Well, what else is there to innovate anymore?

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Nikon D600 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II +4 more
Josh152 Senior Member • Posts: 2,018
Re: Why not if RAW-S option is available and no speed limits

Rservello wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

Kuvasauna wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I'll gladly take more mp but only on two conditions:

-We get RAW-S options

-Huge amount of data does not limit the speed of operation or frames/s too much

54mp sensor would be great if there were 2 smaller RAW options.

Personally I would prefer to save RAW-S + jpeg on one card and full size RAW on another. And 99% of the time the full size file would stay unused.

I wouldn't expect a medium format from nikon anytime soon. S-RAW (which is what I'm assuming you mean) is canon proprietary and not a true raw format. So kinda pointless.

RAW-S is the new Nikon equivalent to SRAW, introduced in the D4s. We don't know how it works yet.

Interesting. I would rather see the ability to more effectively use the sensor to render lower mp and get higher burst rates with the same dr.

They'd need on-chip charge binning to do that, and it gets complicated with Bayer sensors.

Well, what else is there to innovate anymore?

True and with the MP of sensors ever increasing eventually it may be worth the effort to over come the complications. I mean if we start seeing 100 mp or more FF sensors having a way of shooting a lower res true raw file without a crop factor or lowering IQ with compression will start to be a real concern IMO.

falconeyes
falconeyes Senior Member • Posts: 1,455
3,000,000,000,000
5

or about three trillion, that's about the max. number photons hitting a full frame sensor before it clips at iso 100.

Therefore, ten trillion would make for a nice pixel count, each pixel being either 0 or 1, the true binary sensor.

Any pixel count smaller than that: a compromise

-- hide signature --

Falk Lumo

 falconeyes's gear list:falconeyes's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D800E Nikon D500 Pentax *ist DS 808
wasserball Veteran Member • Posts: 4,082
No.
1

99.9999999 of the people don't know what to do with 6mp.  The American ideal lives on.  More is better.

 wasserball's gear list:wasserball's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon D3S Nikon D600 Rokinon 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 AF 1.4x +4 more
altair8800 Senior Member • Posts: 1,878
Re: 3,000,000,000,000

falconeyes wrote:

or about three trillion, that's about the max. number photons hitting a full frame sensor before it clips at iso 100.

Therefore, ten trillion would make for a nice pixel count, each pixel being either 0 or 1, the true binary sensor.

Any pixel count smaller than that: a compromise

I like that resolution. Great for cropping, but may be a bit short on dynamic range.

OP golf1982 Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: No.
2

wasserball wrote:

99.9999999 of the people don't know what to do with 6mp.

Eat them?

The American ideal lives on. More is better.

sometimes more is better

wasserball Veteran Member • Posts: 4,082
Re: No.
2

understand lighting and hold the camera still when you release the shutter and you will do OK.  And, sometimes is a meaningless word that is use to fill in uncertainties.

 wasserball's gear list:wasserball's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon D3S Nikon D600 Rokinon 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 AF 1.4x +4 more
altair8800 Senior Member • Posts: 1,878
Yes
1

wasserball wrote:

understand lighting and hold the camera still when you release the shutter and you will do OK.

You must have an amazing gallery of birds in flight!

Picturist Forum Member • Posts: 52
Re: More pixels?
4

Apparently current sensor technology can accommodate up to something like 56 mpx. I'm not sure what most enthusiast or occasional pros could practically do with so many px.

How many Billboards do you do in a year??

rubank Senior Member • Posts: 1,032
Re: More pixels?
2

My first computer was an IBM PS2 with 1MB ram and a 60MB HD running DOS 3.
What more could anyone want?

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 18,233
Re: More pixels?

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

But now we have 4K for video when most of us said we didn't even want HD. Pure and simple, HD was a revitalization plan for the TV and broadcast equipment makers.

If the camera companies decide they need revitalizing, the MP count may/will go up or we'll see new un-needed improvements designed to make us buy.

Olympus and Fuji full frame for instance. Nikon or Canon might increase pixel count.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +3 more
Photato
Photato Senior Member • Posts: 2,474
Re: More pixels?

bobn2 wrote:

Photato wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

rubank wrote:

I certainly wouldn´t mind more pixels. So far, everything has gotten better with smaller pixels.

I have been a RAW only shooter for years, since I want the best possible output, but with the D800 I have lately come to have new thoughts on in-camera JPG:s.

For smaller publications, web and social media use the in-camera medium or small JPG:s make a lot of sense; they´re actually quite good (compared to what I was used to with lesser (MP) cameras).
These files are small enough to send via WiFi or mail.

My guess is, that for ordinary newpaper use there is little use for 36 or more MP RAW files and that the smaller JPG:s are good enough (thanks to the high amount of data they´re rendered from).

I think there is a lot in that. People tend to worry too much about the number of pixels on the sensor - oversampling is a very reasonable strategy, and there is no reason that you have to store or transmit 36MP just because your camera's sensor has that many.

You are completely ignoring the trade off made with read out issues a when you have so many pixels.

Yes, because that's a different issue.

No is not, read out is an integral part of a sensor, without it there is no image.

One of them is noise that increase with sensor clock speed and the other is Video because you cant read all the pixels of a sensor at the speeds required by video.

There are engineering solutions to both those problems.

Oh yeah? Like what?

Not in the real world of commercially available products.

Because of that problem DSLRs that make video suffer from moire issues, and jelly artifacts. Readout is not fast enough for all the pixels on the sensor.

Professional Cameras that do video use only the necessary amount of pixels, not more for the sake of it.

There is a reason combustion engines have a limited number of cylinders, humans reach a certain height, lifetime limits, legs numbers, etc, etc

It is called optimum, balanced, efficient design.

With sensors is not different, so there is a sweet spot when it comes to pixel count.

 Photato's gear list:Photato's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Canon EOS M Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +9 more
altair8800 Senior Member • Posts: 1,878
Re: More pixels?

Picturist wrote:

Apparently current sensor technology can accommodate up to something like 56 mpx. I'm not sure what most enthusiast or occasional pros could practically do with so many px.

How many Billboards do you do in a year??

It says "no EXIF data" so could be only 36Mp. We need better resolution for such great art! That may have been cropped from a much larger scene, so probably short on Mp. The Sony A77 update is rumored to be 32Mp, which would be over 80Mp FF.

altair8800 Senior Member • Posts: 1,878
Re: More pixels?

rubank wrote:

My first computer was an IBM PS2 with 1MB ram and a 60MB HD running DOS 3.
What more could anyone want?

A very advanced system. My first computer was an Altair 8800 with 1KB ram (not MB) with no hard drive and running assembly language with switches for data input and LED display. I later got it to run BASIC with an actual keyboard input, TV display and 4KB ram. I still have it and fire it up occasionally. Apple did not have anything for a year or two after that. IBM was still only large mainframes. Now I have a modest 8GB ram on the Mac Pro and want many more pixels on my cameras!

Rservello
Rservello Senior Member • Posts: 1,157
Re: More pixels?
2

rubank wrote:

My first computer was an IBM PS2 with 1MB ram and a 60MB HD running DOS 3.
What more could anyone want?

A computer with limitless functions and possibilities can not be compared to a camera. Modern DSLRs capture images as good as scanning film. How can they really improve much further?

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Nikon D600 Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads