32 MP 4/3" sensor - why not?

[Martin Datzinger]

Well, on my part, that's all wild speculation. You assumtions may be very correct. And if there is only 1 stop sensitivity increase vs. filtered pixels, so be it.

Me thinks: W pixels more sensitive -> better luma shadow noise. RGB pixels less sensitive -> more DR and better avoiding hue shifts in highlight rollout (at the expense of the same amount worse shadow colour reproduction). Maybe the W pixels can be made twice the size of each R/G/B pixel, don't know, but Super CCD taugt us pixels don't need to be square.

However, I'd be more interested in the non-bayer and further pixel binned video output modes anyway!

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net

 

[Rriley]

surely the first objective would be bayerless
as Kyle points out, the SD14 does pretty well with 4+Mp

so if you are going to attack the Mp count as well, you might need less than you think to make a healthy contribution and yet still have some capacity left to combat noise to a moderately high iso, diffraction and DR.

I see some comparisons are made to C8080 which i never had the pleasure of owning, i have another 2/3" sensor camera though the LC1. It seemed to me a characteristic of these sensors was a weak AA filter. IQ at 100iso was wonderful

I think we will see a return to the 2/3" sensor quite shortly, it has a strong video presence and has recently reappeared in the new Fuji S100fs with 11Mp

this from the LC1, weak AA filter ?



--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

 

[esco]

whatever the publication wants =P

usually magazine spreads, sometimes posters. Some heavy cropping in many occasions since I do motorsports photography
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

 

[Frank Dernie]

Most of the motorsport photographers I know (I am in the motorsport business) shoot cropped sensor cameras in jpeg. I only know a couple who go for the ultimate quality and they currently use EOS1Ds mk2 cameras, one of these guys, Darren Heath, only stopped using Velvia exclusively last season.

I do, very occasionally, see a medium format photographer with a Hasselblad or Rollei but they are usually doing pitlane or grid portraits. There are people who show up with a Leica rangefinder too but again portraits in the pits.

I would still rather have more dynamic range than more pixels for everything I do.
Frank

 

[Frank Dernie]

Personally I would take 1 stop more dynamic range and no more pixels! I am far more likely to be working to maximise the information I get between white and black than lacking resolution due to the number of pixels, many of my E3 images are clipped in highlight and shadow, even in RAW.
Frank

 

[Franka T.L.]

Well .............. no one complains about the quality of the 8080 within its limitations. ................ but then its the limitation that people are all trying to overcome though.

And figure what would be the yield rate for such a sensor.

--

• Franka -

 

[DriftForge]

Well .............. no one complains about the quality of the 8080
within its limitations. ................ but then its the limitation
that people are all trying to overcome though.

And figure what would be the yield rate for such a sensor.

No different from any other 4/3" sensor? Possibly a slight variation ( who knows which way ) if it is produced on a different process. My understanding is that yield rate is affected primarily by the quality (read purity) of the silicon and the size of the chip - not by the complexity of the circuitry inscribed upon it.

 

[jscott]

We'll get to 32MP eventually

In the document "3-4TypeImageSensors.pdf"

http://www.systechno.com/pdfs/3-4TypeImageSensors.pdf

Kodak had this to say regarding future pixel counts for 4/3-type sensors "It is a high resolution format from the first generation on, with significant “head room” for going to such higher pixel counts and well beyond the practical limitations of smaller format sensors. Kodak’s first 4/3-type image sensor, the KAF-5101CE, has 5-million 6.8 μm x 6.8 μm pixels and renders exceptional detail while maintaining high image quality; and 8 million, 10 million or even 12 million pixels are not unrealistic in the years to come for the 4/3-type format (see Fig. 6)."



-- snip --

Regards,
Scott

--
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free

• Tom Petty

 

[Jay Turberville]

I believe if you look around, that you can find that document with the pixel count modified upward from 12Mp. That modification was made many years ago as I recall.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[esco]

Don't get me wrong most of the work I do can be pulled off with any dslr and yes as i've mentioned the recent raw is a relic of the past thread, I usually shoot jpeg for file transfer reasons though the publication usually always wants raw if possible.

I mentioned digital mf because it's usually the format that dslr technology is chasing, we should be welcoming more resolution and overall iq is what I was trying to say in response to those that are always settling for what they believe is good enough. Some of those people are the same users that held onto thier e1 for a long time without checking out the other higher resolution evolts that were released shortly after; saying the e1 was good enough then they bought an e3 and have long eaten their words =D
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

 

[Frank Dernie]

Hi,

It still seems daft to me to keep trying to increase the number of pixels to a level which is way beyond the vast majority of publication or printing requirements and higher than most lenses can achieve anyway even if the camera was mounted on a very rigid tripod.

There are more important shortcomings of digital capture, particularly at 4/3 size sensor, than resolution.

We have had the mega-pixel race since the dawn of digital photography, when the resolution was like a mosaic. It is still going on long after this issue was to all intents and purposes resolved.
Low noise at high iso has started to get much discussed more recently.

For all the photography I do improved dynamic range of the sensor would improve far more pictures than either more resolution or less noise.
Frank

 

[Rriley]

i think the object would be to add a camera with this capability
that would still leave people the choice for lower Mp res cameras
and the different field of influences they purvey

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

 

[Art_P]

Why increase the receptors on the sensor w/o increasing the output image size you ask?
Well, why not:
average several pixels to reduce noise at higher ISO?
or
tune some for shadows and some for highlights for a single pass high DR image?
Could both be done on the same camera?
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/

 

[Frank Dernie]

I would agree with that. Those people who frequently make 5 foot wide prints could go for the 32 megapixel sensor and people who print 16 inch wide pictures with large tonal range could choose the other.

I wonder which would actually sell best

About 30 years ago I did some resolution tests and the only way to do justice to the best lenses and films was a solid heavy tripod! As soon as you hand hold even with quite high shutter speeds (the 1 over focal length rule of thumb is miles out for critical resolution) you get less than the potential resolution available from the best lenses. A minute amount of mis-focus is a catastrophe for resolution too.

I'd be prepared to bet that 90% of digital pictures' resolution is more limited by small amounts of movement or mis-focus than lack of pixels.

Frank

i think the object would be to add a camera with this capability
that would still leave people the choice for lower Mp res cameras
and the different field of influences they purvey

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous