Interesting comments about Ctein's post. I took two things from his article that intrigued me as technology develops.
first I'm not an engineer, but regarding the idea that a sensel is currently inefficient, I'm not sure how inefficient they are, but certainly they have some inefficiency in them. If you filter out all visible light other than a narrow spectrum, it seems inefficient. If there were a viable panchromatic sensor, where the sensel could not only measure the amount of light but the frequency, seems it would be a game changer. No bayer filter, no artifacts from demoisacing, and no filtering of any photon that hits the sensor. Seems pretty efficient compared to what we have. As to whether that's commercially viable in the near future ... don't ask me. He seems to think so, but maybe near future to him is a couple of decades.
The one that interested me more and which I've heard is being worked on is the idea of a sensor that can reset any individual sensel when it reaches max charge, and then continue to count. Seems to me this would be a dramatic increase in dynamic range ... blown pixels wouldn't exist.
However, the main reason I linked it wasn't his article but my rather lengthy response to his article which is directed at the original topic of why 80mp. I realize now I should have just restated here rather than link it so here it is. (for context, I was mainly responding to an earlier comment, not Ctein's article, that was trying to compare camera technology to computer technology, using the analogy to point out that current computer technology has surpassed the needs of 99% of the users out there so there isn't much reason to continue to upgrade - and that camera/sensor technology has evolved in a similar path.)
"Regarding the idea of most people not needing it (I assume we are discussing buyers of photo gear which means they are after more than their very capable smart phone can deliver), I have a slightly different perspective. To me it’s about most captures not needing it—but then some do. As one who produces prints for photographers, at least 20–30 large prints or canvas wraps a month leave my store which suffer from serious quality issues because someone wants a bigger print than the detail in the image can pleasantly render. Many small prints also suffer because they have been cropped and not enough data is left to render the image at the desired size.
"So to me it's not 'if' we need need, it, but 'when' we need it. When I'm out shooting, most of the things I shoot could have been easy handled by a less capable device, but then a few times a year I get an image that looks best printed large (which happens to be what 'floats my boat' so to speak). I've had discussions with many customers who say they are completely happy with their current gear, because they never print larger than 13x19, then they show up and want a 40x60. We never know when we are going to capture that special image or need to do some serious cropping. Ironically this means our gear is good enough for most of what we shoot, but perhaps isn’t good enough for our best work."
"As far as the computer analogy, I agree for most needs were met by computers a few generations ago. But I’m not sure we are using less capable computing devices, it's more about a new class of device supplying what we need in a more convenient form factor. A current iPad Pro has more computing and graphics power than most computers of just a few years ago, so the device is still continuing to get more powerful, but the form factor has changed the game. To compare that to cameras, perhaps the 99% number regarding photography works if you consider everyone who takes pictures (which is most of the human population).
"But just as computers can be broken down based on needs, there are niche markets of people who need more computing power. And fortunately there are enough photographers who want more than a cell phone can deliver so we have a niche market size large enough to appeal to several companies to supply those needs. Once we narrow our field to this group I don’t think the 99% number is accurate (again because I think at that point we are talking about captures which need it, not people).
"I don't know whether a game changing new form factor is in store for photographers (wouldn't surprise me) but as the equipment becomes more capable through progression as outlined by Ctein, many who don't think they need it will find on occasion they wish they had it. The good news is if you don’t want or can’t afford to be on the bleeding edge in gear and don’t rush out and buy the latest and greatest, at least there are enough photographers who do to keep driving the technology forward. This means eventually almost everyone will find occasion to be using better gear than they have today, and will find on some occasions, some captures benefit."
