Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: What about 36MP DSLRs?  (Read 35654 times)

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #120 on: December 29, 2011, 05:37:12 PM »

Hi,

It does actually not. Shrinking the pixel will reduce FWC (Full Well Capacity) but we are getting more pixels. The number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same and highlight rendition will therefore not be affected. Readout noise is not effected by pixel size, so having large pixels has an advantage for rendition of the darks, but highlights are not affected.

Best regards
Erik


That's one way to look at it Erik, but I have a different opinion, let me explain: 1. The photons reaching the sensor will be the same, but the absorb of them will not be the same because you shrink the entrance of each pixel by a good amount, especially for those pixels that receive light in an angle, then you have the boundaries between the pixels to the equation and of course the circular area that fits in each square pixel shrinks. 2. The lesser amount of photons that enter the pixel makes the linearization of highlights much more difficult and less accurate, because its much more difficult and less accurate to group them and redirect the transistors of the pixel as the photons come, if you have a larger quantity of photons, accuracy improves a lot because the small mistakes that will inevitably exist, refer to much larger quantities and thus are not so obvious in the data. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #121 on: December 30, 2011, 04:07:40 AM »

That's one way to look at it Erik, but I have a different opinion, let me explain: 1. The photons reaching the sensor will be the same, but the absorb of them will not be the same because you shrink the entrance of each pixel by a good amount, especially for those pixels that receive light in an angle, then you have the boundaries between the pixels to the equation and of course the circular area that fits in each square pixel shrinks. 2. The lesser amount of photons that enter the pixel makes the linearization of highlights much more difficult and less accurate, because its much more difficult and less accurate to group them and redirect the transistors of the pixel as the photons come, if you have a larger quantity of photons, accuracy improves a lot because the small mistakes that will inevitably exist, refer to much larger quantities and thus are not so obvious in the data. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I should have added to the second of the above that the manipulation of the highlights, doesn't occur only when the pixel is fully saturated but to different extends, depending on the number of photons that have entered it during the exposure, from the point that the manufacturer has chosen to apply negative amplification and up to saturation the in between quantities of photons are manipulated with different negative amplification, this is where accuracy is involved and it affects the quality of the highlights (the less the errors, the better the quality), have you noticed for example how much better the quality of the highlights is on a D700 than a D7000, although the later has a much better processor? Thus, its best to advance resolution more in the future and concentrate to address the rest of the problems first. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #122 on: December 30, 2011, 02:35:16 PM »

I should have added to the second of the above that the manipulation of the highlights, doesn't occur only when the pixel is fully saturated but to different extends, depending on the number of photons that have entered it during the exposure, from the point that the manufacturer has chosen to apply negative amplification and up to saturation the in between quantities of photons are manipulated with different negative amplification, this is where accuracy is involved and it affects the quality of the highlights (the less the errors, the better the quality)

Sorry, bud .... but there ain't a real digital camera that works like that.  Can you show evidence or cite a source to substantiate that claim?

Also, it would make no sense given the fact you have already admitted that the data in a RAW digital camera file is "linear".  Can you explain why it would be necessary to jump through all of these hoops only to have a linear response captured at the end?

Please show us the evidence that supports this claim ... it should be simple for someone so knowledgeable and intellectually facile as yourself ... this is important and critical as the other posts on this thread that you believe support your position, in fact, do not.

Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #123 on: December 30, 2011, 02:43:41 PM »

Sorry, bud .... but there ain't a real digital camera that works like that.  Can you show evidence or cite a source to substantiate that claim?

Also, it would make no sense given the fact you have already admitted that the data in a RAW digital camera file is "linear".  Can you explain why it would be necessary to jump through all of these hoops only to have a linear response captured at the end?

Please show us the evidence that supports this claim ... it should be simple for someone so knowledgeable and intellectually facile as yourself ... this is important and critical as the other posts on this thread that you believe support your position, in fact, do not.


4TH time. Refer to no:113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #124 on: December 30, 2011, 02:45:45 PM »

4TH time. Refer to no:113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

We can then only assume that you have invented this story to amuse us and are not capable of defending the position with evidence or logical reasoning.

Frankly, we all knew that days ago ... but this has been fun.

Thanks for playing!
Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #125 on: December 30, 2011, 02:47:47 PM »

We can then only assume that you have invented this story to amuse us and are not capable of defending the position with evidence or logical reasoning.

Frankly, we all knew that days ago ... but this has been fun.

Thanks for playing!
5TH time! Refer to no 113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #126 on: December 30, 2011, 03:05:33 PM »

5TH time! Refer to no 113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Sorry, bud ... you don't make the rules.

I'll "quote you" as often as I like ... and there ain't nothing you can do about it ... except stop making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.
Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #127 on: December 30, 2011, 04:16:44 PM »

Sorry, bud ... you don't make the rules.

I'll "quote you" as often as I like ... and there ain't nothing you can do about it ... except stop making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.

When GOD was raining brains..., some people where holding an umbrella! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2011, 04:17:28 PM »

I should have added to the second of the above that the manipulation of the highlights, doesn't occur only when the pixel is fully saturated but to different extends, depending on the number of photons that have entered it during the exposure, from the point that the manufacturer has chosen to apply negative amplification and up to saturation the in between quantities of photons are manipulated with different negative amplification, this is where accuracy is involved and it affects the quality of the highlights (the less the errors, the better the quality), have you noticed for example how much better the quality of the highlights is on a D700 than a D7000, although the later has a much better processor? Thus, its best to advance resolution more in the future and concentrate to address the rest of the problems first. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Honestly, I can't read anything you've written in this thread.  This one (quoted above) is pretty much one long run-on sentence with no grammatical coherence.  It isn't your knowledge of English that's the problem, but the way you try to package up your ideas.  

Are you suggesting that there are circuits for compressing highlights during exposure through negative feedback?  And is this evidence of non-linearity in the sensor response?  I guess I'd want a further source.

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2011, 04:29:11 PM »

When GOD was raining brains..., some people where holding an umbrella! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr

I don't see why you need to resort to ad hominem attacks ... I'm also not clear on the cosmological origins of this notion ... God rained brains?  In what tradition does one find this myth?   Sounds interesting.

If you are right, the easiest thing for you to do would be prove it.

Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #131 on: December 30, 2011, 04:41:56 PM »

Back to the topic ... My dream kit for landscape would be:

- D800 with 36MP
- 16-35mm VR
- 50mm AFS
- 70-200mm VRII

I have the older version of all four items and would love to upgrade the whole kit.
........  ;) www.fotometria.gr
Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #132 on: December 30, 2011, 04:51:41 PM »

Apparently you need to tell him your name & show him some photos. Or something.
No... I've seen his photography... and his name (twice.. he has more than one). Did you see mine? I'd like a comment... promise you..., no bad feelings, ..it's your neck! You may say whatever you want, I wan't reply... I promise! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #133 on: December 30, 2011, 04:52:35 PM »

Not so fast, Theo - if, in fact, that is your real name ...

It was YOU who changed the subject BACK to your controversial claims in your response to Erik.

Rather than throw insults and try and change the subject .... Why don't you simply respond with facts, evidence and logical reasoning?



Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #134 on: December 30, 2011, 04:54:45 PM »

No... I've seen his photography... and his name (twice.. he has more than one).

There's just one "me".
Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #135 on: December 30, 2011, 05:00:25 PM »

Honestly, I can't read anything you've written in this thread.  This one (quoted above) is pretty much one long run-on sentence with no grammatical coherence.  It isn't your knowledge of English that's the problem, but the way you try to package up your ideas.  

Are you suggesting that there are circuits for compressing highlights during exposure through negative feedback?  And is this evidence of non-linearity in the sensor response?  I guess I'd want a further source.
I know its difficult..., its twenty five years I finished my degree and at those days I used to think in English, ...now I have to think in my original language and then translate. I think you may succeed if you try a bit more..., others have..., (not without struggle!). Sorry for the inconvenience! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #136 on: December 30, 2011, 06:17:03 PM »

Not so fast, Theo - if, in fact, that is your real name ...

It was YOU who changed the subject BACK to your controversial claims in your response to Erik.

Rather than throw insults and try and change the subject .... Why don't you simply respond with facts, evidence and logical reasoning?




It can go even faster if you wish.. The name is not Theo... it's THEODOROS! "Logical reasoning?"... to a person that didn't even notice the weather when it was raining brains? You have been submitted all the evidence that you want from other people and you was politely asked not to quote me back... I remind you that I HAVE NEVER STARTED A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, ...on the other hand its my choice to avoid anybody I don't like (indeed people that have declared themselves as... "accidental artists"), that keep coming to me uninvited although they have been politely asked not to... I am sorry you are not going to have your 36mpx D800 or whatever the D700 replacement name will be (not for a long time anyway in this market segment), but I am sure you will have a 36mpx sensor, in a segment much higher than the one you want, I am sure it will improve  ::) ...your photography  :'( (?) Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #137 on: December 30, 2011, 07:04:36 PM »

You have been submitted all the evidence that you want from other people

That is simply not the case.

Nobody - not you nor anyone else - has submitted evidence to support your claims.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9872
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #138 on: December 30, 2011, 10:05:38 PM »

That is simply not the case.

Nobody - not you nor anyone else - has submitted evidence to support your claims.

I'd have to agree with that.

Our Greek friend has still not replied to the following question: how do you explain that the data inside the raw files is linear relative to the illumination reaching the sensor?

His esoteric theories about amplification etc... could possibly be true. BUT, if they were true, they would translate into non linearity in the data stored in the raw file relative to incoming illumination.

In reality, these non linearities are simply not there.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 03:24:06 AM by BernardLanguillier »
Logged
A few images online here!

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2054
Re: What about 36MP DSLRs?
« Reply #139 on: December 31, 2011, 04:54:15 AM »

...I don't talk anonymously or share a photographic discussion with non-photographers! This is because I know that many unoccupied crooks, have made web an occupation and are creating MULTIPLE PROFILES AS THEIR CLONE just to attract possible victims. Especially for (the real) you, since I know your occupation (aren't you working on a circus?), either your name is Jeremy or Theodoros or other, I suggest you KEEP the CLONE MASK, remove the CLOWN MASK and start again with a new CLONE NAME. Its a trusted method AMONG CROOKS....
When GOD was raining brains..., some people where holding an umbrella! Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
I have asked the moderator to delete the most childish personal attacks from fotometria. Calling people crooks and implying that God did not equip them with brains is not how grown-up people should discuss photography in my view. Calling fellow lula members "non-photographers" does not help the discussion.

The question shouldn't be on what the sensor does but whether some pixels are directed to subtract some of the photons that hit them or some others are directed to amplify the light received (with noise of course).
If you don't want to tell us what you are claiming, can you please stop claiming that digital raw files have s-curves, shoulders, or similar things?
Can I please know your real name and occupation? I 'd like to know who I am talking with...
I am sorry, no
Unless you do, please don't quote me back ever again. I don't talk anonymously or share photographic discussion with non-photographers. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
5TH time! Refer to no 113 above. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I will quote your misleading posts anytime I feel that is warranted. As long as you post, anyone can reply. Don't like it? Fine, stop making erroneous statements in a public forum...

and can you direct me to see some of your photography in the web? Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Sure:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=57543.0


-h
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 05:20:19 AM by hjulenissen »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up