Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: BJL on January 03, 2005, 06:40:15 pm
-
I think someday, a radical change will come about the way we capture images, tiffs will be a thing of the past.... Just for fun I'll give it a name "Fractal Unified Juxtapose Image" or FUJI for short.
No need to fantasize; replace fractals by the equally trendy mathematical concept of wavelets and you could be talking about JPEG2000. It might be five years past the advertised arrival date, but it does seem to offer a good step forward from JPEG and TIFF.
Nothing to do with pixel counts though. My poll vote was rejected becasue I read the results before voting, so I will say it here:
Somewhere between 12MP and 20MP, since 4000x5000 will certainly cover my eye's resolution needs under the closest scrutiny I have ever given to even huge prints from large format, and 3000x4000 is probably enough for that.
-
ok :^)
48Mp of Foveon type pixels will do as well (8000x6000), on a 4x3" sensor with big pixels. i can get 4x5 quality in a 30x40 with a betterlight, so i guess i'd settle for that as well
jim
-
If the chip had some means of detecting a "filled" sensor photosite, dumping the charge, and incrementing a counter associated with that pixel, dynamic range could be increased almost arbitrarily. Each bit of the counter would add 1 stop of usable dynamic range. In addition, when the most significant bit of any counter flipped from 0 to 1, a signal could be generated to terminate the exposure to brevent clipping.
Exactly.
And - it seems to me that 'reading' the charge of an individual photosite would require using some of that charge. Unless one had some sort of a flux meter. (Do I have the right device?)
If you're doing a 'real time' reading then why not just send that charge on to an accumulator? That would drain power from the p-site. The p-site would never fill, never 'blow out'.
-
I'd love a 36MP sensor - a 6000x6000 square sensor at 36x36mm. The projected image onto the sensor could not contain too much light falloff in the corners, but if possible... The format could be chosen from 1:1, 4:5, 3:4, 2:3, 1:2, 1:3 and 16:9. Horizontal or vertical at the push of a button. Prints could be made to 20" in long dimensions without interpolation, huge with interpolation.
While I'm dreaming, the anaolg gain (or ISO equivalent) of each pixel could be independantly adjusted to keep the image within the contrast range of the sensor i.e. while setting the exposure to keep detail in the highlights, the camera increases the ISO of the pixels recording the shadows to keep detail in the entire image.
Naturally it has an anti-static coating with ultrasonic dust removal a la Olympus, and anti-shake courtesy of Konica-Minolta. Inbuilt DxO Optic software automatically corrects for distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, blur, etc.
Keep dreaming! :p
-
I already have all the "pixels" I need to replace 35mm color film. What I would like is more precise autofocus, larger buffers, better color accuracy, zero metamerism, one button push manual white balance, zero moire, and no chromatic aberrations. In general, most of these wishes are achievable and will probably happen sooner if we get off the "megapixel madness" train and look for improvements in other areas. As long as there is market pressure for more pixels, we will see fewer improvements elsewhere. Actually, in the consumer venue we are beginning to see progress in this direction with the recent changes from eight to seven megapixel sensors, hybrid autofocus, lower shutter lag, etc.
In large format venues there is still no economically viable way to achieve parity in resolution with a single frame sensor capture, so until chip manufacturing processes are advanced enough to make it feasible I'll be happy with my old Kodak MF digital back.
In retrospect, some of the very best image quality I've produced have been with my Sigma SD10 (Foveon) which doesn't have a huge file size but produces exceedingly sharp and pleasing images.
Lin
-
hello,
well - with my 16 mp camera (1ds MkII) I have more
than enough - I don´t print bigger than A3+ - and for
cropping 16 MP are perfect. Just to say it like Robert
Capa - you can´t get close enough to the subject (or so)!
But - when I´m allowed to dream - I´d like to have
a Phase One with a full frame square sensor for
1:1 photography with a Hasselblad!
And - a full frame for the Linhof Technorama 617 !! :-)
best,
Andreas Suchert,
Concorde-SST
www.suchert.com
-
Well, the fact that this special camera shoots images that are in fact 3x the size of a normal 35mm frame goes a long way toward explaining your observations. No one would likely claim that any 6 or 8 Mpixel digital camera is 3x as good as 35mm film. In fact, the general claim is that 6 MP is about the same effective resolution as 35mm film but considerably "cleaner" (no grain). 8 MP is pretty much agreed to be all around superior to 35mm film. Something like a 1ds is effectively about 2x the resolution of 35mm film, but much cleaner. A D2X or 1dsMKII is substantially better than 1ds. A 35mm image that's 3 frames wide is a very special case. With my D2X I can take panorama stitching images that can go up to around 100 MPixels or more when they're all assembled together, but it's not fair to compare D2X with large format on account of this.
In any case, inspired shooting and optimal technique are more critical than the utmost in good specs for equipment. Galen Rowell took terrific photographs with 35mm film. However, David Muench and Michael Fatali (and many others) produce more impressively detailed large prints from large format film. You just can't fake resolution. You can scan for a huge amount of detail with film, but after a while you're just showing grain in very great detail. You can uprezz and sharpen digital images, but after a while you just get a clean picture that's obviously lacking enough detail. I doubt very very much that there's any 1ds, 1ds2, or D2X shooters that are very nostalgic about 35mm film.
Anyway, enjoy your phototgraphy, whatever side of the fence you're most comfortable on. The digital P&S will give you a good idea whether or not you'll want to go full on digital some time. 6 MP ought to give you pretty decent 16x20. A very successful pro commercial photographer friend of mine gets good 16x20 (depending on subject matter) from a Canon 3.4 MP P&S. Of course, his clients only see his serious Nikon cameras and his MF and 4x5 stuff!!
-
I hope I'm not being too obtuse... but the other day I was reviewing some old B & W 16 X 20 photographs that were printed from 8 X 10 negatives ... they were absolutely stunning. I love my digital but even the best of the lot is not there yet. Certainly the ease of use, etc. of todays digital is a huge plus but the overall quality is not up to the best of that "old" technology. If you have not yet seen any of those old pictures ... check out Clyde Butcher's work as he is one of the few still practicing the "old art". Maybe we are there (or better) if you consider Stephen Johnson's work with scanning backs but what if we could do that with a one shot back (ouch, my wallet is burning a hole in my pocket).
-
I think there are two myths that seem prevalent in imaging. Pixel resolution (or film format) limits maximum print size. And pixel resolution equils resolving power (either with a digital camera or scanner). Both are false.
There is no limit to the size of print that can be made regardless of the number of pixels (digital) or format (film). As long as you are viewing from the correct viewing distance (the diagonal of the print), the print will appear the same no matter what size it is. The issue is the angular resolution of the eye. If you increase the viewing distance, resolution (and depth of field) appears to increase. The opposite is true if you decrease the viewing distance. So go ahead, print those images as large or as small as you like.
While there is no method of determining the resolving power of a CCD, it is not equil to the pixel resolution. It will always be something less. The resolving power is further lowered by the optics and the aperture. While the pixel resolution is fixed by the data, the ability to resolve detail is not. The joke is all all photographer whether then use a digital camera or scan their film. You are not resolving the detail that the pixel resolution suggests. Camera and scanner manufactures are quite happy not to point this out because it would cause a huge headache if consumers wanted to know the actual resolving power of their equipment.
-
Well, I would say you are simply repeating the myth. A printed image will appear the same regarless of size if the ratio of the print size and viewing distance is kept the same. It is a simple geometric problem based on the angular resolution of the eye - which is how circles of confusion and depth of field is calculated as well. That does not mean a low resolution image will not look rough, but its appearance is the same when the ratio of size to distance remains the same.
So what?
It's not a myth that if you take a 3000x2000 pixel image and a 600x400 pixel image and print them both at 16x24 and hang them on a wall side by side, the quality difference will be extremely obvious. And it's not a myth that given the fairly standard hanging-on-the-wall-at-arm's-length home/gallery viewing condition most under which most framed prints are exhibited, prints from a 1Ds or MF back can be printed larger than those from a 6MP camera and still maintain an acceptable level of image quality per unit of print area. Yes, you can get away with a lower print PPI standard as viewing distance increases, but at any given viewing distance, a file with more pixels (all else being equal) is going to make a better-looking print than one with fewer.
I am not talking about image quality vs. pixel resolution (of course more pixels make finer images). I am saying there is no limit to the size of print that can be made from a file. A bad print at 8x10 will look exactly as bad at 30x40 given the same ratio of print size to viewing distance. (Of course, if you stick your nose up to a good print, it will look bad.) This works for film; digital follows the same principles. Sharpness is based on relative size of circles of confusion. not absolute size and is defined in relation to the angular resolution of the eye.
The tests you are refering to do not specify the resolving power of the CCD (or film). Those test show the resolving power of the system - CCD (film), lens, aperture. There are tests to determine the resolving power of film, but no standard that I am aware of has been developed for CCDs or CMOS (although the manufactures must be making some assumptions to design their lenses).
While this is technically true, in practice one can measure the resolution of the sensor if one uses a lens that has a decent MTF at spatial line frequencies higher than the pixel pitch of the sensor. In that case, the sensor (or more precisely the anti-aliasing filter over the sensor, if applicable) will be the primary bottleneck limiting the resolution of the image. As noted previously, the pixel pitch of the sensor imposes a hard limit to the amount of fine detail that can be captured in an image, and this limit can be approached, but not quite reached, due to lens imperfections and the AA filter. But if the lens is good enough, the error it introduces into the measurement process is small enough that it does not significantly compromise the usefulness of the results. How do you think film manufacturers determine the MTF curve for film?
As you pointed out, IF the lens is good enough. The tests I see on the web don't seem to worry to much about the optics nor the aperture setting - seems pretty random to me. (BTW, film manufactures don't just stick any old lens on a camera and take a snap.)
-
With how may megapixels would you be satisfied ?
Please note, this poll only turns about the number, and not the costs !
Also think about memorycards, the storage needed in the field, resolution (both lenses and sensors), postprocessing, backing-up, hard drives, print size, …
Don’t think only about the number, more megapixels mean bigger files, more storage space in the field (memorycards and psd’s), higher quality, bigger print size without resizing, need for bigger hard drives, slower postprocessing, and the purpose (4/5, A1,… prints)
Forget everething about money, the cost of the sensor, memory, hard drives, ram, software, .. Look only to the number and please, take your time to motivate your choice !!
Thank you !
-
I set mine down at 20MP.
The question after a long time becomes print size as well. Do you really plan on making a billboard print? Because if you're not, it's pointless to have 1000ppi on a 19*13 print. For me 15MP would be ideal, to have 19*13 prints at about 300ppi, true this is overkill, but it would make a great image, that would be better then 200ppi under extreme scrutiny. It would also allow for a larger 24*19 print, if I so wished. 20Mp was chose, to include a crop.
Obviously if the cost was a non-issue, I'd most likely get higher, but if the cost was another 2,000$ for 25Mp, then no chance of me getting it.
Stefan
-
Cor blimey! It's not just the number that counts but the quality. Always remember, it's system[/i] resolution that's important; the combination between lens and sensor. We're after a 'system' MTF response. The higher, the better at any given resolution.
-
The photosites do have a way of detecting nearly full pixels mid-way through the exposure, and A/D conversion is done right at each photosite, according to comments at the Pixim site. Here is my speculation about how that technology might work, based or reading the Pixim web page and some earlier comments on the research at Stanford U.
For an exposure of say 1/125, each photosite checks the electron count in each of its well after say 1/8000s. Wells that are close to full are then read, converted to a digital value right there at the photosite, and multiplied by 64 since the exposure was cut of after only 1/64th of the full time. Multiplying by 64 (or any power of 2) is easy: shift the bits six places to the left.
The same is done again after 1/4000s, with photosites read then having the value multiplied by 32 (shift five bits left).
Repeat at 1/2000, 1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/125. Digitised values are then read off the sensor all together after the exposure is finished.
Effectively, the sensor reads one stop of the luminance range at a time, from the top down. This would have another bonus: even with a fairly long total exposure time, the highlights to mid-tones are read over a shorter time, so motion blur mostly comes up down in the shadows; twice as bad for every stop darker.
If you want, you could examine an image and set the black point at a level that cuts off any excessive shadow blur. But that might rarely be needed, since the blur could be so dim as to cause few problems.
-
I'm more interested in optics than megapixels, however megapixels do come in usefull in post and for resolving detail.
Assuming optics are not the problem they are today...
-Landscape/portrait/still images: anything around 25-30MP in a full-frame medium-format sensor.
-General-use SLR: 10MP
- Candids/street photography: I'd be happy with a full-frame 24x36mm sensor made to be very capable in low-light photography (ISO 6400 please). What MP rating? 4MP would be just dandy. All wrapped in a RF of course.
And I'm going to continue my push for modular design so that I can interchange between color, true BW, and IR-only sensors.
-
We'll probably live to see that being affordable. 10 years ago the idea of the 1Ds was pretty radical and outrageous.
-
I agree with those who point out that lenses must be able to produce adequate resolution to take advantage of greater sensor resolution. The other issue is crafstmanship: you really have to do everything else right to even get the most out of a great lens. I use a 1Ds, and find that often it is my unwillingness to use mirror lockup, for example, that is the real limiting factor in image sharpness, and a 16 MP sensor would then produce no better an image anyway! I don't think many people, pros included, really do all they can to use the resolution they currently have, even as they dream about more! But for those who do, 25 megapixels would be a minimum if they don't need to crop, and love to work with big display prints, I would suppose.
-
Hey didger, I'm kind of new to this so take it for what it's worth . He used a hasselblad Xpan camera (first time I've heard of it) which uses 35mm transparency film, in this case fuji velvia or maybe it was Provia, I'm going back to see it again, in which the camera exposes about 3 frames worth or whatever a 6x7 format is, so you get long narrrow transparencies. I had a chance to talk to the photographer and he said he had worked with or under Graham Nash? from Crosby Steels and Nash?(the band). He said he used the best scanner, best available paper and inks. He also said he exposed the film using the film 'reciprocity exposure' method? Anyhow color was magnificent, sharpness and detail was outstanding,and the photographer has a great eye. The showing is in Toronto Canada, if anyone with more experience than me would like to check it out. Like I said it blew me away and if someone 'who knows better' can give a better analysis it would be much appreciated because personally 'I' have never seen pictures this vibrant or sharp. I have dabbled in photography for about 15 yrs, belonged to a camera club and won some 'minor' awards. I use a T90, OM4T and various quality lenses. When I shoot 'for real' I always use transparency films. I would love to sell all my gear and go digital, and almost did, but after veiwing these photo's I've jumped back to the other side of the fence for now . I have just bought a point & shoot, 6mp, a few days ago and have been amazed at the 'convenience' it provides. My first 11x14 or 16x20 may push me back over the fence.
Don
-
I hope I'm not being too obtuse... but the other day I was reviewing some old B & W 16 X 20 photographs that were printed from 8 X 10 negatives ... they were absolutely stunning. I love my digital but even the best of the lot is not there yet.
Well, it's not that easy to carry an 8 x 10 into the field, set it up, and shoot it.
So how about carrying a 1Ds MkII instead, setting it up vertically and taking the scenes in two frames?
Then you get a 4992 pixel by 6000+ pixel file once stitched. (You loose a bit of the 3328 x 2 sides when overlapping for alignment.)
That will allow you to print a 16" x 20" at 300 PPI. And since most of us (apparently) can't resolve much above 250 PPI then you've met your LF film needs digitally.
(Or you could use a more affordable digital and shoot more frames and do a bit more stitching. Probably a lot less work than shooting huge hunks of film.)
(Oops, saw the B&W after writing the above. Gonna need to shoot more fames to equal fine grain B&W, but the technique still holds. Or does that hold if one is only making contact prints? Maybe I was right anyway....)
-
Not silly, actually. I shoot to print, which is the most demanding application in terms of pixels. The largest print I would ever want is 20x24.
Fair enough! It's good to know there are some people who know exactly what they want and don't want :D . However, if you wanted a 20x24 print from just a part of an image, the part that was compositionally interesting, then greater than 39MP might have been useful.
The sensible answer to the question, 'how many pixels do you want?', is:- "Sufficient to extract the full potential of any lens I might use with the camera."
-
I am not talking about image quality vs. pixel resolution (of course more pixels make finer images). I am saying there is no limit to the size of print that can be made from a file. A bad print at 8x10 will look exactly as bad at 30x40 given the same ratio of print size to viewing distance. (Of course, if you stick your nose up to a good print, it will look bad.)
Says who? So what?
Of course you can print any file any size you want, but when selling those prints to the general public, you have to take into account typical home viewing conditions, and that does impose a limit to the maximum size one can print a file and still maintain a reputation for good print quality. Dismissing that practical reality as a "myth" is completely foolish and ignorant.
BTW, film manufactures don't just stick any old lens on a camera and take a snap.
Nor does Phil Askey of DPReview. Read the fine print and you'll notices he uses primes with a good reputation for sharpness so that the limiting factor is primarily the camera sensor/AA filter, not the lens. So do other reputable testers.
-
you don't have anything else to do?
I like to have 1billion,,What about you?
BlasR
-
problem is my choice isn't there. my goal is the largest print i do.. 30x40" @ 240 dpi.. which is about 70Mp
(4x5 replacement). whatever the camera.. i'd still like to be able to attache it to the back of my 4x5 field camera
"Ditto."
-
I am OK with 5mp as I don't print large prints. What I am more interested in is dynamic range. Everyone is focused on pixel count - what about bit depth? I am waiting for the sensor that can match the eye brain combination of about 15 F stops.
-
Interesting link.
If you are doing individual photo site processing then you could measure the time it takes to 'fill' an individual site and/or count the number of times a site fills during the exposure.
Shutter speed could be set for the darkest area of the frame (as long as you freeze subject motion) and even the brightest portion of the frame would not be blown out.
-
As any reader of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy will know the answer to the question is 42.
-
For something that has to reasonably easy to backback, medium format digital would be the size and weight limit and something on the order of 30+ Mpixels would be the reasonable maximum before pushing the resolution limits of available lenses too hard.
So, though I'd like around 50 Mpixels and lenses to match that to rival 4x5 film quality, 30+ is probably the practical limit that would do me any good. Even that would only be tempting (given the huge cost) if the sensor had the 12 stop dynamic range of a 22MP p25 back. It's a race against time. Will I live long enough in a state of good health and fitness to see a 30+ MP MF digital system I can afford? I would bet yes. I figure 5 years max, maybe as little as 2.
-
I've seen prints like you describe done from 4x5 or 8x10 film scans, but are you suggesting results like this from 35mm film? Galen Rowell is perhaps generally considered to have squeezed the absolute best possible quality out of 35mm film scans, but his prints don't look quite so super great in a room that also has David Muench prints from 4x5.
Having shot and scanned a LOT of 35mm slides in my day, and having seen a lot of prints from various formats, I'd say that 35mm slide scans rivalling 20+ MPixel MF backs is just flat out impossible. You can scan at any detail you want, but for 35mm film beyond 8 Mpixels (absolute max) you're just scanning grain.
-
Given that the move to affordable medium quality audio equipment started 40+ years ago we might not be surprised that its now somewhat of a mature market.
And computers are, IMO, getting to the same point after about 20 years of development. Outside of a few uses such as gaming and editing large photo files the non-professional user has no huge reason for buying bigger and better. Most people that I know only buy a bigger/better because their old machine is worn out and the entry level offerings are bigger/better than the machine that they're replacing.
Furthermore I think we're rapidly reaching that point with digital cameras. Lots of people have realized that they have no real use for anything more than 5-8 megs. The folks still wanting more resolution are generally the large print makers. And that's a very small portion of the market.
The film market was quite happy with 35 mm film for most uses. We've now got sub-$1kUS dSLRs that give that resolution. I suspect that most folks will tend to settle into the 8-12 meg zone.
But because more pixels can be derived from a half-frame sensor I suspect we'll see some medium priced high rez cameras for larger printing.
-
Try this simple test ... take your best, sharpest lens on your highest resolution camera, put on an appropriate lens shade and carefully adjust the lighting .. and take a picture. Now without changing anything, remove the lens shade and shine a light from the side towards the camera to introduce lens flare (but not significantly alter the exposure values) and thereby lower the contrast of the picture (those of us old enough to use slide copiers had devices that did just that to adjust contrasty slides). The results are drastically different and you haven't done anything to change the "pixel resolution". The point I am trying to make is that a survey about how many pixels people want is very interesting and useful (especially to camera company marketing departments) but we also need to explore what are the characteristics that make an image made with one camera more pleasing and different than another when they have the same pixel count ... and how much do people recognize that difference and want that incorporated in the next generation of cameras. One of the reasons scanning backs make such incredible images is that they measure each of the RGB colors AT EACH PIXEL LOCATION and avoid the mathematical interpolation. Just compare a rendition of a chrome or glass object done with relatively similar resolution scanning back vs. our current 35 mm sensors .. they are very different for reasons that are not directly attributable to pixel count. In the future the answer may be a sensor that captures the broadest amount of raw photon information and we use the computer to "develop" the image. If such a sensor exists, information theory tells us today's "pixel count" will probably be enough.
I apologize if these ramblings seem off topic, but I find I have spent an ever increasing amount of money chasing higher and higher resolution products that in the end create great pictures but ones that lack a certain "snap" of some of my older technology gear. I wonder if others feel the same and feel this forum might be a good place to capture the issue ???
-
I think there are two myths that seem prevalent in imaging. Pixel resolution (or film format) limits maximum print size. And pixel resolution equils resolving power (either with a digital camera or scanner). Both are false.
You're off base with your characterization of the first "myth". Pixel dimensions certainly affect how large one can print given a specific viewing condition and minimum acceptable quality standard. When you redefine the viewing condition the largest acceptable print size will change, but whatever the viewing condition, a well-processed 2000x3000 pixel image file will always be able to be printed much larger than a 400x600 pixel image file and still meet the minimum acceptable quality standard for the viewing condition.
While there is no method of determining the resolving power of a CCD, it is not equil to the pixel resolution.
The first part of this statement is demonstrably false. The resolving power of a CCD or CMOS imaging device can be measured the same way resolving power is measured using film. If you doubt this, go to DPReview and read some of the camera reviews.
You are correct that pixel resolution only represents a maximum limit to possible image detail, and digital imagers and scanned film record less than the theoretical maximum. Digital comes closer to the maximum than scanned film, though.
-
There are some pretty confused arguments here :D . Of course image resolution has no practical bearing on print size. What determines the maximum print size is the size of the paper your printer can handle; and if you don't mind joining separate sheets together, then you could cover a whole field, or a mountain or the Empire State building with a print, if you wanted to.
But no matter how big or small your print is, if your camera didn't have the pixel density to capture, say a single strand of hair in a particular shot, then no matter how good your lens and no matter how big your print, you'll never see that strand of hair, from close up or from afar.
There are practical limits to the resolving power of sensors and that limit is described as the Nyquist limit which essentially means that one row of pixels is needed to record one line. In practice it's usually slightly more than one row of pixels that's required and there appears to be some variation depending on sensor design and of course the MTF response of the lens used.
As a general rule, if there are two or more contributing components to image quality, such as film and lens, or sensor and lens, the system resolution, or final result, will be somewhat worse than that of the lowest resolving component.
-
Forget everething about money, the cost of the sensor, memory, hard drives, ram, software, ..
Why? all of those factors factor into cost of ownership, and have to be considered unless you have the unique ability to pull money out of your butt on demand. I'd get a digital MF setup with a 22MP back and all the trimmings to go with it if I had infinite cash. But I don't, so I have a 1Ds.
-
I think for general purpose press and PR work that 6 to 12 mgp is more than enough, 16m would be more useful for the production of stock images with A3 file sizes.
I think someday, a radical change will come about the way we capture images, tiffs will be a thing of the past. I would imagine alternative technologies already exist but are being withheld while the world becomes accustomed to digital capture. Just for fun I'll give it a name "Fractal Unified Juxtapose Image" or FUJI for short.
-
problem is my choice isn't there. my goal is the largest print i do.. 30x40" @ 240 dpi.. which is about 70Mp
(4x5 replacement). whatever the camera.. i'd still like to be able to attache it to the back of my 4x5 field camera
-
So essentially what you guys want to do is this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4022149.stm) only with a single camera. The picture can be viewed here. (http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/delft2.htm) Don't worry it's not going to kill your bandwith. It's a 2.5 Gigapixel image. Tho, I believe most of you have probably seen it.
Tho why you'd want to do this, I can't imagine. All I could say, is have fun editing a 7.5 gigapixel image.
-
I guess I'd settle for 50MP. Leaves me a tad short but not enough to quibble over.
My fave aspect is 3/4 or 6x8cm. Mat Board comes 32 x 40. Given a 4" mat one ends up with 24 x 32 prints. 24 x 240ppi =6720. 32 x 240 = 7680. 6720 x 7680 = 51,609,600.
Did I do that right?
-
I'd be contented with whatever it would take to give me a bit better than 8x10 film at best, and with 15 stop latitude and with a network of Crays to process the files fast enough and with an ultra-perfect wall size monitor to see the full image at 100% all the time. Might as well let Santa know in plenty of time what I want. If Santa doesn't come through I'd be contented with what I've got and then when something better comes along that I can afford I'll be contented with that.
-
If the chip had some means of detecting a "filled" sensor photosite, dumping the charge, and incrementing a counter associated with that pixel, dynamic range could be increased almost arbitrarily. Each bit of the counter would add 1 stop of usable dynamic range. In addition, when the most significant bit of any counter flipped from 0 to 1, a signal could be generated to terminate the exposure to brevent clipping.
-
It's not until we see a 24MP (24MP = 6000 x 4000px) D-SLR that we actually will have a camera that is twice the resolution of a 6MP camera (6MP = 3000 x 2000px).
Consider the clarity & detail which many 6 to 8MP cameras are already achieving... Now double it.
Another defining factor is the need for 16bit per channel capture in D-SLRs (12bits is current for most, 14bit for the Fuji S3). This will help with more dynamic range & greater color depth.
Due to the falling prices of CF cards & blank DVD discs file size is a deminishing consideration at the capture OR archiving stages. Even as a raw file shooter I find that with bigger MP (10+ MP) files I still find myself outputing high volume jobs as 3000 x 2000px files in C1. If a particular image requires substantial enlargement OR cropping, then I return to the raw file & utilize the file at it's highest resolution. This probably only accounts for 5% to 10% of my workflow.
Das Bosun
-
Does a MF back really have the 12 stop dynamic range you refer too? I find that amazing (hard to believe) as I have observed that all other digital sensors (from 2 MP digicams to a 1Ds) don't vary much at all and are substantially less than 12. But I do stand to be educated, having never seen let alone use one.
In actual practice, a lot of dynamic range will only produce incredibly flat images unless you really understand how to control local contrast well. I'm not saying it is not useful, but that most people would have no idea how to use it, or would lack the will to do the extensive editing necessary for each image to use it effectively. I would certainly not want by default to be using that range for every exposure!
Any more dynamic range on consumer cameras would just create photos that the typical user would be often disappointed in. I often find my students (when they first come to me) already complain about the "grey film" that seems to afflict a lot of their shots - a direct consequence of a flat tonal curve combined with a lot of dynamic range. It is easy to correct, and delivers a better photo than if the range wasn't there, but it requires custom editing to make it work, and few photographers with moderate experience understand this. They are amazed at how a simple curve corrections (often applied in local areas only) makes these images snap. But if you try to apply that type of curve in the camera to every shot you would end up with terrible results in different circumstances.
What would be needed to make more dynamic range useful for general use would be automatic curve corrections based on scene contrast and a data base (much like the process of evaluative metering). I'm sure it will come someday, and when it does it will, like most automatic controls, improve the quality of snapshots, but not quite deliver the results obtained manually.
-
I've recently found my larger format and more pixels lust declining to about zero. After nearly a year of often very frustrating beta testing of the PTMac panorama stitching software, I now find that the present version is absolutely suited for very efficient and extremely high quality production for what I want to do. I had previously tested just about every stitching program for PC and Mac and found nothing good enough, but PTMac is now indeed good enough and I now do far more shots for stitching than straight single image shooting. I've also found that combining bracketing (for subsequent blending) for DR challenging situations with multiple panorama shots is no problem whatsoever.
Of course, all this multiple image shooting and stitching is work, but carrying MF gear around is also work and digital MF is a major financial hit as well. Carrying a light and easily backpackable kit (D2X) around and being able to routinely end up with 20 to 100+ Mpixel images represents a phenomenal capability and I don't mind the work or the fact that you occasionally miss a possible shot because of severely moving vegetation that makes good stitching (or bracketing and blending) impossible. No one camera outfit can do every possible thing for every possible circumstance, but a D2X and multiple image shooting should come close enough for me, and at a price that's not exhorbitant for what you get and at a weight burden that's easy for an aging backpacker.
-
Well, I want to give my opinion as a relative newcomer to digital. When I upgraded from 3mp to 8 mp I was very pleased. Better detail, sharpness etc. Also bigger files and more money. I thought this over and I guess you could repeat this every two years or so, technology is advancing.
I think this last sentence is crucial. Photography is about photographs, not mp or anything else. I have been taught that a good photographer using a 3mp camera can run corcles around a mediocre photographer using the latest state of the art camera, because your own arfullness is more of an assett than the artfullness of the camera.
Therefore I stick with my 8mp A200, I exercise and try and throw away Mbits, and try to become a good photographer. That may take some time/years. Then I'll think again about Mp.
-
..., but I find I have spent an ever increasing amount of money chasing higher and higher resolution products that in the end create great pictures but ones that lack a certain "snap" of some of my older technology gear. I wonder if others feel the same and feel this forum might be a good place to capture the issue ???
I think the 'general forum' is a great place to ask the question - several very knowledgeable photographers drop in from time to time.
Why not break it out as a separate thread?
-
One aspect of the whole question which seems to have been overlooked is the linkage between file size and equipment (beyond cost). Currently if you are a wildlife photographer, there are limits to the available equipemnt which will allow you to easily track and shoot moving birds in flight, for example. The range of gear for landscapes is much broader, including medium format. So to some extent the result of the poll are "conditioned" by the type of photography we do and our impression of the available gear to suport that medium.
BCBryan.
-
It has ben produced by BBC TV donky years ago!
-
I'm kind of giving up on CD for image file transfer/storage. DVD is much more practical. CD's aren't even as big as the memory cards I use (4GB Microdrives).
-
Good day everybody, I was at a landscape photographers showing last night and I was blown away by his prints which were close to 4' long! They were tack sharp, even from 6" away. The colors were amazing, the depth of field was increadible, it felt like you could walk right into the scene. they were printed on Wahl...? something paper, he had scanned on a $25,000 scanner a got 350mb files. I am quite difficult to impress and I was blown away. He also used the Fuji technology. Hasselblad Xpan and Fuji Provia 100, I'd say it equals 20 plus MP. I have a digital camera and was about to sell my 35mm, but I think I will wait for now.
Don
-
I'm LOL at the last sentence of your post! Thanks for response it was greatly appreciated and well recieved. I have google'd the photographers you mentioned and was equally impressed by their work. The value of my equipment is'nt quite that of a door stopper yet, but I figuire I have some time to decide. Thanks again, Don
-
"All the science aside concerning the eye's blur circle etc., those old photos capture some characteristic not measured in our laboratories "
Do they really? Or do some us just wish it so?
I don't know the answer, but find the question interesting.
What if you took a double MkII image, stitched it, printed a 8 x 10 'negative' on an inkjet, and made a contract print? Would the the 'some characteristic' be there?
Science works along the lines of an observation is made and then the measurement system is developed. Sometimes the first step is to find out if the observation is real or imagined.
I'd love to see the results of a blind test....
-
I never voted. This is another silly thread. It's like asking how much salary will be sufficient.
-
As long as you are viewing from the correct viewing distance (the diagonal of the print), the print will appear the same no matter what size it is. The issue is the angular resolution of the eye. If you increase the viewing distance, resolution (and depth of field) appears to increase. The opposite is true if you decrease the viewing distance. So go ahead, print those images as large or as small as you like.
Let me add a comment: I remember how fascinated I was at the time when I discovered for me the fact of relation of viewing distance to perspective and sense of the third dimension of an image. Having all my prints small enough to keep them in the album I never experinced this feeling of space before, because usual viewing distance of these images was too far, two or three times more than it was appropriate. With larger prints I could observe the fact that from a specific distance images got some space and perspective. From theese time i believe that viewing distance of the final print is the most important thing that comes to think about before or paralel with composition of the image, because it relates to the focal length (not simply to diagonal of the print). The effect of the third dimension feeling, as I believe, is strongest, when the angle of lens is close to the viewing angle. So I would agree, but this is my comment: when most lanscape images are taken with short focal lenghts lenses, I would expect that the best viewing distance would be (much) closer than diagonal of print, for practical reasons they should be printed larger (to keep a convenient viewer distance) and thanks to it there should be much much more need for details for them.
Petr
-
As a general rule, if there are two or more contributing components to image quality, such as film and lens, or sensor and lens, the system resolution, or final result, will be somewhat worse than that of the lowest resolving component.
A concise and excellent summary. And right on.
-
thats exactly what i mean!
one day will come when youll dont have to look as many possible megapixels because all cameras will have more than enough.
so the choice of number will solely depend on what youll find suiffecient..
and youll have to take all factors like processing and filesize etc into account to make your choice.
for example, if someone publishes his/her pictures solely on postcards, then he/she doesnt need much megapixel.
but when youre goal is exhibition sized prints, then youll need more of them ...
i hope youll understand what ill mean..
-
Hi
You may want to check out this article which sums up this topic about megapixels quite nicely.
http://www.basic-digital-photography.com/how-man....ed.html (http://www.basic-digital-photography.com/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need.html)
-
I am waiting for the sensor that can match the eye brain combination of about 15 F stops.
I agree that more dynamic range is a far higher priority for me; it seems natural that catching up with (negative) film on that front should be a higher priority than moving ever further beyond (35mm color) film for resolution.
But I believe that the 15 stops number if anything applies to the eye + brain + iris combination; the retina itself does not have any particular advantage in dynamic range over good electronic sensors. The equivalent of an eye scanning over a very high contrast scene, adjusting iris opening as it goes, might require a camera that takes several images in rapid succession at very different exposure times, though Fuji's SR idea might be able to be pushed to that level.
-
There's a movie version coming out this summer...
-
I have a 6MP Contax, which took lovely images when it wasn't being a PITA, but didn't enlarge quite well past 9x12 or so. Now I have 16MP 1Ds mkII which does lovely 13x19s though the glass although very good is not quite up to the Zeiss under extreme light conditions. I am never-the-less pleased as pie (I was going to say #### but ... ) with the performance of the 1DsII after a stint in China.
I signed up for 25MP (the high-quality kind, of course) because eventually the 16 will lose their WOW factor and by then the 25s will be available, and you really gotta have an upgrade at some point . Like in cubic inches, there's never enough, as long as they're practical of course. Just make sure you have the supporting CPU, memory and storage space ...
DJ
-
I haven't had a chance to try a p25 back (or any MF stuff), but apparently that does have a 12 stop DR. Other MF backs are not anywhere near that good or nearly as expensive. I presently have a 1ds with the typical limited DR of other 35mm digital cameras (5 stops or so, depending on how much shadow noise you're willing to live with). I have to do a lot of bracketing and blending to get by with such limited DR. It's better than shooting slides, but I would certainly welcome a 12 stop sensor. The prospect of having to process for contrast is no problem at all. I'm already doing a lot of individual processing for virtually every image I shoot. Dealing with shadow noise, blown pixels, and too little DR is far worse than dealing with too much DR. As far as I'm concerned there can't possibly ever be too much DR.
A $25,000 MF back would surely not be aimed at the same market as a low end digital camera for people that might not have a clue about Photoshop (like your beginning students).
The important thing is not so much what the image coming out of the camera looks like, but how much noise free information there is. God gave us Photoshop so that we could spice up bland digital camera output.
-
Ooops -- I didn't realize I was responding to a post from four months ago. I'll just assume that my point has probably been made a few times over in the course of the thread, and back down now.
-
The fact of the matter is that film, digital imagining chips and our eyes are all sensors ... imperfect ones at that. They are all bandwidth limited and therefore only represent an approximation of all the photons being reflected/absorbed from the world around us. Obviously we are primarily interested in devices which capture and store information that maximally stimulates our sensors (in this case our eyes). Our retinas are composed of rods (sensitive to black & white or luminance) and cones (sensitive to color). Even the cones are developed into different regions that have different spectral sensitivities. Today's dominant technologies (CMOS and CCD) utilize some gymnastics (as in bayer mosaics and blur filters) to enable us to generate our beautiful pictures. In the process they color/alter the information content, but alas with pleasing results. Certainly for the vast majority of the populace (that was absolutely happy with Kodak instamatics .... and who were basically interested in storing a memory of an event and displacing it in time) today's technology is "good enough". The work by the folks at Foveon and Fuji suggest paths for refinement of the current capture medium (note that their technologies tackle the issues of spatial color resolution and luminance) and further suggets a bright future for digital.
I have a contact print of Ansel Adam's Bridal Veil Falls on my wall ... when a hand-holdable digital camers can match the richness and detail of that print ... I'll be happy, regardless of the pixel count.
-
I think it's funny that the highest choice was 35mp and now Phase One has announced 39mp. 39 would certainly be enough for me.
-
Well, I would say you are simply repeating the myth. A printed image will appear the same regarless of size if the ratio of the print size and viewing distance is kept the same. It is a simple geometric problem based on the angular resolution of the eye - which is how circles of confusion and depth of field is calculated as well. That does not mean a low resolution image will not look rough, but its appearance is the same when the ratio of size to distance remains the same.
So what?
It's not a myth that if you take a 3000x2000 pixel image and a 600x400 pixel image and print them both at 16x24 and hang them on a wall side by side, the quality difference will be extremely obvious. And it's not a myth that given the fairly standard hanging-on-the-wall-at-arm's-length home/gallery viewing condition most under which most framed prints are exhibited, prints from a 1Ds or MF back can be printed larger than those from a 6MP camera and still maintain an acceptable level of image quality per unit of print area. Yes, you can get away with a lower print PPI standard as viewing distance increases, but at any given viewing distance, a file with more pixels (all else being equal) is going to make a better-looking print than one with fewer.
The tests you are refering to do not specify the resolving power of the CCD (or film). Those test show the resolving power of the system - CCD (film), lens, aperture. There are tests to determine the resolving power of film, but no standard that I am aware of has been developed for CCDs or CMOS (although the manufactures must be making some assumptions to design their lenses).
While this is technically true, in practice one can measure the resolution of the sensor if one uses a lens that has a decent MTF at spatial line frequencies higher than the pixel pitch of the sensor. In that case, the sensor (or more precisely the anti-aliasing filter over the sensor, if applicable) will be the primary bottleneck limiting the resolution of the image. As noted previously, the pixel pitch of the sensor imposes a hard limit to the amount of fine detail that can be captured in an image, and this limit can be approached, but not quite reached, due to lens imperfections and the AA filter. But if the lens is good enough, the error it introduces into the measurement process is small enough that it does not significantly compromise the usefulness of the results. How do you think film manufacturers determine the MTF curve for film?
-
i would also prefer a medium back ;-)
-
Okay. Call it 50MP on a 6x8 sensor. With super clean ISO 400. And great battery life.
-
Check out http://www.pixim.com/technology/technology.phtml (http://www.pixim.com/technology/technology.phtml) for wide dynamic range technology for video cameras.
-
lol. I love that book.
-
That's the real butt-kicker there. Even with an 11MP 1Ds, 40,000 RAWs starts taking up some serious storage space..
-
The sensors in the P25 and such have a theoretical maximum dynamic range of about 12 stops, or in other words a maximum S/N ratio of about 4000:1; the range from maximum recordable signal to the dark noise level.
How many stops of that are useful for prints is unclear to me, and seems to depend on how well the use of the sensor is done in a particular MF back. My understanding is that noise is visibly quite nasty once you get within a couple of stops of the noise floor, so maybe at most ten stops would really be useful.
For comparison, the maximum S/N of the sensor in the Olympus E-1 (a cousin of Kodak's MF back sensors, with pixels about 60% as big) is about 2000:1, or 11 stops; just one stop less. So maybe you could look at E-1 images of high subject brightness scenes and add one stop?
-
Forget everething about money, the cost of the sensor, memory, hard drives, ram, software, ..
Why? all of those factors factor into cost of ownership, and have to be considered unless you have the unique ability to pull money out of your butt on demand. I'd get a digital MF setup with a 22MP back and all the trimmings to go with it if I had infinite cash. But I don't, so I have a 1Ds.
Exactly...this is a silly question. All things being equal, of course I would want the most megapixels possible. I have a Digital Rebel because all things are NOT equal. They will never be equal (though I don't intend to keep the Rebel forever).
6.1 megapixels are perfectly adequate for what I do. 22 megapixels would not only be adequate for what I do, but would enable me to do much more. 500 megapixels would let me do even more...I don't NEED them, no. But I wouldn't exactly turn away a supercamera if it were offered to me.
-
Well, you said a lot in the last post without actually saying much of anything about the issue currently under discussion.
That is, is there something about film which doesn't end up on the paper if you tried to do the same thing with digital?
Or put differently - Can we arrive at the same place by two different routes?
We won't know until someone actually does the test.
-
I would trade incredible dynamic range for megapixels anyday.
-
I think there are two myths that seem prevalent in imaging. Pixel resolution (or film format) limits maximum print size. And pixel resolution equils resolving power (either with a digital camera or scanner). Both are false.
You're off base with your characterization of the first "myth". Pixel dimensions certainly affect how large one can print given a specific viewing condition and minimum acceptable quality standard. When you redefine the viewing condition the largest acceptable print size will change, but whatever the viewing condition, a well-processed 2000x3000 pixel image file will always be able to be printed much larger than a 400x600 pixel image file and still meet the minimum acceptable quality standard for the viewing condition.
Well, I would say you are simply repeating the myth. A printed image will appear the same regarless of size if the ratio of the print size and viewing distance is kept the same. It is a simple geometric problem based on the angular resolution of the eye - which is how circles of confusion and depth of field is calculated as well. That does not mean a low resolution image will not look rough, but its appearance is the same when the ratio of size to distance remains the same.
While there is no method of determining the resolving power of a CCD, it is not equil to the pixel resolution.
The first part of this statement is demonstrably false. The resolving power of a CCD or CMOS imaging device can be measured the same way resolving power is measured using film. If you doubt this, go to DPReview and read some of the camera reviews.
You are correct that pixel resolution only represents a maximum limit to possible image detail, and digital imagers and scanned film record less than the theoretical maximum. Digital comes closer to the maximum than scanned film, though.
The tests you are refering to do not specify the resolving power of the CCD (or film). Those test show the resolving power of the system - CCD (film), lens, aperture. There are tests to determine the resolving power of film, but no standard that I am aware of has been developed for CCDs or CMOS (although the manufactures must be making some assumptions to design their lenses). While this may not be that important for a scanner as the optics and aperture are fixed, it is important for cameras where the optics can vary greatly as well as the aperture in use.
-
thats exactly what i mean!
one day will come when youll dont have to look as many possible megapixels because all cameras will have more than enough.
Cost is always going to be an issue. Lenses are always going to be part of any camera system, and impose a practical limit on the number of megapixels that are worth putting in a sensor. So even if the digital sensor is as cheap as film, you're still going to have to buy lenses to go with it that will require precision fabrication and alignment and will be expensive if you want good quality.
-
My answer to the poll was based on the assumption of using 35 mm. It appears that in 35 mm, there will be minimal advantage of more pixels with the currently available optics, so what is the point in moving higher the 15. However, if we are talking about MF backs, my answer would be very different. The current MF sensors have twice the size of 35 mm film, so 30 should be plenty (if that is an appropriate extrapolation), but if you move the sensor size up to 60 by 45 mm, that number would be a bit higher.
-
Sfleming Posted on Jan. 04 2005,16:32
My fave aspect is 3/4 or 6x8cm. Mat Board comes 32 x 40. Given a 4" mat one ends up with 24 x 32 prints. 24 x 240ppi =6720. 32 x 240 = 7680. 6720 x 7680 = 51,609,600.
Did I do that right?
One digit off. 24x240(not 280)=5760, total 44,236,800.
Close enough to 50.
Me, I'd be content with 180 ppi at that size => 25 mp.
Guess I'll make do with 6 mp for awhile.
Lisa
-
Why not build in a (selectable) algorithm that stops the exposure at the point where motion is detected?
(Sure, we might have to wait for a future generation of processors....)
-
I want Dicomed / Betterlight quality, so thats 6,000 x 8000 pixels (of the Foveon variety).
We have a long way to go to achieve that, but I'm happy enough with the 14mp no AA filter quality from my Kodak 14nx, pretty much medium format quality, so I am hoping some of the more positive Kodak rumours are true and they'll release a 20mp upgrade at PMA.
We can dream :cool:
Quentin
-
To put things in perspective, a 1DsMkII raw file is around 15-16MB. When processed, the working copy saved as a 48-bit-RGB TIFF using Zip compression (usually 20-30% more effective than LZW) takes up 85-100MB. If I do my processing in layers and save it as an Adobe PSD document instead to preserve them (more efficient that a layered TIFF), then the working copy is around 180-230MB. Gee, I could put maybe 3 or 6 in a CD-ROM :laugh:.
-
Looking at a couple other ubiquitous advancing technologies might be instructive. Two examples of advancing technology that have evolved in different directions are Hi-Fi equipment and computers. I think that they've evolved quite differently, and the question is, which path will digital photography travel.
Hi Fi equipment progressed to the point in the large, mass marketing world, until people couldn't detect further improvement, (ie, CD's and inexpensive receivers/players) although the finely tuned ear and test equipment could detect it. So while there are $10,000 pieces of stereo electronics, they are clearly fringe elements. Probably 95% of the receivers sold are for less than $500.
Computers on the other hand, keep getting faster and more capable and we keep buying them. This is because we can perceive the improvement AND it is worthwhile to employ the improvement. So there is immense volume and price stays constant or actually decreases.
I think that a lot of this thread assumes that we'll have the opportunity to have inexpensive 15 or 30 megapixel cameras. I doubt it. They'll only be inexpensive if they are sold in high volume and I think that will only happen if consumers perceive their value. I doubt that will happen. I think that we're closer to the hi fi trail than the computer trail and have just recently reached the point where the two paths diverge.
It will take a few years to look back and recognize it.
Just my opinion.
Brad
-
The point I am trying to make is that if one views the "old" technology of silver halid executed at its best we're not there yet (Stephen Johnson's work aside) with digital. I am as guity as the next guy at "pixel peeping" and "MTFing" my lens purchases to death ... but when you see those old B & Ws even the nonphotgraphers grasp that they capture a different (pleasing) quality. All the science aside concerning the eye's blur circle etc., those old photos capture some characteristic not measured in our laboratories (I suspect some interaction between resolution and contrast is at least part of the issue). Even such kluges as stitching don't capture what I am struggling to describe. To me the promise of digital is the possibility(by increasing the signal to noise ratio relative to film) that it will eventually capture that essence in an easily executable form. Please see Miles Hector/ Norman Koren's article on "Digital Camera Image Quality" in the archives, if interested. Pixel count is only part of the equation ... and unfortunately the one that is easiest for camera makers to differentiate and sell their products ... thus its current focus.
-
I think those are good insights Didger. The constant search for the best possible camera is one of declining returns.
Even with a fixed-focus, fixed aperture/shutter camera one can produce excellent photographs under those conditions that are matched to the camera's ability. A more flexible (more expensive) camera increases the conditions under which one can produce quality images.
There's no camera which will work in every single situation. If one can identify a camera that allows them to shoot the majority of what they want to capture then it's probably time to quit shopping and start shooting....
-
Not silly, actually. I shoot to print, which is the most demanding application in terms of pixels. The largest print I would ever want is 20x24. That computes to dimensions of roughly 7200x6000 pixels at 300dpi or (drum roll please) 42MP.
39MP is close enough. 16bit is also good enough. Permanently. This is interesting because it demonstrates that the technology has matured (or is on the cusp of maturing) to a point where it fulfills virtually any need (and exceeds most).
Now we wait for the price to reach us poor non tax-deducting amatuers.
- N.
-
This is an incredibly interesting project by people who built digital sensors for Astronomical applications. (**The result is a digitally scanned film based system using military-derived optics).
http://www.gigapxl.org/technology.htm (http://www.gigapxl.org/technology.htm)
I've linked direct to the technology pages of the site describing their camera, and more interestingly, their approach to building the gigapixel camera. (These guys get genuine gigapixel images from a single exposure rather than the stitching approach mentioned earlier in the thread!)
The image galleries are stunning - especially the crops at full resolution.
**edited for clarity
-
Very, very, very[/i] interesting. There's lots of informative stuff on the cumulative effects of loss of contrast in atmosphere, lens, film and scanner, there, which gives a real insight into the problems faced by diehards who attempt to argue the superiority of film over digital sensors, ie. just how important it is to choose your subject well, to use a film that has a sufficient MTF response and a scanner which Nyquist limit is well beyond the image resolution you are hoping to capture. In fact, their 3.3 pixels per line pair requirement implies a 4000 dpi Nikon scanner has a useful resolving limit of about 48 lp/mm. Beyond that, detail is so faint that it's probably insignificant.
It also seems quite extraordinary that at this level of the technological cutting edge, a film based camera is far lighter, cheaper and more convenient to use.
Performance
The facial expressions of an half a stadium of fans can be captured at passport resolution in a single instant as they react to events on the field.
Weight
When the camera body (without protective cover) and a fully loaded film magazine are coupled together, their collective weight is 71.7 pounds. Adding the heavy-duty tripod brings the total to 108.5 pounds.
(Hey! That no heavier than a bag of cement )
Equivalent digital camera
The digital imaging systems in $200M-$1000M advanced imaging satellites are roughly comparable to the Gigapxl™ camera in resolution. However, they are far from commercially available, require the cold of space for low-noise operation, and are about the size of a school bus.
-
I'm still astounded by both these images in particular, as the presence of people in the frame really hits home the resolution they achieve.
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-Bixby.htm (http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-Bixby.htm)
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-AngelWindow.htm (http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-AngelWindow.htm)
(I adore the shuttle one too, purely as I'm a bit of a space-nut )
-
What format?
My 12MP Nikon D2X is OK for me right now at 35mm. I'd like to see what a 30MP or 45MP sensor on a 645/6x6 looks like. I agree with several comments about the limitations of the glass though. Once that technology improves...what the hell, let's see what 100MP+ looks like.
Art.