80MP from a phone - when will MF catch up?

[eronald]

It looks like those millions of dollars of R&D invested by phone makers are starting to pay off ...
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2999078463/noa-n7-smartphone-captures-80mp-images-with-high-resolution-mode

Edmund

[Doug Peterson]

I remember when someone released a 41 (?) megapixel phone  a couple years back; I downloaded a few JPGs. They were unambiguously atrocious even by phone standards.

It's the way of consumer companies to play the spec game rather than focus on actual quality; consumers don't understand "MTF" or "noise pattern characteristics" or "color filter array quality" but they do (vaguely) understand megapixels. 99.99% of consumers would be far better off with a 20 megapixel phone that had great image quality characteristics (especially low noise in low light) and usability features (e.g. faster and better on-sensor focusing) than an 80mp phone with even small compromises in those other areas – and if the 41 megapixel phone was any guide the compromises won't be small.

But I think you know that and are just trying to stir the pot. It does kind of stir me up, but not because of the odd (and entirely not serious) insult to MF. It stirs me up because it almost feels like taking advantage of consumer nativity; your grandma (or sibling, or friend) could buy such a phone thinking they are getting a better camera when in all likelihood they are getting a much worse camera than alternative options with lower megapixels, and the phone maker knows that and still chooses to make it.

[eronald]

I remember when someone released a 41 (?) megapixel phone  a couple years back; I downloaded a few JPGs. They were unambiguously atrocious even by phone standards.

It's the way of consumer companies to play the spec game rather than focus on actual quality; consumers don't understand "MTF" or "noise pattern characteristics" or "color filter array quality" but they do (vaguely) understand megapixels. 99.99% of consumers would be far better off with a 20 megapixel phone that had great image quality characteristics (especially low noise in low light) and usability features (e.g. faster and better on-sensor focusing) than an 80mp phone with even small compromises in those other areas – and if the 41 megapixel phone was any guide the compromises won't be small.

But I think you know that and are just trying to stir the pot. It does kind of stir me up, but not because of the odd (and entirely not serious) insult to MF. It stirs me up because it almost feels like taking advantage of consumer nativity; your grandma (or sibling, or friend) could buy such a phone thinking they are getting a better camera when in all likelihood they are getting a much worse camera than alternative options with lower megapixels, and the phone maker knows that and still chooses to make it.

Doug,

 For once you are accusing me - and I agree it is a rare thing indeed - of a provocation when I am not making one.

 Let us remove our grandma from the picture - we are all pros or very serious amateurs here, and even I have some tech ability - my math degree was actually earned, and I have taken the Imatest course in Boulder so I probably know as well as most end-users what an MP number means and what MTF is. Many here are more savvy than me in tech, and most forum members here are accomplished as photographers and have some experience of medium format.

 What I was trying to say is that there is a move to computational photography, multiple image compositing, with DR extension and super-resolution. In a way this is as revolutionary as going from film to digital, because intelligence and multi-sensor fusion is used to assemble an image rather than brute force - a 40MP image is assembled from eg 10 or 20 or 100 low-rez shots. The Google Pixel with its HDR, and the iPhone X with its simulated portrait lightings are harbringers of this wave.

 To me, this transition to smarter imaging -MP numbers which are NOT sensor MP numbers- is a real revolution, driven by the fact that phone computers are in fact much more powerful and expensive than most camera computers. As a result, most digital backs rely on brute force sensors for acquiring imagery which is written to file with the least possible processing, while phones try and get the most work done by processing while relying on a cheap sensor.

 Now my question is when are the "pro" cameras going to catch up? When will pro cameras embody computational photography? Given the computer power required - a multiple of what is necessary in a phone- I suspect the first embodiments will come in the form of tethered software or reprocessing of files from high end cine equipment.

Edmund

[DougDolde]

Click Bait

[eronald]

Click Bait

This phone, maybe. The tech, no. Google Pixel 2 has a custom VLSI just for imaging.
It's all about maximizing processing during capture.

Look at the sky and pole here:
https://www.popsci.com/google-pixel-visual-core-smartphone-chip#page-3

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Edmund,

It seems to me that camera sensor seem to be pretty stuck at 24MP for APS-C, 24x36 mm at 42-50MP. MF does significant progress with 100MP 44x33 and 150 54x40 on Sony's published roadmap, those MF sensors would correspond to 60MP on 24x36.

It is nice to see development on cell phones. Let us not forget that most images are actually shot on cell phones and all smart things they are putting in those cell phones actually improve all those Tera pictures (to avoid conflict between US and European numbers).

Although extreme resolution is sometimes needed, like in reproduction of artwork or arial photography, the main reason to use "real cameras" are lenses.

On the other hand, compact cameras are nearly a dead end, although high end compacts seem to sell reasonably well, I guess.

An other way to see it is that a "camera is simply an imaging device". Nothing says that you cannot attach a long lens to a cell phone.

I guess that we will see a lot of change in the camera industry with the arrival of 8K. Camera electronics that can deliver 8K at 50p will need very advanced electronics and that will be able to handle also stills.

One interesting thing is that multi frame technologies probably will play a larger role in the future. 8K needs like 39MP on 3:2 formats. You shoot at 50 frames/s, that is a lot of data, to used with supersampling.

It obviously doesn't work with studio flash, but I guess that continuous light will see more and more use because of video.

I have read that Forza Semiconductor has developed a 133 MP sensor for NHK. It will be used for broadcasting. It seems that it has 43 mm diagonal but will obviously use 16/9 format rather than 24x36. It samples an RGBG quartet  for each 8K pixel. DR will of course be a bit limited compared with larger pixels.

That sensor would have around 2.5 micron pixels, pretty ideal for today's best lenses.

Best regards
Erik

It looks like those millions of dollars of R&D invested by phone makers are starting to pay off ...
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2999078463/noa-n7-smartphone-captures-80mp-images-with-high-resolution-mode

Edmund

[eronald]

I guess you can attach the same processing chippery to a 20MP APS-C, or full 35 chip like the A7S, as to a cellphone. In fact I would be surprised if Sony didn't do it.

Edmund

Hi Edmund,

It seems to me that camera sensor seem to be pretty stuck at 24MP for APS-C, 24x36 mm at 42-50MP. MF does significant progress with 100MP 44x33 and 150 54x40 on Sony's published roadmap, those MF sensors would correspond to 60MP on 24x36.

It is nice to see development on cell phones. Let us not forget that most images are actually shot on cell phones and all smart things they are putting in those cell phones actually improve all those Tera pictures (to avoid conflict between US and European numbers).

Although extreme resolution is sometimes needed, like in reproduction of artwork or arial photography, the main reason to use "real cameras" are lenses.

On the other hand, compact cameras are nearly a dead end, although high end compacts seem to sell reasonably well, I guess.

An other way to see it is that a "camera is simply an imaging device". Nothing says that you cannot attach a long lens to a cell phone.

I guess that we will see a lot of change in the camera industry with the arrival of 8K. Camera electronics that can deliver 8K at 50p will need very advanced electronics and that will be able to handle also stills.

One interesting thing is that multi frame technologies probably will play a larger role in the future. 8K needs like 39MP on 3:2 formats. You shoot at 50 frames/s, that is a lot of data, to used with supersampling.

It obviously doesn't work with studio flash, but I guess that continuous light will see more and more use because of video.

I have read that Forza Semiconductor has developed a 133 MP sensor for NHK. It will be used for broadcasting. It seems that it has 43 mm diagonal but will obviously use 16/9 format rather than 24x36. It samples an RGBG quartet  for each 8K pixel. DR will of course be a bit limited compared with larger pixels.

That sensor would have around 2.5 micron pixels, pretty ideal for today's best lenses.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes and no. The A9 can shoot 20FPS and the A7R2 10FPS, a major from the A7rII. They probably use the same 'front size ASIC'. But the A9 has a stacked sensor with extremely fast readout.

Some things are possible, some are not. I guess that companies like Sony plan like 3-5 years ahead and try to reuse technology when possible.

Best regards
Erik

I guess you can attach the same processing chippery to a 20MP APS-C, or full 35 chip like the A7S, as to a cellphone. In fact I would be surprised if Sony didn't do it.

Edmund

[tcdeveau]

I agree in general that computational photography may be the future, but I’m not quite sure it’s a competitor to larger sensors (APS-C, FF 35mm, MF, etc) currently. Reviews that I’ve seen of the Light L16, for example, haven’t been great. There’s potential there but I think it needs a lot of improvement, and the computational algorithms used are far from perfect in today’s implementations. At the moment, I’ll take my X1D any day (or even stitch with APS-C) over a phone with an 80mp mode or a Light L16 when I need high resolution work.

I very much enjoy portrait mode on my iPhone X, for example, which I’m sure has to use some form of computational photography to do what it does, and it can produce great results.  But even with that shooting mode it shows its limitations pretty quickly and easily, and I doubt those images that turn out well would even print that great (although maybe I should print a few 8x10s for myself to see).

OP poses the question “when will MF (or even larger sensors) catch up”, but I still think a lot of work needs to be done with computational photography before it really even becomes something to catch up to. All that said, it surely will improve in the future though and I’m looking forward to seeing it mature....

[NancyP]

I submit that the feature that may sell best with the public is not the 80 MP but the "Face Beauty" processing on the fly. 

[JoeKitchen]

I find this topic to be quite amusing and a comical diversion from fielding emails from clients. 

This week I was waiting for feedback and edit requests from two different clients after sending them 1500x2000 pixel proofs.  No comments or edits had anything to do with resolution, and, to be honest, I can't remember the last time I had someone ask me what resolution I shoot at.  Been at least 5 or 6 years. 

I also submitted a bid on a fairly large ad job, well into 6 figures.  Not even with this project was resolution a concern.  We did talk about possible video and the request for 4K came up, but it was more geared towards, "can we still get good 4K without using a RED and incurring that expense?," and then moved onto color, lighting and logistics, and everything else that comes with a giant project. 

The fact that people still are concerned about resolution today baffles me every time I see conversations like this. 

On the ad job, one of the primary reason I was asked to bid was with how I handle color.  Not once was I asked about how big my files are. 

[Steve Hendrix]

I find this topic to be quite amusing and a comical diversion from fielding emails from clients. 

This week I was waiting for feedback and edit requests from two different clients after sending them 1500x2000 pixel proofs.  No comments or edits had anything to do with resolution, and, to be honest, I can't remember the last time I had someone ask me what resolution I shoot at.  Been at least 5 or 6 years. 

I also submitted a bid on a fairly large ad job, well into 6 figures.  Not even with this project was resolution a concern.  We did talk about possible video and the request for 4K came up, but it was more geared towards, "can we still get good 4K without using a RED and incurring that expense?," and then moved onto color, lighting and logistics, and everything else that comes with a giant project. 

The fact that people still are concerned about resolution today baffles me every time I see conversations like this. 

On the ad job, one of the primary reason I was asked to bid was with how I handle color.  Not once was I asked about how big my files are.

You're quite right Joe. But that doesn't mean that it never comes up with others. I'm currently working with 3 shooting clients right now who have had client requests for at least 80MP (and in one case, they just said as many megapixels as possible). In all 3 cases, these are commercial shooters. I guess for at least 2 of them, I have them covered with the Noa N7.

This doesn't mean that the requests are valid - as in do they really need that many megapixels, but apparently they feel strong enough to put their foot down and so it goes.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[landscapephoto]

I remember when someone released a 41 (?) megapixel phone  a couple years back; I downloaded a few JPGs. They were unambiguously atrocious even by phone standards.

There were 2 such phones, the Nokia Lumia 1020 and 808 PureView. The quality was not that bad, although not as good as MF. Interested reader can download images from flickr camera finder: https://www.flickr.com/cameras/nokia/lumia_1020/

[landscapephoto]

What I was trying to say is that there is a move to computational photography, multiple image compositing, with DR extension and super-resolution. In a way this is as revolutionary as going from film to digital, because intelligence and multi-sensor fusion is used to assemble an image rather than brute force - a 40MP image is assembled from eg 10 or 20 or 100 low-rez shots.
(...)
Now my question is when are the "pro" cameras going to catch up? When will pro cameras embody computational photography? Given the computer power required - a multiple of what is necessary in a phone- I suspect the first embodiments will come in the form of tethered software or reprocessing of files from high end cine equipment.

Actually, MF cameras were the first to increase resolution by pixel-shift and large format had scanning backs, so the answer to your question depends on how you define "extend resolution by computational image assembly". And yes: it was done "in the form of tethered software".

Now, it may look as if I am joking, but not as much as you may think. The truth is that the camera makers do not extend resolution if there is not a market for it. The first market for large resolution was and still is MF, with a 400 mpix pixel-shift back announced for next month. Phone makers could do the same, but there is a reason why the phone you presented comes from an unknown player and not Apple or Samsung: the only reason for that higher resolution is bragging rights (and probably make a quick buck by increasing the value of the shares). The average phone user does not need it.

This does not mean that computational photography is not the future. It most probably is, but with quite different uses than increased resolution or dynamic range. Some uses have been presented in the iPhone X, maybe you have noticed?

[BJL]

It looks like those millions of dollars of R&D invested by phone makers are starting to pay off ...
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2999078463/noa-n7-smartphone-captures-80mp-images-with-high-resolution-mode

Edmund

This phone uses sensor shift to get that 80MP, apparently needing a tripod. So MF is already there (Hasselblad at least) as are Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax. The only extra I see here is using two complete cameras mounted side-by-side, and it should be clear why MF cameras are not doing that.

Perhaps you should be telling Canon and Nikon that they "need to catch up" on sensor shifting.

Update: added Panasonic

[Bo_Dez]

Even at the very highest level, i.e. international main Gucci campaigns, photographers are shooting Nikon D810 and D850.

Pixel count, up to a point, is just manufacturer marketing and sales pitch and personal taste. In the end, it's irrelevant. Don't fall for it.

If you just like the look of it, fine. But it's sort of a luxury that isn't really necessary in the majority of cases. Maybe there are some cases where it's more than a luxury but they are very few.

[tintoreto]

There are already full specifications:

https://www.pdevice.com/product/noa-n7-price-specs

[Bo_Dez]

Where Medium Format main players have failed is that they've piled all their money into backs and sensors and in the case of Phase One, the XF Body. But the blue rings lenses aren't massively better, they are the same optical designs as before just tarted up. Hasselblad lenses are decent but again, they are aging and aren't looking very good next to the best 35mm lenses.

IMO, it's the lenses that need the most attention. Forget about resolution for a while - 100 and incoming 150 is already mostly unnecessary for the time being.

[eronald]

Where Medium Format main players have failed is that they've piled all their money into backs and sensors and in the case of Phase One, the XF Body. But the blue rings lenses aren't massively better, they are the same optical designs as before just tarted up. Hasselblad lenses are decent but again, they are aging and aren't looking very good next to the best 35mm lenses.

IMO, it's the lenses that need the most attention. Forget about resolution for a while - 100 and incoming 150 is already mostly unnecessary for the time being.

It's pretty clear that the abilities of the sensors are outstripping those of the computers in the cameras. And of course the sensors improve every year, the lenses slowly.

One example is DR: Put a camera indoors in front of a window, and image a vase of flowers against the light. The sensor may be able to do it, but the lens will flare out your photo's indoor details.

Edmund

Edmund

[landscapephoto]

Where Medium Format main players have failed is that they've piled all their money into backs and sensors and in the case of Phase One, the XF Body. But the blue rings lenses aren't massively better, they are the same optical designs as before just tarted up. Hasselblad lenses are decent but again, they are aging and aren't looking very good next to the best 35mm lenses.

IMO, it's the lenses that need the most attention. Forget about resolution for a while - 100 and incoming 150 is already mostly unnecessary for the time being.

But then H lenses were working on the 200 mpixels multishot already a few years ago.