If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
Perhaps at some point what the sensor is able to capture will
exceed the lenses ability to hide its own flaws. This already happens with high end digital backs. Any ideas of where in megapixels that theoretically occurs? I realize it depends on lens quality. I recently stepped up from a 4 mp to a 10.1 mp and cropping rather severely is much sharper and holds togeather very well IMO. Luke |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
Luke wrote:
Perhaps at some point what the sensor is able to capture will exceed the lenses ability to hide its own flaws. This already happens with high end digital backs. Any ideas of where in megapixels that theoretically occurs? I realize it depends on lens quality. I recently stepped up from a 4 mp to a 10.1 mp and cropping rather severely is much sharper and holds togeather very well IMO. The other points about megapixels often missed is that if lens quality etc. is up to it, they affect picture quality not by quantity increase, but with respect to the proportional increase, and you need to square the change in resolution to get the necessary increase in megapixels. For example to double the resolution of an image you need four times as many pixels. So your change from 4mp to 10mp gave you an increase in theoretical resolution of about 60%. To double resolution you would have had to go to 16mp. And to make the same image change in resolution again as you made in shifting from 4mp to 10mp you'd have to go next to go to 25mp. If the lenses etc. were up to it. How much smaller a change in image resolution is a shift from 3mp to 6mp compared to shifting from 6mp to 9mp? The first is an improvement of 41%, the second an improvement of 15%, i.e. the first is very obvious, and the second would be difficult to see without careful comparative tests. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
On Jan 22, 2:25*am, Chris Malcolm wrote:
Luke wrote: Perhaps at some point what the sensor is able to capture will exceed the lenses ability to hide its own flaws. This already happens with high end digital backs. Any ideas of where in megapixels that theoretically occurs? I realize it depends on lens quality. I recently stepped up from a 4 mp to a 10.1 mp and cropping rather severely is much sharper and holds togeather very well IMO. The other points about megapixels often missed is that if lens quality etc. is up to it, they affect picture quality not by quantity increase, but with respect to the proportional increase, and you need to square the change in resolution to get the necessary increase in megapixels. * For example to double the resolution of an image you need four times as many pixels. So your change from 4mp to 10mp gave you an increase in theoretical resolution of about 60%. To double resolution you would have had to go to 16mp. And to make the same image change in resolution again as you made in shifting from 4mp to 10mp you'd have to go next to go to 25mp. If the lenses etc. were up to it. How much smaller a change in image resolution is a shift from 3mp to 6mp compared to shifting from 6mp to 9mp? The first is an improvement of 41%, the second an improvement of 15%, i.e. the first is very obvious, and the second would be difficult to see without careful comparative tests. -- Chris Malcolm * * * * * * * * * *DoD #205 IPAB, *Informatics, *JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] Interesting. So it would require a megapixel of 40 to double my 10 mp camera. I'm not well educated in this area, and haven't seen it stated, however wonder if digital cameras pack these megapixel counts into the exact size of a 35 mm image? I now use an Olympus e510 and am very happy with the results of the two lens I've gotten. Since I take a lot of bird pictures I am lusting for the Zuiko 300mm f2.8 but at aprice of about $ 6000.00 it is just a dream. You may know. Are there possible great gains to be made in future lens quality AND megapixel resolution coming? Luke |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
Luke wrote:
So it would require a megapixel of 40 to double my 10 mp camera. ^ the resolution of Obviously! I'm not well educated in this area, and haven't seen it stated, however wonder if digital cameras pack these megapixel counts into the exact size of a 35 mm image? No, most do not. I now use an Olympus e510 That one uses a sensor size a quarter of the 35mm format. Are there possible great gains to be made in future lens quality Only incrementlly, like better coating, less flare/ghosting, better image stabilisation. AND megapixel resolution coming? Nope. We are near the top of the physically possible already. There's only so many things one can do not to loose and to convert photons. http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...hotons.and.qe/ shows that even the old 10D and the 50mm f/4 (17 elements) + 1.4x TC (another 5 elements) captures 9.5% of all photons in the middle of the green band. Even if we assume a 100% perfect lens (no light loss at all) and a 100% perfect sensor, less than 4 stops of gain will be possible. That means you cannot even double the resolution[1] of a camera with the same sensor size even with perfect and only theoretically possible lenses and sensors without recording less photons than we do today, i.e. induce more noise[2]. What you could try is increasing the sensor wells (the area holding the electrons the captured photons are turned into) by a huge amount, thus reducing the base sensitivity of the sensor. So where you now have ISO 100 or 200 as lowest settings, you would be able to use ISO 25 or 12. Larger sensor wells mean larger sample sizes (statistically) --- by turning an ISO 100 into ISO 12 you'd reduce the noise by a factor of 2.8 (for a cost of needing 8(!) times the light). I don't see people in general wanting to go back to very slow sensors, though, just to have some more resolution. The other way to deal with the problem is to use larger sensor sizes. They, of course, need larger optics --- and tend to have a small DOF, so you want a smaller aperture, which means less light, which ... you see? -Wolfgang [1] Any pixel would have to be turned into 2 x 2 pixels, each only a quarter of the original pixel size (actually less, the borders between pixels also take space, but are blind). [2] Photons are emitted randomly, only conforming to a statistical average. Our sensors are already photon noise limited --- it's *the* dominant noise in all but the darkest areas of an image. And there's no way of getting around that one. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
Luke wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:25?am, Chris Malcolm wrote: The other points about megapixels often missed is that if lens quality etc. is up to it, they affect picture quality not by quantity increase, but with respect to the proportional increase, and you need to square the change in resolution to get the necessary increase in megapixels. ? For example to double the resolution of an image you need four times as many pixels. So your change from 4mp to 10mp gave you an increase in theoretical resolution of about 60%. To double resolution you would have had to go to 16mp. And to make the same image change in resolution again as you made in shifting from 4mp to 10mp you'd have to go next to go to 25mp. If the lenses etc. were up to it. How much smaller a change in image resolution is a shift from 3mp to 6mp compared to shifting from 6mp to 9mp? The first is an improvement of 41%, the second an improvement of 15%, i.e. the first is very obvious, and the second would be difficult to see without careful comparative tests. Interesting. So it would require a megapixel of 40 to double my 10 mp camera. I'm not well educated in this area, and haven't seen it stated, however wonder if digital cameras pack these megapixel counts into the exact size of a 35 mm image? Most digital cameras pack them into a smaller frame, the degree of reduction in size being known as the "crop factor". I now use an Olympus e510 and am very happy with the results of the two lens I've gotten. Since I take a lot of bird pictures I am lusting for the Zuiko 300mm f2.8 but at aprice of about $ 6000.00 it is just a dream. You may know. Are there possible great gains to be made in future lens quality AND megapixel resolution coming? It's soon going to be possible to pack enough pixels into a 35mm film sized sensor to achieve the resolution of a medium format film camera such as a Hasselblad. Most of today's SLR and DSLR lenses aren't good enough to fully exploit that kind of resolution, but we do now have the technology to be able make good enough lenses. That will create a technological opportunity to produce digital cameras with medium format image quality and 35mm film SLR camera size. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
On Jan 23, 2:47*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: Luke wrote: So it would require a megapixel of 40 to double my 10 mp camera. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *^ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *the resolution of Obviously! I'm not well educated in this area, and haven't seen it stated, however wonder if digital cameras pack these megapixel counts into the exact size of a 35 mm image? No, most do not. I now use an Olympus e510 That one uses a sensor size a quarter of the 35mm format. Are there possible great gains to be made in future lens quality Only incrementlly, like better coating, less flare/ghosting, better image stabilisation. AND megapixel resolution coming? Nope. *We are near the top of the physically possible already. *There's only so many things one can do not to loose and to convert photons. * * *http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...hotons.and.qe/ shows that even the old 10D and the 50mm f/4 (17 elements) + 1.4x TC (another 5 elements) captures 9.5% of all photons in the middle of the green band. Even if we assume a 100% perfect lens (no light loss at all) and a 100% perfect sensor, less than 4 stops of gain will be possible. That means you cannot even double the resolution[1] of a camera with the same sensor size even with perfect and only theoretically possible lenses and sensors without recording less photons than we do today, i.e. induce more noise[2]. What you could try is increasing the sensor wells (the area holding the electrons the captured photons are turned into) by a huge amount, thus reducing the base sensitivity of the sensor. *So where you now have ISO 100 or 200 as lowest settings, you would be able to use ISO 25 or 12. *Larger sensor wells mean larger sample sizes (statistically) --- by turning an ISO 100 into ISO 12 you'd reduce the noise by a factor of 2.8 (for a cost of needing 8(!) times the light). *I don't see people in general wanting to go back to very slow sensors, though, just to have some more resolution. The other way to deal with the problem is to use larger sensor sizes. *They, of course, need larger optics --- and tend to have a small DOF, so you want a smaller aperture, which means less light, which ... you see? -Wolfgang [1] Any pixel would have to be turned into 2 x 2 pixels, each * * only a quarter of the original pixel size (actually less, * * the borders between pixels also take space, but are blind). [2] Photons are emitted randomly, only conforming to a statistical * * average. *Our sensors are already photon noise limited --- * * it's *the* dominant noise in all but the darkest areas of * * an image. *And there's no way of getting around that one. I understand perhaps 50% of what you have given me here but thank you for giving me that much. If I understand you correctly we will be getting improvements on into the future but in much more limited increments than in the past. I look forward to responses from others who may have better understanding than I. I will now be more careful in my lens pruchases so as to hopefully be buying lens that will have some useful life with the improvements in resolution to come. Luke |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
What you could try is increasing the sensor wells (the area holding the electrons the captured photons are turned into) by a huge amount, thus reducing the base sensitivity of the sensor. So where you now have ISO 100 or 200 as lowest settings, you would be able to use ISO 25 or 12. Larger sensor wells mean larger sample sizes (statistically) --- by turning an ISO 100 into ISO 12 you'd reduce the noise by a factor of 2.8 (for a cost of needing 8(!) times the light). I don't see people in general wanting to go back to very slow sensors, though, just to have some more resolution. Could you explain this? Thicker silicon? The other way to deal with the problem is to use larger sensor sizes. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"TURN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO HUNDREDS!!!"
Paul Furman wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: What you could try is increasing the sensor wells (the area holding the electrons the captured photons are turned into) by a huge amount, thus reducing the base sensitivity of the sensor. So where you now have ISO 100 or 200 as lowest settings, you would be able to use ISO 25 or 12. Larger sensor wells mean larger sample sizes (statistically) --- by turning an ISO 100 into ISO 12 you'd reduce the noise by a factor of 2.8 (for a cost of needing 8(!) times the light). I don't see people in general wanting to go back to very slow sensors, though, just to have some more resolution. Could you explain this? Thicker silicon? The only way to combat photon noise is larger wells. *How* they are going to build larger wells is a technical problem --- though people have been working on building good 3d items in silicon for years and years. -Wolfgang |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Turn 12 dollars into thousands | Sam | Digital Photography | 1 | September 24th 07 12:31 AM |
On "CLICK " feel like a few Million dollars | 2Barter.net | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | March 8th 07 07:39 PM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 09:00 PM |
LEARN HOW TO TURN $6 INTO THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS! EASY! | johnnyride | Digital Photography | 0 | March 19th 06 08:12 PM |