 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Megapixel Saturation Is Coming?
There's consumer level, there's prosumer level, and there's professional level. At what point will the consumer level be saturated with over megapixelization? It was 3 megapixels in 2002, 6 megapixels in 2004, 8 megapixels in 2005, 10 megapixels in 2006. At the rate we're going, we'll be seeing 20-megapixel cameras for entry level DSLRs before 2010. 10 megapixels is already overkill for non professionals. But 20 megapixels? What sort of insane father would regularly print crystal clear 24X16 baby pictures for inspection/scrutiny at a 12-inch viewing distance? What's even more relevant is that printer technology is seriously lagging behind the camera megapixels. We're at a point now where consumer-level DSLRs are churning out pictures bigger than consuer-level printers can possibly handle. At some point, I think entry-level DSLRs will reach a glass ceiling for megapixels the way consumer level cars have reached a glass ceiling for speed. Sure, we now have the technology to mass produce 160 mph cars for retail... but why make 'em if nobody needs 'em? The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster computers why not have more megapixels? The biggest benefit to having more megapixels to me is the ability to crop pictures more and still get a good printable image. As long as memory capacity is affordable and computers are fast enough to handle the images then I don't care if there is an affordable 50 mp DSLR. Besides, all these cameras give the user the option to lower the resolution so if you think 6 mp is plenty then set the camera for it. > There's consumer level, there's prosumer level, and there's > professional level. At what point will the consumer level be saturated [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > speed. Sure, we now have the technology to mass produce 160 mph cars > for retail... but why make 'em if nobody needs 'em? > The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the > camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster > computers why not have more megapixels? > The biggest benefit to having more megapixels to me is > the ability to crop pictures more and still get > a good printable image. Michael, I'm not sure that this is true. I think there's a point where your crop is overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true with an extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens and cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain? Regards, Marcel > I think there's a point where your crop is > overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true > with an > extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens > and > cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain? The photo lacked either sufficient resolution or sufficient sharpness to support the crop you tried. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > > I think there's a point where your crop is > > overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" > http://www.outsideshore.com/ Thanks Marc, I should think so. But am I right to assume that too much cropping might result in same? Thanks, Marcel >>> I think there's a point where your crop is >>> overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> The photo lacked either sufficient resolution or sufficient sharpness to >> support the crop you tried. > Thanks Marc, > I should think so. > But am I right to assume that too much cropping might result in same? "Too much cropping"- sort of self-defining, yes, any photo can be over cropped, and when the cropped portion is up-sized to print or view, the lack of the above, combined with pixelation, can result in garbage.  SignatureJohn McWilliams >> I think there's a point where your crop is >> overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The photo lacked either sufficient resolution or sufficient sharpness to > support the crop you tried. The lack of resolution can be caused by a sensor which isn't capable of the resolving power required for that photo or it can be caused by the lens not being able to give enough detail to the image so that it can be cropped as desired. There are many bad zooms that reach 300mm on the high-end, so it is a real posibility it is the lens, or there was simply an attempt to crop beyond the resolution the sensor was capable of ... or both. > --------------- > Marc Sabatella [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" > http://www.outsideshore.com/ SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the >> camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens and > cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain? As the other posters have explained it sounds like you reached the limits of resolution for that particular photograph. That was likely due to lack of focus and/or image sensor resolution. I think the issue that will limit the megapixel count on cameras will be available light and the limiting factors of current lens technology. But then there might be technology developments that overcome these obstacles. >> The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the >> camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Regards, > Marcel The interesting part of this argument is that although its universally understood that manufacturers are driving the megapixel race and there is no benefit the same newsgroup are complaining about how pentax is lagging so far behind with a mere 6mp in even their yet to be released models. Personally exposure accuracy, flash accuracy and an improvement in auto white balance are the only things that will tempt me to buy a new dslr. AT current rates 50,000 pictures will still take me 25 years while i spread the use of my two dslr (300D and 20D). Of course extended dynamic range a la fuji is the next holy grail. Maybe affordable full frame. >>> The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the >>> camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > use of my two dslr (300D and 20D). Of course extended dynamic range a la > fuji is the next holy grail. Maybe affordable full frame. I would like to see noise in low light situations addressed. A flashless perfect exposure with no noise at 1/100 shutter speed in candle light would be nice. ;) >>>> The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than >>>> the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > flashless perfect exposure with no noise at 1/100 shutter speed in > candle light would be nice. ;) Several things to contemplate: 1) All decent cameras are currently photon noise limited for their rated quantum efficiencies (consumer camera chips are around 20-30 or so percent range). That means we are not likely to see normal light improvements (due to electronics) unless quantum efficiencies are improved. 2) True dynamic range is given by the number of photoelectrons one can capture. Large pixel cameras, like the Canon 1D Mark II (8.2 micron pixel pitch) can collect about 80,000 electrons per pixel. I'm just now testing a Canon S70 point and shoot, and preliminary numbers indicate about 2700 electrons maximum per pixel (2.3 micron pixels). 3) The noise in the shadows, or darkest parts of the image is set by the read noise. The best cameras (e.g. better DSLRs) have read noise less than 4 electrons. Lower cost ones are up around 15 electrons. Improvements could come here, but 4 electrons is already amazingly impressive. 4) The maximum possible dynamic range is set by full well signal divided by read noise. Do the math: a cheap small pixel camera with say 3000 electrons max and read noise of 15 has a dynamic range of only 200, or 7.6 stops, compared to the large pixel camera 80,000 electrons / 4 electron read noise = 20,000 dynamic range (14.3 stops; currently limited by the camera 12-bit A/D converter). Large pixel cameras will produce the better image, but of course at the expense of greater bulk, weight and cost. This Fuji claim of greater dynamic range: here is an imatest result that supports the claim http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PIMATEST.HTM However, the imatest results are often low due to the test setup and scattered light in the optical system. I measured the D50 at 11.1 stops, compared to the above page 10.7: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-nikon-d50 and the Canon 1D Mark II at 11.6 (limited by the 12-bit A/D): http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2 When DSLRs come out with 14 or 16-bit converters we'll see the large pixel cameras jump ahead of the Fuji. But the Fuji is an interesting strategy. Low light image quality is directly related to pixel size. I like the idea of a candle light scene. I'll add that to my page: Night and Low Light Photography with Digital Cameras http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/night.and.low.light.photography Roger Photos, other digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com >>>>> The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more >>>>> than the [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > Night and Low Light Photography with Digital Cameras > http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/night.and.low.light.photography Roger, you are way over my head with your reply. I have no doubt though that if I live long enough I will get my wish. :) > Roger, you are way over my head with your reply. I have no doubt though > that if I live long enough I will get my wish. :) Well, since you're up against the laws of physics, you might as well wish that you'll be able to travel faster than the speed of light too. ;-) Roger >> Roger, you are way over my head with your reply. I have no doubt >> though that if I live long enough I will get my wish. :) > > Well, since you're up against the laws of physics, you might > as well wish that you'll be able to travel faster than > the speed of light too. ;-) If I live long enough then that just might happen too. ;) > > Roger, you are way over my head with your reply. I have no doubt though > > that if I live long enough I will get my wish. :) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Roger In fact, if he does travel as fast as light, then, as far as I'm concerned, he will live long enough! (infinitely long should be long enough). [what with time dilation and all that...] >>> Roger, you are way over my head with your reply. I have no doubt though >>> that if I live long enough I will get my wish. :) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > [what with time dilation and all that...] ...and I would probably need to go on a diet. ;) > >>> Roger, you are way over my head with your reply. I have no doubt though > >>> that if I live long enough I will get my wish. :) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ...and I would probably need to go on a diet. ;) This site is pretty cool: http://www.anu.edu.au/physics/Searle/ Maybe we should email them to ask if they can include you in their animations :) > *From:* achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk > *Date:* 14 Sep 2006 15:20:45 -0700 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > [what with time dilation and all that...] Yes, but what use is long life without experiences? A poor photon never knows any of the joys of life ; birth to death is just one 'now' to it! > There's consumer level, there's prosumer level, and there's > professional level. At what point will the consumer level be saturated [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > speed. Sure, we now have the technology to mass produce 160 mph cars > for retail... but why make 'em if nobody needs 'em? The additional resolution offers creative lattitude with cropping that doesn't exist with the smaller resolution offerings. Sometimes, in an effort to get a shot [as opposed to losing it], composition might suffer or be a little off; having the additional resolution to fix this is wonderful. Sometimes, I go through old photos and find that a photo that I once thought was hum drum average turns out to be beautiful with a little cropping and cleanup. Resolution is just an additional tool for artistic creativity. In short, I would rather have it than not have it. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 As far as cropping, it becomes important in flash situations where the amount of flash is insufficient. Six years ago I ran a reunion and we hired a "professional" photographer to take pictures, we provided the film and she gave it back to us before she left. We took it to Costco for Kodak processing, with an accompanying CD. I saw the pro's terrific portfolio before hiring her but never saw her equipment or asked what she used. When she arrived at the night of the reunion with a manual focus Cannon film camera (don't remember the name) with a separate small flash in the hot shoe, all I could think was, omigod. I had a Nikon F5 with a large flash on a bracket sitting in my room. I don't think she used a zoom lens and instead had some kind of prime lens. The reunion was is a big room with very high ceilings and we had 200 people attending. There was a great band and lots of dancing. Most of the shots she took were under-exposed, especially those on the dance floor and I had to crop out the dark areas and there were lots of dark areas! Also, as many of you know, you need to either get close to your subjects or you need a really good telephoto lens with an appropriate flash to match. Because too many shots were taken from too far away, cropping and Hi-Res base files were needed I remember trying to work with the smaller files that the 3MP digital cameras were producing then and it was a horrendous effort. As you zoomed in you started to see boxes. Alan Of course, for this kind of photography you need good light in the worst way. >> There's consumer level, there's prosumer level, and there's >> professional level. At what point will the consumer level be saturated [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Resolution is just an additional tool for artistic creativity. In short, I >would rather have it than not have it. mexican_equivalent@yahoo.com skrev: > Sure, we now have the technology to mass produce 160 mph cars > for retail... but why make 'em if nobody needs 'em? I´ll tell you: For the same reason 95% og what is produced we don´t need: For the sake of the industry. SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design, aug. 2006 http://Olelarsen.eu/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.