Canon's 250mp 1.3 crop sensor. Why not today?

On 9/9/2015 12:02 AM, RichA wrote:
Why is it these things get confined to ultra-expensive scientific cameras? They can obviously make them just like other sensors, so perhaps 9/10 of them are too flawed to sell? Or, not, since they already produce smaller sensors with MUCH higher pixel densities.
I would LOVE a sensor with that resolution (over twice that of a 50mp sensor).


Why do you think that corporate anycountry, owes you anything.

--
PeterN

On 12/09/2015 16:39, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 11 September 2015 18:20:18 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
On 9/9/2015 12:02 AM, RichA wrote:
Why is it these things get confined to ultra-expensive scientific cameras? They can obviously make them just like other sensors, so perhaps 9/10 of them are too flawed to sell? Or, not, since they already produce smaller sensors with MUCH higher pixel densities.
I would LOVE a sensor with that resolution (over twice that of a 50mp sensor).


Why do you think that corporate anycountry, owes you anything.

--
PeterN

I don't, but camera sales are in relative decline, they capture more imaginations and dollars with NEW, exciting offerings. This could be one. Not some tiny, incremental boost in pixel count.

In 2002 Canon released the 1ds and Kodak the DCS-14.
It's taken 13 years for Canon to release a camera (5DS/R) with double
the linear resolution of the 1Ds.
Perhaps that's the kind of timescale you should be looking at for when
Fx cameras might be available with double the linear resolution of
current high resolution cameras.

On 9/12/2015 12:39 AM, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 11 September 2015 18:20:18 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
On 9/9/2015 12:02 AM, RichA wrote:
Why is it these things get confined to ultra-expensive scientific cameras? They can obviously make them just like other sensors, so perhaps 9/10 of them are too flawed to sell? Or, not, since they already produce smaller sensors with MUCH higher pixel densities.
I would LOVE a sensor with that resolution (over twice that of a 50mp sensor).


Why do you think that corporate anycountry, owes you anything.

--
PeterN

I don't, but camera sales are in relative decline, they capture more imaginations and dollars with NEW, exciting offerings. This could be one. Not some tiny, incremental boost in pixel count.


Offer your self as an advisor.

--
PeterN

On 13/09/2015 10:33, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 12 September 2015 17:41:26 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 12/09/2015 16:39, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 11 September 2015 18:20:18 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
On 9/9/2015 12:02 AM, RichA wrote:
Why is it these things get confined to ultra-expensive scientific cameras? They can obviously make them just like other sensors, so perhaps 9/10 of them are too flawed to sell? Or, not, since they already produce smaller sensors with MUCH higher pixel densities.
I would LOVE a sensor with that resolution (over twice that of a 50mp sensor).


Why do you think that corporate anycountry, owes you anything.

--
PeterN

I don't, but camera sales are in relative decline, they capture more imaginations and dollars with NEW, exciting offerings. This could be one. Not some tiny, incremental boost in pixel count.

In 2002 Canon released the 1ds and Kodak the DCS-14.
It's taken 13 years for Canon to release a camera (5DS/R) with double
the linear resolution of the 1Ds.
Perhaps that's the kind of timescale you should be looking at for when
Fx cameras might be available with double the linear resolution of
current high resolution cameras.

If you've got a 1/2.3" P&S sensor with 16mp, is it that hard to translate resolution like that to an APS or even a FF sensor? What would that be, FF, 700mp?

Totally diffraction limited at normal working apertures, probably all
kinds of issues with offset microlens design/performance at that sensor
size, FSI at a pixel pitch where circuits obstructing the light path
would really be an issue, or BSI where light-bleed between the small
pixels would be another issue.
There's good argument why oversampling by the sensor is a good idea
(having the system resolution limited by diffraction or lenses), but not
if there are heavy penalties, not just including the obvious - trying to
deal with the massive file size.

In article , Me says...
Totally diffraction limited at normal working apertures

I wonder if there is some way to get around the diffraction limit with
some sophisticated image processing (sort of an in-camera deconvolution
or something like that, having an exact diffraction effect model).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 13/09/2015 08:37, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Me says...
Totally diffraction limited at normal working apertures

I wonder if there is some way to get around the diffraction limit with
some sophisticated image processing (sort of an in-camera deconvolution
or something like that, having an exact diffraction effect model).

Yes, to a degree, but at the expense of more noise.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu