What upper limit for megapixels?

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:22:28 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich
wrote:

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
John A. Crabtree
], who wrote in article :
This limit will be governed by sizes of computer memories which grow
linearly in time, not to be confused with Moores law!

So far, sizes grow exponentially, governed by Moore law.

Also to be considered is the BANDWIDTH of computer memories which
have increased VERY SLOWLY (as compared with Moores Law) over the
years.

True, but the digital photo is not limited by bandwidth of memory.
And bandwidth of long-term storage grows much quickier.

In other words, in three years you'll have double the MP and four times
the load time, save time, editing time, etc., in each image. Considering
the fact that loading a digital RAW 10-20 MP image on a 2Ghz machine
already takes more than 20-30s, we will have problems getting much beyond
this in the next decade.

With 50MB/sec disks, I doubt your extimate very much. It is obviously
limited by processor speed, so, essentially, by heat issues. And with
TIFF, the loading time is not a limiting issue with 50MP images.

Costs of physical storage will be another important consideration. The
average user with 10MP and 1000 shots a year has to archive 10 Gb/year.
A hobbiest with 5-10k shots will need 100 Gb/yr of _durable_ storage,
i.e., better reliability than a hard disk. This means hobbiests with
lots of MP will be approaching a 10 year lifetime storage limit for most
practical computer setups.

Obviously you are joking. Today, an external 500GB disk costs less
than $100. [You need an extra unpowered one for more reliable storage.]

Finally, as your database of photos grows and grows, imagine the
difficulties of searching for old photos, archival format, etc.

This has nothing to do with camera sensor size. Just use 10MP
thumbnails.

Hope this helps,
Ilya

Lots of mildly interesting but useless speculation.

Until people can advance their skills, talent, and creativity in the medium,
then even 2 megapixels are too much for them. Of what use is a 100 megapixel
image of another garden flower, house-cat, birthday cake, or mucus smeared
child? Until people learn how to take photographs of something worth viewing by
everyone then even 1 terabyte of pixels in their camera is useless.

Nearly every person posting in these newsgroups could get by with less than 200k
of pixels in their cameras if I was going to rate them by the quality of their
photographic talent and skill. More pixels than that is wasted on them, and
everyone else that has to suffer through their crap.

I'm starting to think that in the future, so the world is not inundated with
meaningless and useless imagery, they shouldn't award new cameras to those who
can afford them. They should only allow those with the most talent and skill to
have them. If you can be the top 5,000 photographers in a world-wide contest
with a 1 megapixel camera then you will be allowed to get the new X0 megapixel
camera. It's not for sale. This would do three things: 1) encourage those with
the cameras they have now to learn how to become photographers and not just
another useless snap-shooter that makes us all want to drive a railroad spike in
our eye-sockets; 2) finally convince those who have no talent whatsoever, the
vast majority, to give up already (wouldn't that be a blessing); and 3) instead
of making all the rest of us have to suffer every time they say "Look at my
photos, what do you think?" it will protect everyone from the bottomless
cesspools of their totally-crap photography just because they can buy a camera.

The world of photography is not getting better, it's drowning in the waste
products produced by those with no talent for it but are allowed to buy cameras.
No different than how the information on the internet is drowning in useless
noise and advertising, when at one time it used to be a valuable source of
easily accessible important information--just because every last fool and idiot
on earth can now buy or obtain computers and find the "D", "u", "h", and "!"
keys on their keyboards.

Just like they give driving tests to see if you are allowed to drive a car in
public, they should give photography tests before you are allowed to show your
photography to anyone. You can get a learner's permit to own a camera up to 1
megapixel, but until you pass the basic tests in function, creativity, and
quality you aren't allowed to show them freely in public without being subjected
to a hefty fine and punishment. It should be a criminal offense with a mandatory
one-year incarceration for them to just touch a camera with more than 1
megapixel in it.

Then photo-trolls like Annika and Rita would disappear from our views
permanently. That alone is worth writing to your government to have a law like
that passed.


To answer the OP's question, "What upper limit for megapixels?" That should be
decided by your creativity and talent. If you can't do something decent with
what you have now you most certainly don't deserve to have more, for the sake of
all our sensibilities and collective sanity.

On 2007-09-29 03:05:09 -0700, Can'tAgree said:

Nearly every person posting in these newsgroups could get by with less
than 200k
of pixels in their cameras if I was going to rate them by the quality of their
photographic talent and skill.

You could have saved yourself the trouble of writing the rest of your
rant, unless it's a venting thing.

Better now?
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

On Sep 29, 6:05 am, Can'tAgree wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:22:28 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich



wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
John A. Crabtree
], who wrote in article :
This limit will be governed by sizes of computer memories which grow
linearly in time, not to be confused with Moores law!

So far, sizes grow exponentially, governed by Moore law.

Also to be considered is the BANDWIDTH of computer memories which
have increased VERY SLOWLY (as compared with Moores Law) over the
years.

True, but the digital photo is not limited by bandwidth of memory.
And bandwidth of long-term storage grows much quickier.

In other words, in three years you'll have double the MP and four times
the load time, save time, editing time, etc., in each image. Considering
the fact that loading a digital RAW 10-20 MP image on a 2Ghz machine
already takes more than 20-30s, we will have problems getting much beyond
this in the next decade.

With 50MB/sec disks, I doubt your extimate very much. It is obviously
limited by processor speed, so, essentially, by heat issues. And with
TIFF, the loading time is not a limiting issue with 50MP images.

Costs of physical storage will be another important consideration. The
average user with 10MP and 1000 shots a year has to archive 10 Gb/year.
A hobbiest with 5-10k shots will need 100 Gb/yr of _durable_ storage,
i.e., better reliability than a hard disk. This means hobbiests with
lots of MP will be approaching a 10 year lifetime storage limit for most
practical computer setups.

Obviously you are joking. Today, an external 500GB disk costs less
than $100. [You need an extra unpowered one for more reliable storage.]

Finally, as your database of photos grows and grows, imagine the
difficulties of searching for old photos, archival format, etc.

This has nothing to do with camera sensor size. Just use 10MP
thumbnails.

Hope this helps,
Ilya

Lots of mildly interesting but useless speculation.

Until people can advance their skills, talent, and creativity in the medium,
then even 2 megapixels are too much for them. Of what use is a 100 megapixel
image of another garden flower, house-cat, birthday cake, or mucus smeared
child? Until people learn how to take photographs of something worth viewing by
everyone then even 1 terabyte of pixels in their camera is useless.

Nearly every person posting in these newsgroups could get by with less than 200k
of pixels in their cameras if I was going to rate them by the quality of their
photographic talent and skill. More pixels than that is wasted on them, and
everyone else that has to suffer through their crap.

I'm starting to think that in the future, so the world is not inundated with
meaningless and useless imagery, they shouldn't award new cameras to those who
can afford them. They should only allow those with the most talent and skill to
have them. If you can be the top 5,000 photographers in a world-wide contest
with a 1 megapixel camera then you will be allowed to get the new X0 megapixel
camera. It's not for sale. This would do three things: 1) encourage those with
the cameras they have now to learn how to become photographers and not just
another useless snap-shooter that makes us all want to drive a railroad spike in
our eye-sockets; 2) finally convince those who have no talent whatsoever, the
vast majority, to give up already (wouldn't that be a blessing); and 3) instead
of making all the rest of us have to suffer every time they say "Look at my
photos, what do you think?" it will protect everyone from the bottomless
cesspools of their totally-crap photography just because they can buy a camera.

The world of photography is not getting better, it's drowning in the waste
products produced by those with no talent for it but are allowed to buy cameras.
No different than how the information on the internet is drowning in useless
noise and advertising, when at one time it used to be a valuable source of
easily accessible important information--just because every last fool and idiot
on earth can now buy or obtain computers and find the "D", "u", "h", and "!"
keys on their keyboards.

Just like they give driving tests to see if you are allowed to drive a car in
public, they should give photography tests before you are allowed to show your
photography to anyone. You can get a learner's permit to own a camera up to 1
megapixel, but until you pass the basic tests in function, creativity, and
quality you aren't allowed to show them freely in public without being subjected
to a hefty fine and punishment. It should be a criminal offense with a mandatory
one-year incarceration for them to just touch a camera with more than 1
megapixel in it.

Then photo-trolls like Annika and Rita would disappear from our views
permanently. That alone is worth writing to your government to have a law like
that passed.

To answer the OP's question, "What upper limit for megapixels?" That should be
decided by your creativity and talent. If you can't do something decent with
what you have now you most certainly don't deserve to have more, for the sake of
all our sensibilities and collective sanity.

The problem is what it has always been. People are willing to spend
hundreds, thousands on the product to make the pictures, but not $20
on a book to learn HOW to make good pictures. This applies to many
hobbies and gets worse as the "instant gratification factor" increases
with each new technological advancement.

snip



To answer the OP's question, "What upper limit for megapixels?" That
should be
decided by your creativity and talent. If you can't do something decent
with
what you have now you most certainly don't deserve to have more, for the
sake of
all our sensibilities and collective sanity.


I got to say you seem like a very sad unhappy person who is not enjoying
photography at all. Me I am having a great time with it, like the photos I
am getting and for me that is what I am mostly after, the fact that other
like much of my work is just a nice plus.

Scott

Scott

Don't let the internet shut-in's get you down. And don't become one - it's
an easy addiction to fall into and one that I'm working on breaking !

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA wrote:

The problem is what it has always been. People are willing to spend
hundreds, thousands on the product to make the pictures, but not $20
on a book to learn HOW to make good pictures.

It's worse than that. Lots of them don't even read the manual that
came in the box with the camera.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Doug wrote on Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:49:49 -0400:


DF "RichA" wrote in message
DF ps.com...
?? The problem is what it has always been. People are
?? willing to spend hundreds, thousands on the product to
?? make the pictures, but not $20 on a book to learn HOW to
?? make good pictures. This applies to many hobbies and gets
?? worse as the "instant gratification factor" increases with
?? each new technological advancement.

DF Ok Obi Wan, I have $20 in my hand, now tell me the book
DF that I should buy. I'm sure most people on these groups
DF want a $20 answer.

DF Facetiousness aside, can someone suggest a book or list of
DF books to tell one how to take a good picture. As a sidebar
DF is their a good monthly magazine devoted to digital that is
DF not trying to please every damn advertiser turning it into
DF all into Pollyanna claptrap. I'd accept web pages.

DF Hmm, I wonder what the definition of a "good" picture
DF really is? It's probably like asking for the meaning of
DF life.

Pretty much I would say! I even studied Andreas Feininger's
"Principles of Composition" but he remained a good photographer
and I did not improve much ;-)

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Oct 2, 9:49 am, "Doug Freese" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ps.com...

The problem is what it has always been. People are willing to spend
hundreds, thousands on the product to make the pictures, but not $20
on a book to learn HOW to make good pictures. This applies to many
hobbies and gets worse as the "instant gratification factor" increases
with each new technological advancement.

Ok Obi Wan, I have $20 in my hand, now tell me the book that I should
buy. I'm sure most people on these groups want a $20 answer.

Facetiousness aside, can someone suggest a book or list of books to
tell one how to take a good picture. As a sidebar is their a good
monthly magazine devoted to digital that is not trying to please every
damn advertiser turning it into all into Pollyanna claptrap. I'd accept
web pages.

Hmm, I wonder what the definition of a "good" picture really is? It's
probably like asking for the meaning of life.

-DF

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Can'tAgree wrote:

Until people can advance their skills, talent, and creativity in the medium,
then even 2 megapixels are too much for them. Of what use is a 100 megapixel
image of another garden flower, house-cat, birthday cake, or mucus smeared
child?

Do you know how to spell "memories"?
Did you know the only way to be a better photographer is ...
to take photographs?

Until people learn how to take photographs of something worth viewing by
everyone then even 1 terabyte of pixels in their camera is useless.

There are _NO_ photographs worth viewing by everyone.
None at all.

So by your own yardstick you should not photograph anything.

By the way, your posting is certainly not worth reading to
the vast majority of the world, so why do you post?



Nearly every person posting in these newsgroups could get by with less than 200k
of pixels in their cameras if I was going to rate them by the quality of their
photographic talent and skill.

| A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified
| to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is
| unbiased -- he hates all creative people equally.
-- Lazarus Long

You fit that description to a fault; you couldn't be cast in the
role of a critic, people would groan "cliché!" in exasperation.

More pixels than that is wasted on them, and
everyone else that has to suffer through their crap.

Any bushman in the Kalahari does not have to suffer from them,
so certainly not "everybody" has to suffer. Obviously, you don't
even think for half a second before you unleash your contrariness
on everyone in these newsgroups.

I'm starting to think that in the future, so the world is not inundated with
meaningless and useless imagery, they shouldn't award new cameras to those who
can afford them. They should only allow those with the most talent and skill to
have them.

And _you_ get to decide, right?
Who died and made _you_ king?

Maybe we should revoke your posting rights, because your posts
are neither showing talent nor skill. Or maybe we should
send you to a Gulag in the old USSR, your way of thinking
should be right at home there.

The world of photography is not getting better, it's drowning in the waste
products produced by those with no talent for it but are allowed to buy cameras.

Pray tell, why again art thou even allowed to post, nay, to
breathe, whilest thou art poisoning the very air with thou mental
challenges, ay, and whilest thou causest cancer of the brain in
those poor souls exposed to thy mental diarrhoea and dysentry?

Hast thy rationality been eaten by looking at thy own pictures?
Nay, I forget, thou art not skilled in the way of the camera,
thou art skilled only in the way of a filthy slit tongue. I name
thee Wormtongue and cast thee out! I banish thee in the name of
the holy Canon and of the holy Nikon. I forbid ye to speak in
the name of art, I forbid ye to utter in the name of kindness,
I forbid ye thrice to write by the holy name of the keyboard,
the mouse and the graphics tablet.

I order thee to go away henceforth and never to return until such
times as ye have grown humble and kind and thou hast found thy
name in a most difficult naming quest.

-Wolfgang

Doug Freese wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

The problem is what it has always been. People are willing to spend
hundreds, thousands on the product to make the pictures, but not $20
on a book to learn HOW to make good pictures. This applies to many
hobbies and gets worse as the "instant gratification factor" increases
with each new technological advancement.

Ok Obi Wan, I have $20 in my hand, now tell me the book that I should
buy. I'm sure most people on these groups want a $20 answer.

Hah, I take $50 in hand, tell me the book that will teach me
how to make better pictures. (Not that RichA, devoid of any
camera knowledge, could be trusted to be able to read.)


Hmm, I wonder what the definition of a "good" picture really is? It's
probably like asking for the meaning of life.

One that has impact.

-Wolfgang

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 01:30:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:


I order thee to go away henceforth and never to return until such
times as ye have grown humble and kind and thou hast found thy
name in a most difficult naming quest.

-Wolfgang

Oh look, another ****in' moron.