At what point will it stop?

You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.

Clyde

If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
(up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.

I believe in the near? future most consumers will view photos on true HDTV sets
at 1080p resolution (1920x1080) so I sized the sensor at exactly twice the pixel
width of the HDTV standard. 3840x2160 (16:9 ratio - 8.3 mp) would be a good
sized option for landscape photos. Easy to lossless resize (divides by 16 for
jpeg) to view on HDTV and also large enough for most prints. There are many
other changes I would also make to DSLRs... but that's for another thread.

Steve S

Steve wrote:

You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.

Clyde


If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
(up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.

I would resize the sensors to be ISO 216 "A" proportional so that
printing could be a cropless process regardless of the "A" sized paper
chosen.

Another alternate would be golden section ratio.

The reality is that sensor dimensions are mostly driven by addressing
logic issues/efficiencies.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

Steve wrote:

You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.

Clyde


If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
(up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.

I would resize the sensors to be ISO 216 "A" proportional so that
printing could be a cropless process regardless of the "A" sized paper
chosen.

Another alternate would be golden section ratio.

I agree with the A-series of sizes; the aspect ratio of these (1.414:1)
is almost exactly midway between current camera ratios of 4:3 (1.33:1)
and 3:2 (1.5:1).

The Golden Mean has a ratio of (Phi:1) or (1.618:1) which may be ok for
landscapes but is too narrow for portait orientation. Scholars have
pointed out the extensive use of the Golden Mean in classical art, but
it applies to figures and constructions within the picture, and not to
the overall aspect ratio of the artwork.

Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in your
sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)

Colin

Colin D wrote:


Alan Browne wrote:

Steve wrote:


You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.

Clyde


If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
(up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.

I would resize the sensors to be ISO 216 "A" proportional so that
printing could be a cropless process regardless of the "A" sized paper
chosen.

Another alternate would be golden section ratio.


I agree with the A-series of sizes; the aspect ratio of these (1.414:1)
is almost exactly midway between current camera ratios of 4:3 (1.33:1)
and 3:2 (1.5:1).

The Golden Mean has a ratio of (Phi:1) or (1.618:1) which may be ok for
landscapes but is too narrow for portait orientation. Scholars have
pointed out the extensive use of the Golden Mean in classical art, but
it applies to figures and constructions within the picture, and not to
the overall aspect ratio of the artwork.

I'd dispute that as a 'requirement'; eg: IMO the G-section may apply to
the boundaries of the work as well as relationships in the work.


Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in your
sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)

Yes. Most of out television (not that I watch a lot) is US. I speak
French half the time and English the other 2/3. It's harder and harder
to be correct in any language, esp. Japanese which I don't speak at all.

In about 2025, under President Jenna Bush, the US will invade Canada for
our fresh water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro power and Poutine. They
will learn, finally, that Starbucks is really not that good compared to
the great variety of coffee shops that have been in Montreal for well
over a century. So I'm just getting ready by letting my English decay.

The other day I actually said "zee" instead of "zed" while spelling a
word for my son. At that, the word was "criticise". It's too late to
save me.

I don't spell color 'colour' anymore, but I still seem to be stuck on
cheque.

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

Colin D wrote:
Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in your
sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)

Yes. Most of out television (not that I watch a lot) is US. I speak
French half the time and English the other 2/3. It's harder and harder
to be correct in any language, esp. Japanese which I don't speak at all.

In about 2025, under President Jenna Bush, the US will invade Canada for
our fresh water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro power and Poutine. They
will learn, finally, that Starbucks is really not that good compared to
the great variety of coffee shops that have been in Montreal for well
over a century. So I'm just getting ready by letting my English decay.

The other day I actually said "zee" instead of "zed" while spelling a
word for my son. At that, the word was "criticise". It's too late to
save me.

I don't spell color 'colour' anymore, but I still seem to be stuck on
cheque.

Well, I have to admit that my spelling at least does change depending on
the perceived audience. In this predominantly American group I spell it
'color' and 'check' and 'criticize' just to be in the swim, so to speak
- that's if the participants are US-bred. OTOH if I am replying to
Commonwealth-bred types, I use proper English. (ducking for cover here
....)

Come to think about it, I dunno why I do that - maybe I'll stick with
Queen's English from here on {:-)

Colin

Paul H. wrote:

What I'd really like to see most is greater color depth, drastically
improved dynamic range, and greater user programmability.

I'm not sure it's possible to see greater colour depth. Digital
cameras in RAW mode are already good for a very wide gamut, and the
loss of colour happens later in the chain.

Andrew.

"Colin D" wrote in message
...


Alan Browne wrote:

Colin D wrote:
Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in
your
sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)

Yes. Most of out television (not that I watch a lot) is US. I speak
French half the time and English the other 2/3. It's harder and harder
to be correct in any language, esp. Japanese which I don't speak at all.

In about 2025, under President Jenna Bush, the US will invade Canada for
our fresh water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro power and Poutine. They
will learn, finally, that Starbucks is really not that good compared to
the great variety of coffee shops that have been in Montreal for well
over a century. So I'm just getting ready by letting my English decay.

The other day I actually said "zee" instead of "zed" while spelling a
word for my son. At that, the word was "criticise". It's too late to
save me.

I don't spell color 'colour' anymore, but I still seem to be stuck on
cheque.

Well, I have to admit that my spelling at least does change depending on
the perceived audience. In this predominantly American group I spell it
'color' and 'check' and 'criticize' just to be in the swim, so to speak
- that's if the participants are US-bred. OTOH if I am replying to
Commonwealth-bred types, I use proper English. (ducking for cover here
...)

Come to think about it, I dunno why I do that - maybe I'll stick with
Queen's English from here on {:-)

Colin

Here is one commonwealth-bred type, but living in the US - I also use the
Americani[s|z]ed speak to avoid confusion. Try going to a Subway and asking
for "capsicum" on your sandwich - you will go hungry that day.

On the topic of language - it is eroding quickly and the internet is
accelerating the erosion, with its short-hand speak and acronyms (IMHO ;-)

Musty.

"Musty" wrote in message
...


Here is one commonwealth-bred type, but living in the US - I also use the
Americani[s|z]ed speak to avoid confusion. Try going to a Subway and
asking
for "capsicum" on your sandwich - you will go hungry that day.

...and if you request "Spotted Dick" for dessert, you'll either make some
"special" friends or you'll find yourself in the back of a police car.

:-)