At what point will it stop?

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:29:48 -0400, Stacey wrote:

RichA wrote:

The megapixel numbers game?


Since most uneducated consumers only see numbers (just like with computer
CPU's) it's not likely to stop. Now if they came up with a real ISO rating
system or a "MP performance number" like AMD did with their CPU's, this
might stop so they could concentrate on things other than MP?

What I found funny recently was one person who was viewing images on
their computer screen at full size. They thought the camera was
producing blurry images but I pointed out the actually size (if they
could see the whole image in one shot) would be almost 45" across!
Printed at 6" x 4" the images were sharper than any film cam the
person had used.
-Rich

RichA wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:29:48 -0400, Stacey wrote:


What I found funny recently was one person who was viewing images on
their computer screen at full size.

Exactly. Instead of looking at real prints, people look at full size images
on a computer monitor and complain about stuff they see.

But like someone else said, people buy a 6MP pocket cam and think it's as
good as a dSLR..

--

Stacey

Psych-O-Delic Voodoo Thunder Pig testing@123 wrote:

There's a diffraction limit of something like 1500/f lp/mm for all
lenses, and that is the point at which there is almost no contrast
left. A more useful point is that at which there is 50% contrast --
the famous MTF50. Norman Koren gives this as

f[50] = 0.38/(N*W)

N is the f-stop setting and W is the wavelength of light in mm =
0.0005 mm for a typical daylight spectrum. For f/8, that works out at
95 lp/mm. This is somewhat like the speed of light in optical terms
-- it's an absolute limit to resolution.

Lens aberrations become a problem wider than f/8 or f/5.6 on lenses of
this size, so opening the lens wider doesn't help. So, there is a
limit to the resolution of a small sensor.

About how many pixels then, would be the maximum for a DX-sized sensor, at
F8 with 50% contrast? My algebra isn't so hot anymore!

Well, I already said that was 95 line pairs per mm, and the sensor is
24 mm wide. Go on, it's only a division.

Andrew.

Since most uneducated consumers only see numbers (just like with computer
CPU's) it's not likely to stop.

All the companies have to do is start quantifying other aspects.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,

Yes, 20 would be plenty.. this week. g

could they then start to concentate on
the other image anomolies digital cameras have?

Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.


--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Mark Lauter wrote:
If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,

Yes, 20 would be plenty.. this week. g

could they then start to concentate on
the other image anomolies digital cameras have?

Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.

The sensors are integrated circuits. These are made by cutting slices
of a silicon crystal and then printing circuitry on the surface of the
slice.

Andrew.

In article ,
Mark Lauter wrote:

Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.

Many reasons, including cost (silicon wafer processing is set up
to produce flat objects, not curved ones), and the fact that all
existing lenses are designed to try and produce a flat field.

The sensors are integrated circuits. These are made by cutting slices
of a silicon crystal and then printing circuitry on the surface of the
slice.

2 words - Bucky Balls!

http://goldennumber.net/buckyball.htm

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.

Many reasons, including cost (silicon wafer processing is set up
to produce flat objects, not curved ones), and the fact that all
existing lenses are designed to try and produce a flat field.

Not *all* lenses - I'm using two to read this right now.

New lenses would be cheaper because they wouldn't have to create a flat
field.

I'd have to read up on digital sensors to figure out an answer to that, but
i'd say the back doesn't have to be perfectly round - even our eye isn't.
it just has to be made of lots of wafers and I think smaller silicon wafers
are cheaper to make than big ones.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:46:37 GMT, Mark Lauter
wrote:

Not *all* lenses - I'm using two to read this right now.

New lenses would be cheaper because they wouldn't have to create a flat
field.

Interesting idea. I've wondered about it myself on occasion.
Going a step further, I also like to speculate about an optical
sensor with variable curvature.

Eww, now I'm imagining getting eyeball goo all over my hands while
changing lenses. (Sorry everyone -- this is an example of "vitreous"
humor.)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall