If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: Wow! Good luck with the lenses, Canon. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10...20mpsensor.asp Well, the picture would be just as sharp, but not at the pixel level. Dynamic range, at lower ISOs, could be killer. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:23:12 -0400, Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Wow! Good luck with the lenses, Canon. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10...20mpsensor.asp Well, the picture would be just as sharp, but not at the pixel level. Dynamic range, at lower ISOs, could be killer. And what about noise? With that many photo receptors in such a small area, the required aggressive noise reduction would kill sharpness especially at higher ISOs. Stef |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:23:12 -0400, Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Wow! Good luck with the lenses, Canon. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10...20mpsensor.asp Well, the picture would be just as sharp, but not at the pixel level. Dynamic range, at lower ISOs, could be killer. How do you figure that? Each photosite is only 2.1 µm in size. No better than the noise and dynamic range of any 1/2.5" sensor compact-camera made today. I can only imagine how much each lens would cost to get any detail to make use of that size of a sensor. Larger lenses would have to be of diffraction limited quality over their full aperture range and across the full focusing plane. It won't be done at any price-point to make this a financially viable option for anyone. It's a failure from the start. A fun exercise in manufacturing only with no real-world use, so they can say "we did it!" It's fun watching you fools being wowed and wooed by something that will have worse image quality than any compact camera today (they have the advantage of smaller lenses being more easily figured to diffraction-limited quality). But hey, as long as it's in a DSLR shaped camera and it costs $50,000 then it MUST be good. LOL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
On 2010-08-24 23:41:39 -0700, DanP said:
On Aug 25, 1:11*am, Rich wrote: DanP wrote in news:634a73ef-bd29-4f79-837c- : On Aug 24, 8:10*pm, Ken Walls wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:23:12 -0400, Bowser wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Wow! *Good luck with the lenses, Canon. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10...20mpsensor.asp Well, the picture would be just as sharp, but not at the pixel level. Dynamic range, at lower ISOs, could be killer. How do you figure that? Each photosite is only 2.1 µm in size. There you go then, you have answered your own question. Pixel race gone mad. DanP Still, I am curious to see what they can wring out of such a pixel count. * Just for the novelty factor. *This thing could be the ultimate lens tes t bed, FINALLY! *Of course, you can always stitch and image and get the s ame effect, with good DR. I have a feeling that it won't be put in a camera. "This follows a 50 million pixel sensor of similar format the company developed in 2007." Probably it was done only to test their technology. DanP Well they could always mount it in Lawrence's Giant camera; http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html -- Regards, Savageduck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article 634a73ef-bd29-4f79-837c- , DanP says... On Aug 24, 8:10*pm, Ken Walls wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:23:12 -0400, Bowser wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Wow! *Good luck with the lenses, Canon. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10...20mpsensor.asp Well, the picture would be just as sharp, but not at the pixel level. Dynamic range, at lower ISOs, could be killer. How do you figure that? Each photosite is only 2.1 µm in size. There you go then, you have answered your own question. Pixel race gone mad. At this level individual pixels do not matter anymore. It's quite possible that a camera equipped with such a sensor would apply some fancy processing and output an image with a lower pixel count, for instance 40Mp or so. Nikon's original D1 is a 2.7 MP camera, but the sensor has twice that many sensor locations. Each pixel from the D1 is made up of two sensor locations. With an array of 120 sensor locations it would be interesting to see the noise characteristics of a 12 MP image that used 9 sensors for each pixel. Even more interesting would be if instead of a Bayer filter the sensor had first a lens that would defocus light such that each group of 9 sensors would all get the same light, and then use a color filter (similar to the Bayer filter) that contained 4 each green, 2 each red and 2 each blue, with the center being a clear filter. Bingo, no Bayer interpolation, and instead there is a direct RGB output (with an additional independant luminance channel). It may or may not result in improved SNR, but color rendition should be significantly better than a 12MP Bayer image. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
... Nikon's original D1 is a 2.7 MP camera, but the sensor has twice that many sensor locations. Each pixel from the D1 is made up of two sensor locations. With an array of 120 sensor locations it would be interesting to see the noise characteristics of a 12 MP image that used 9 sensors for each pixel. Even more interesting would be if instead of a Bayer filter the sensor had first a lens that would defocus light such that each group of 9 sensors would all get the same light, and then use a color filter (similar to the Bayer filter) that contained 4 each green, 2 each red and 2 each blue, with the center being a clear filter. Bingo, no Bayer interpolation, and instead there is a direct RGB output (with an additional independant luminance channel). It may or may not result in improved SNR, but color rendition should be significantly better than a 12MP Bayer image. Why? Asking seriously. I don't understand the logic. -- Peter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
"Peter" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... Nikon's original D1 is a 2.7 MP camera, but the sensor has twice that many sensor locations. Each pixel from the D1 is made up of two sensor locations. With an array of 120 sensor locations it would be interesting to see the noise characteristics of a 12 MP image that used 9 sensors for each pixel. Even more interesting would be if instead of a Bayer filter the sensor had first a lens that would defocus light such that each group of 9 sensors would all get the same light, and then use a color filter (similar to the Bayer filter) that contained 4 each green, 2 each red and 2 each blue, with the center being a clear filter. Bingo, no Bayer interpolation, and instead there is a direct RGB output (with an additional independant luminance channel). It may or may not result in improved SNR, but color rendition should be significantly better than a 12MP Bayer image. Why? Asking seriously. I don't understand the logic. With Bayer filtering the color of a single pixel depends on the colors of all adjacent pixels. One result is that an image produced with a Bayer system cannot have an abrupt transition of, say, blue to red in the distance of less than 5 or 6 pixels. If each pixel color is determined by 3 or more sensors unique to that pixel it would be possible to have a transition theoretically in a distance of 1 pixel (adjacent pixels that are pure R, G, and B). In practice it wouldn't be that sharply defined because the filters would not be perfect, but it should be possible to double the lines per unit of distance that can be resolved as different colors. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
... "Peter" wrote: "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... Nikon's original D1 is a 2.7 MP camera, but the sensor has twice that many sensor locations. Each pixel from the D1 is made up of two sensor locations. With an array of 120 sensor locations it would be interesting to see the noise characteristics of a 12 MP image that used 9 sensors for each pixel. Even more interesting would be if instead of a Bayer filter the sensor had first a lens that would defocus light such that each group of 9 sensors would all get the same light, and then use a color filter (similar to the Bayer filter) that contained 4 each green, 2 each red and 2 each blue, with the center being a clear filter. Bingo, no Bayer interpolation, and instead there is a direct RGB output (with an additional independant luminance channel). It may or may not result in improved SNR, but color rendition should be significantly better than a 12MP Bayer image. Why? Asking seriously. I don't understand the logic. With Bayer filtering the color of a single pixel depends on the colors of all adjacent pixels. One result is that an image produced with a Bayer system cannot have an abrupt transition of, say, blue to red in the distance of less than 5 or 6 pixels. If each pixel color is determined by 3 or more sensors unique to that pixel it would be possible to have a transition theoretically in a distance of 1 pixel (adjacent pixels that are pure R, G, and B). In practice it wouldn't be that sharply defined because the filters would not be perfect, but it should be possible to double the lines per unit of distance that can be resolved as different colors. Thanks, interesting idea. I hope this doesn't start a war, but wouldn't a Foveon sensor eliminate the problem. I guess cost is one reason and I suspect a Foveon would create other problems. -- Peter |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
120 megapixel resolution from Canon
On 08/25/2010 02:04 PM, Peter wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message With Bayer filtering the color of a single pixel depends on the colors of all adjacent pixels. One result is that an image produced with a Bayer system cannot have an abrupt transition of, say, blue to red in the distance of less than 5 or 6 pixels. If each pixel color is determined by 3 or more sensors unique to that pixel it would be possible to have a transition theoretically in a distance of 1 pixel (adjacent pixels that are pure R, G, and B). In practice it wouldn't be that sharply defined because the filters would not be perfect, but it should be possible to double the lines per unit of distance that can be resolved as different colors. You can interpret a 2x2 Bayer array cell as a single pixel with 3 or 4 different sensors, but that would get you 4 times less pixels than sensors in the Bayer array. Doesn't look good in the MP-race, and certainly clever interpolation can do better than that. But as you say, an N-sensor Bayer array doesn't get you N independent RGB pixels. Now with a 120 MP array that doesn't matter so much.. -- Hans |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Mpix Challenge] Megapixel resolution challenge | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 50 | December 10th 08 10:46 PM |
Resolution - Benefits of higher Megapixel - effects of jpg compression | Jim Mitchell | Digital Photography | 17 | September 13th 04 01:12 PM |