A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

120 megapixel resolution from Canon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 24th 10, 06:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default 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  
Old August 24th 10, 07:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Stefan Patric[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 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  
Old August 24th 10, 08:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Ken Walls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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

  #4  
Old August 25th 10, 01:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Rich[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,081
Default 120 megapixel resolution from Canon

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 test
bed, FINALLY! Of course, you can always stitch and image and get the same
effect, with good DR.
  #5  
Old August 25th 10, 07:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old August 25th 10, 11:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old August 25th 10, 11:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default 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  
Old August 25th 10, 12:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old August 25th 10, 01:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default 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  
Old August 25th 10, 01:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Hanz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.