You don't have to focus because the sensor captures all the info to make focus and DOF decisions in post. The thinking is that Moore's law applies to sensor density and we already have enough resolution, so what should we do with all that area?
I remember you telling me about this. Really crazy stuff, but as you say, shouldn't really be science fiction, Moore's law should hold in digicams as well.
HDR sensors that don't need exposure setting at shoot time and produce images which can be focused in post may seem like science fiction. But we are already past one milestone on the road to capturing more information at shoot time than we need for the final shot. Consider B&W. I contend that the very best way to shoot B&W today is to shoot digital color and convert in post. The great B&W film masters used all kinds color filters when they shot in order to enhance the contrast that mattered to them. We can delay this decision and even selectively blend the different color channels in post. This allows us, for example, to use the green channel for faces while using the red for background skies (just start with the green and apply image, 100% darken to add that good red channel sky without touching that good green channel face, flatten and repeat to intensify the effect.)
If you've seen Good Night and Good Luck, you've seen how effective this can be. This film was shot in digital HD color and converted to B&W in post. For my money, it's the very best looking B&W film of all time.
Ansel Adams would be in heaven with all the options we already have available to us. And just wait.
...here is the real holly grail of future cameras: don't have to set exposure because dynamic range is great enough to capture the sun and the unlit interior through a window at the same time. You don't have to focus because the sensor captures all the info to make focus and DOF decisions in post.
See, while I can see why this is appealing, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time, photography sure will be boring when it happens.
Constructive criticism always welcome!
"Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it." - Confucius
See, while I can see why this is appealing, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time, photography sure will be boring when it happens.
Well, not exactly. It will just move more of the entertaining part from shoot to post time. Suppose you want a print on paper of the beautiful girl with the sun in the background. OK, you have all the bits, but paper doesn't have the gamut. Now what? Suppose you want to deemphasize something?
As I said, it will be like B&W. Conversion at post time can accomplish all that can be accomplished with papers and different kinds of film at shoot time. And more.
Much more powerful tools open the door to all kinds of possibilities we haven't imagined yet.
Pogue's test method was flawed
I think that Pogue's test was destined to prove just what he wanted it to prove. Maybe he just wants to stir up a little traffic on his site.
Let me explain,
" One print had 13-megapixel resolution; one had 8; the third had 5. Same exact photo, down-rezzed twice, all three printed at the same poster size."
Look at his second sentence.... Does it mean that he down-ressed the 13MP and the 8MP down to 5MP before he printed all three at "poster size"?
If so, then all the extra details in the larger 2 images were LOST when he re-sized them DOWN TO 5MP! He theoretically started out with 3 images that were 5MP each! Of course they are going to look identical!!!
This is just my opinion, of course. Maybe I misread his "testing" procedure!
If this is the case-my apologies are in order!
Oh yeah - discuss this amongst yourselves
See, while I can see why this is appealing, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time, photography sure will be boring when it happens.
Not at all. When you eliminate obstacles you also open up doors for more creativity. Everyone will take technically perfect exposed shots, but will they now how to play with light, DOF, and color to get those special shots? Nope. Making something easier really doesn't take away anything, it just makes you able to do more.
I think that Pogue's test was destined to prove just what he wanted it to prove. Maybe he just wants to stir up a little traffic on his site.
I think a number of people have called him on this. I haven't read his
response yet.
John, I think you've made two very important points. The second is about
more powerful tools being enablers and first, and perhaps most important,
is what we will do with the area (Moore's Law).
And I would agree with you on Adam's glee in today's technology.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
And I would agree with you on Adam's glee in today's technology.
Wouldn't it be neat to see what some of the most famous masters of the past would do with modern technology? As I recall, Adams was a pioneer in developing/printing technology back then, no?
Great thread by the way, I've gone ahead and given it some stars
Wouldn't it be neat to see what some of the most famous masters of the past would do with modern technology? As I recall, Adams was a pioneer in developing/printing technology back then, no?
Great thread by the way, I've gone ahead and given it some stars
I think that Pogue's test was destined to prove just what he wanted it to prove. Maybe he just wants to stir up a little traffic on his site.
Let me explain,
" One print had 13-megapixel resolution; one had 8; the third had 5. Same exact photo, down-rezzed twice, all three printed at the same poster size."
Look at his second sentence.... Does it mean that he down-ressed the 13MP and the 8MP down to 5MP before he printed all three at "poster size"?
If so, then all the extra details in the larger 2 images were LOST when he re-sized them DOWN TO 5MP! He theoretically started out with 3 images that were 5MP each! Of course they are going to look identical!!!
This is just my opinion, of course. Maybe I misread his "testing" procedure!
If this is the case-my apologies are in order!
Oh yeah - discuss this amongst yourselves
The impression I got was that he started with a 13 mp image printed out. He then down-rezzed it to 8 mp, printed that copy, then down-rezzed it again to 5 mp and printed that copy. He then had three images: 13 mp, 8 mp, 5 mp, and asked viewers to compare them.
What really amazes me is how ... angry ... so many of the comments to Mr. Pogue's post have been. You'd think he'd written about the joy of clubbing baby seals, or how dolphin meat adds flavor to canned tuna.
I think that marketers have spent so much time selling megapixels, that consumers have become brainwashed into thinking that it's the most important measure-- or maybe the only measure-- of a digital camera.
Wouldn't it be neat to see what some of the most famous masters of the past would do with modern technology? As I recall, Adams was a pioneer in developing/printing technology back then, no?
Absolutely. If you look at prints Adams made, especially when separated by
time, you may notice they're processed differently.
I'd like to think he would embrace the changes in photography since his time.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I question that 13 Mpx rating. Until the camera companies start putting out larger sensor chips in their cameras, you are collecting in what, about 2/3 of a standard 35 mm frame. Call it 20x30 mm. A really good lens resolves around 100 line pairs per mm. So there is only 2000 x 3000 line pairs of data. (Yes, this is an over simplification. Beat me with a stick... ) So if you had a sensor that was nominally 3000 x 5000 pixels you have more than one pixel sampling each effective resolution unit of the lens. And remember that 100 lp/mm is under optimum conditions. Use a zoom; use a filter with no longer perfect coatings, have a finger print or two, and getting down to 50 lp/mm comes all too easily. At that res, you are sampling each unit of lens resolution with a 3x3 block of pixels. -- 1/9 of what you started with.
I'm not surprised that you can de-res an image down to 5 Mpx and get prints that are difficult to tell apart.
It's been years since I've followed the tech specs of lenses. I may be wrong about some of the numbers here, but I think I'm in the right ball park.
I do know that a lot of filters work better with more pixels. It's easier to avoid halos when sharpening a high res image. Some company claims wonderful results with a set of PS filters that work by increasing the resolution, doing their magic, then decreasing it again. (Can we say CPU intensive...)
As Ziggy mentioned pixels DO matter but only in relation to other aspects of the entire photographic process. At the camera, it depends on what kind of lens you have in front of the sensor.
In practice, the types of lenses in compact cameras end up being the limiting factor and therefore you don't get much benefit from increased pixel count. It's a different story with SLR cameras.
Comments
OK, but do you still have to go to Grandma's birthday party, or will the camera take itself?
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
If you've seen Good Night and Good Luck, you've seen how effective this can be. This film was shot in digital HD color and converted to B&W in post. For my money, it's the very best looking B&W film of all time.
Ansel Adams would be in heaven with all the options we already have available to us. And just wait.
See, while I can see why this is appealing, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time, photography sure will be boring when it happens.
"Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it." - Confucius
Well, not exactly. It will just move more of the entertaining part from shoot to post time. Suppose you want a print on paper of the beautiful girl with the sun in the background. OK, you have all the bits, but paper doesn't have the gamut. Now what? Suppose you want to deemphasize something?
As I said, it will be like B&W. Conversion at post time can accomplish all that can be accomplished with papers and different kinds of film at shoot time. And more.
Much more powerful tools open the door to all kinds of possibilities we haven't imagined yet.
I think that Pogue's test was destined to prove just what he wanted it to prove. Maybe he just wants to stir up a little traffic on his site.
Let me explain,
" One print had 13-megapixel resolution; one had 8; the third had 5. Same exact photo, down-rezzed twice, all three printed at the same poster size."
Look at his second sentence.... Does it mean that he down-ressed the 13MP and the 8MP down to 5MP before he printed all three at "poster size"?
If so, then all the extra details in the larger 2 images were LOST when he re-sized them DOWN TO 5MP! He theoretically started out with 3 images that were 5MP each! Of course they are going to look identical!!!
This is just my opinion, of course. Maybe I misread his "testing" procedure!
If this is the case-my apologies are in order!
Oh yeah - discuss this amongst yourselves
Not at all. When you eliminate obstacles you also open up doors for more creativity. Everyone will take technically perfect exposed shots, but will they now how to play with light, DOF, and color to get those special shots? Nope. Making something easier really doesn't take away anything, it just makes you able to do more.
I think a number of people have called him on this. I haven't read his
response yet.
John, I think you've made two very important points. The second is about
more powerful tools being enablers and first, and perhaps most important,
is what we will do with the area (Moore's Law).
And I would agree with you on Adam's glee in today's technology.
Great thread by the way, I've gone ahead and given it some stars
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
What really amazes me is how ... angry ... so many of the comments to Mr. Pogue's post have been. You'd think he'd written about the joy of clubbing baby seals, or how dolphin meat adds flavor to canned tuna.
I think that marketers have spent so much time selling megapixels, that consumers have become brainwashed into thinking that it's the most important measure-- or maybe the only measure-- of a digital camera.
Absolutely. If you look at prints Adams made, especially when separated by
time, you may notice they're processed differently.
I'd like to think he would embrace the changes in photography since his time.
I question that 13 Mpx rating. Until the camera companies start putting out larger sensor chips in their cameras, you are collecting in what, about 2/3 of a standard 35 mm frame. Call it 20x30 mm. A really good lens resolves around 100 line pairs per mm. So there is only 2000 x 3000 line pairs of data. (Yes, this is an over simplification. Beat me with a stick...
I'm not surprised that you can de-res an image down to 5 Mpx and get prints that are difficult to tell apart.
It's been years since I've followed the tech specs of lenses. I may be wrong about some of the numbers here, but I think I'm in the right ball park.
I do know that a lot of filters work better with more pixels. It's easier to avoid halos when sharpening a high res image. Some company claims wonderful results with a set of PS filters that work by increasing the resolution, doing their magic, then decreasing it again. (Can we say CPU intensive...)
In practice, the types of lenses in compact cameras end up being the limiting factor and therefore you don't get much benefit from increased pixel count. It's a different story with SLR cameras.
Erich