Options

How many pixels are enough? 416MP?

David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,199 moderator
edited March 8, 2007 in Cameras
Need images with 10,200 x 13,600 native resolution? Here's (part of) your new camera. $23,000. Camera body, lenses, etc., all extra.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

Comments

  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited March 7, 2007
    Feh. Not enough.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,199 moderator
    edited March 7, 2007
    ian408 wrote:
    Feh. Not enough.

    Ian, there are some image sensors for astronomy you might want to look into. 3.2 GP.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • Options
    bauermanbauerman Registered Users Posts: 452 Major grins
    edited March 7, 2007
    I don't seem to need anything over 6MP......but I guess I'm a "cheap date".....
    Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anybody to this country and to mankind is to bring up a family. - George Bernard Shaw
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited March 7, 2007
    David_S85 wrote:
    Ian, there are some image sensors for astronomy you might want to look into. 3.2 GP.

    Might work :D

    I should have used a smiley on that last one. That thing is HUGE! And at
    $23K, a bargin :D
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,199 moderator
    edited March 8, 2007
    bauerman wrote:
    I don't seem to need anything over 6MP......but I guess I'm a "cheap date".....

    Hehehehe.

    I started with a 640 x 480 px camera (Sony Mavica 3.5" using floppies) that delivered 0.3MP. My current 20D having 8.2MP is a monster compared to it. And with images stitched as panoramas at well over 10K pixels across, it does seem to be enough for me.

    Still, the camera companies won't leave enough alone. I can fully understand why 3.2GP is necessary for astronomical images. All fine and good. And capturing museum masterpieces on the 416MP scanning insert also has its place too.

    When I see new consumer digicams employing 1/2.5" 10MP sensors; that's when I begin scratching my head. headscratch.gif
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • Options
    CatOneCatOne Registered Users Posts: 957 Major grins
    edited March 8, 2007
    David_S85 wrote:
    Need images with 10,200 x 13,600 native resolution? Here's (part of) your new camera. $23,000. Camera body, lenses, etc., all extra.

    You can get a LOT more pixels than that out of the Betterlight. Stephen Johnson has his back hooked up to a Cambo Wide and he can take 2+ GB panoramics. He took one in Antarctica; I was standing next to him for the 20 minutes he took to set up the shot (35mm shooters need not apply... you need 4x5 patience here!) The scanning cameras can have essentially infinite resolution because they can be set up to pan, and thus can dynamically take photos by moving/pivoting.
    My Landscape Galleries
  • Options
    David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,199 moderator
    edited March 8, 2007
    ian408 wrote:
    Might work :D

    I should have used a smiley on that last one. That thing is HUGE! And at
    $23K, a bargin :D

    I DL'd the PDF on the pricing, opened it expecting to see $60,000+, but when I read $23K I was surprised. The digital backs on medium format go for more than that, and they're (only mwink.gif ) at about 39MP.

    There is the portability factor to be considered too. This 416MP toy is forever tethered and studio use only.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • Options
    ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,913 moderator
    edited March 8, 2007
    I guess portability means pano?
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • Options
    David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,199 moderator
    edited March 8, 2007
    ian408 wrote:
    I guess portability means pano?

    Portability, for practical remote use, means you can stick one or two CF cards into a digital back (medium format) and not require a tethered computer.

    Here is more (older article) about the scanning inserts for larger format.

    Phase One 39MP digital back quality tested.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • Options
    ivarivar Registered Users Posts: 8,395 Major grins
    edited March 8, 2007
    so do they count each R, G and B as a single pixel? The article says native resolution is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels. If I multiply that I come to a third of 416 roughly ne_nau.gif
    Ivar
    www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
  • Options
    David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,199 moderator
    edited March 8, 2007
    ivar wrote:
    so do they count each R, G and B as a single pixel? The article says native resolution is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels. If I multiply that I come to a third of 416 roughly ne_nau.gif

    Hehehehehe. You did that too?
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • Options
    ivarivar Registered Users Posts: 8,395 Major grins
    edited March 8, 2007
    David_S85 wrote:
    Hehehehehe. You did that too?
    lol3.gif well it's hard to miss really. 10x13 = 130... so even though though it's slightly bigger, it can never reach 416 I think....
    Ivar
    www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Sign In or Register to comment.