Why we need more pixels

An interesting article on Luminous-Landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/n​ot-so-fast.shtml

One of the points the author makes is that there are many image-enhancing techniques that can be applied through software to correct a multitude of lens faults...but they all carry a "cost" in sensor resolution. Thus, having a surplus of sensor resolution is an overall benefit.

I don't print 6x8 foot posters, so I'd be happy if the manufacturers stopped the megapixel race, and concentrated solely on DR and ISO performance.

adamo99 wrote in post #12049805
I don't print 6x8 foot posters, so I'd be happy if the manufacturers stopped the megapixel race, and concentrated solely on DR and ISO performance.

I guess you didn't read the article. Improvements in DR and ISO can come through more pixels.

He makes some interesting points!

I'd be curious to see how the science of binning proceeds. At this point I haven't seen any evidence that the sRaw/mRaw output gives an increase in image quality, but I'd like to see some "smart binning" technology that could, for example, implement CA/fringing corrections or noise reductions in a way that could, say, deliver a cleaner Raw 25MP file from a 50MP sensor -- that could be pretty enticing!

I already have smart binnning, ............... if it's no good it gets binned

adamo99 wrote in post #12049805
I don't print 6x8 foot posters, so I'd be happy if the manufacturers stopped the megapixel race, and concentrated solely on DR and ISO performance.

People seem to think those goals are mutualy exclusive.

DR and ISO perfomance are pretty much down to sensor area and tech, splitting thta up into whatever numberof pixels is just slicing the same pie a different way

RobDickinson wrote in post #12051740
People seem to think those goals are mutualy exclusive.

DR and ISO perfomance are pretty much down to sensor area and tech, splitting thta up into whatever numberof pixels is just slicing the same pie a different way

Yep, we've seen an improvement in iso performance right along with high pixel numbers. Nothing wrong with wanting more of both.

Why is 35mm full frame still considered the "standard"? Back in the film days, 35mm was considered a small format. A format for amateurs.

Granted, a camera with a sensor say, twice as big, would result in larger cameras and lenses, but from the way 7D owners sneer at my little "toy" T2i, it seems that a lot of folks would jump at much larger gear...

stevewf1 wrote in post #12052623
Why is 35mm full frame still considered the "standard"? Back in the film days, 35mm was considered a small format. A format for amateurs.

Granted, a camera with a sensor say, twice as big, would result in larger cameras and lenses, but from the way 7D owners sneer at my little "toy" T2i, it seems that a lot of folks would jump at much larger gear...

Well, medium format is out there, has been out there for some time, and benefits frome the resolution gains as do DSLRs. If you read the article, 100MP MF bodies are in circulation, but the point was made that it is at a real price!

There will always be the APS-C bodies and the 35mm-format "full frame" bodies available at a far lower price (and size) that will handle our DSLR lens/systems so there's nothing wrong with speculating about the potential advantages of higher resolutions as long as Moore's Law stays in effect.

As I mentioned above, I think the concept of "smart binning" is a pretty cool thing to target in the engineering of upcoming generations.

Interesting point of view. Thanks for sharing.

stevewf1 wrote in post #12052623
Why is 35mm full frame still considered the "standard"? Back in the film days, 35mm was considered a small format. A format for amateurs.

Not exactly a "format for amateurs," but a format with specific applications. Professional PJs were using 35mm by the '30s, and by the early 60s, no major newspapers or magazines were requiring medium format.

National Geographic started publishing 35mm Kodachrome in the '30s as well, and nobody was producing better color plates than they. Up until the 80s, Kodak had a permanent display in Grand Central Station that showcased 35mm Kodachrome backlighted transparent images enlarged to something like 30x50 feet. Those were all professional photographers.

You certainly didn't see any medium format cameras at any NFL or AFL games from the 60s on. Boxing was perhaps the last sport in which medium format was still competitive, but it was gone even ringside by the 70s. Those were professional photographers.

How many medium format camera did you see during the Vietnam War? None. How many amateur photographers were shooting the Vietnam War? None.

By the late 60s, Kodachrome had certainly proven its ability to match medium format Ektachrome in quality even for commercial photography. Medium format hung on in the commercial area primarily because art directors preferred to view it on light tables and contact sheets without needing loupes. But nobody could question the results people like Pete Turner were getting out of their Nikons.

http://www.kodak.com …historyOfKodak/​1930.jhtml

stevewf1 wrote in post #12052623
Why is 35mm full frame still considered the "standard"?

35mm?

Oh, you mean 0.625 crop cameras!

Well, I'm sure APS-C outnumbers 'full-frame' so it should be the new standard.

RDKirk wrote in post #12055143
How many amateur photographers were shooting the Vietnam War? None.


http://www.kodak.com …historyOfKodak/​1930.jhtml

what does that even mean? This just made me doubt any of your other points...

my Friends dad has an entire box of slides from the vietnam war...

Instead of constantly focusing on pixels in our DSLR's, I really wish that manufactures would work on bringing down the prices of digital MF.
I honestly believe that the market is ready for semi-pro MF gear, in a price range of $5000-10000,-

If super high resolution is the goal, MF is the platform.

With DSLR's, what I want to see, is better dynamic range, better high ISO performance and generally better use of the pixels we already have.

SaxonIV wrote in post #12057704
what does that even mean? This just made me doubt any of your other points...

my Friends dad has an entire box of slides from the vietnam war...

Was he there on his dime or the government's?

Yes, okay, I'll give you that point. My father has personal photos from both the Vietnam War and the Korean War. However, he did not go either to Vietnam or Korea for the purpose of taking photos as an amateur, he went for the purpose of killing people.

My point was that the professionals PJs shooting the Vietnam War were using 35mm cameras, so the format is not an "amateur's format." If you don't believe that, it's easy enough to Goggle it.