Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              7       8       end
  

Archive 2013 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?
  
 
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


mawz wrote:
That's true, but only in the final rendering. More DR is good in the RAW, but too much DR in the JPEG will result in a lower-contrast image. Kwalsh is entirely correct about the preference for more DR from the sensor.


I think flat JPG is actually pretty good for decent PP. My S5 produces files like that..

Otherwise general consensus seems that most ppl would like more DR. Interesting..



Mar 27, 2013 at 01:18 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Well, if you can get more DR without hurting the contrast I'm in. It's way more important for me than MP, which I feel is more that enough in current sensors.

Thinking about it, where's the "I need better skills much more than any technological advancement" option?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Mar 27, 2013 at 01:19 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


kwalsh wrote:
More MP never hurts IQ in large sensors - all specifications are improved by it. If it is high enough to eliminate the AA then it improves things significantly.

So for me, more MP to the point no AA needed.


That would be great, but is not going to happen anytime soon - depending on your shooting preferences. It is like an arms race. The sensor resolution increases, and the response of the lens manufacturers comes in the form of better lenses. The APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH, and supposedly also the oncoming Zeiss SLR lenses for "demanding users", have their peak performance at f/2.8 or about. That may result in hefty aliasing even on 36+ megapixel sensors.

This is not a concern for landscapers who invariably use f/11. These people are not exploiting the resolution of such sensors and are better off without AA filter.



Mar 27, 2013 at 01:32 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


mawz wrote:
That's true, but only in the final rendering. More DR is good in the RAW, but too much DR in the JPEG will result in a lower-contrast image. Kwalsh is entirely correct about the preference for more DR from the sensor.


You need to factor in the quantization. I don't know whether "more DR" tacitly assumes a proportional increase in bit depth. If not, there are situations where more DR from the sensor is not preferable.




Mar 27, 2013 at 01:40 PM
ISO1600
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I'd take an 8mp FF, if it had amazing DR, iso one billion, and stupid high FPS.

Seriously though- I shoot my 6D on sJPG most of the time. For most of what I shoot, I don't need bigger files.
1DX or D3S type camera is about exactly what I want, at this point. The size isn't ideal, but everything else about those cameras is super awesome IMO.



Mar 27, 2013 at 01:46 PM
kwalsh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Toothwalker wrote:
You need to factor in the quantization. I don't know whether "more DR" tacitly assumes a proportional increase in bit depth. If not, there are situations where more DR from the sensor is not preferable.


That was my assumption as I'm not aware of any camera that violates that assumption (though there could be an odd-ball I've missed).



Mar 27, 2013 at 01:52 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Yakim Peled wrote:
Well, if you can get more DR without hurting the contrast I'm in. It's way more important for me than MP, which I feel is more that enough in current sensors.

Thinking about it, where's the "I need better skills much more than any technological advancement" option?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


I think we all need that one. Or most of us. But no camera can help with that, camera can only allow us to go over technical limits easier.



Mar 27, 2013 at 02:04 PM
retrofocus
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Most responses remind me on discussions in the past regarding future higher MP cameras. Always the same - I heard people saying already when 8 MP were there that more than this is not needed. And so on, every time a better sensor with more MP came out. But what practically happens is that especially those who say they don't need higher MP are the first in line to go for the new higher MP cameras when available. Fact is that sensor technology will proceed to develop, at some point there will be an overlap between DSLR and medium format, I also expect soon FF DSLR sensors to get bigger in size. The only real issue is how to handle bigger RAW files in post processing. But also PCs and Macs will continue to develop. I am not concerned about this, I am just looking forward to see new sensor developments, better in resolution, better in DR, better in noise. It will happen anyway, if we want it or if we don't .


Mar 27, 2013 at 03:20 PM
ISO1600
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


retro,

if "FF sensors get bigger in size" then they will no longer be the same format. We will not abandon 135 anytime soon. There are already larger than 135 sensors out there, and have been for years.



Mar 27, 2013 at 03:27 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


retrofocus wrote:
But what practically happens is that especially those who say they don't need higher MP are the first in line to go for the new higher MP cameras when available.


I don't disagree with the rest, but I *really* want to see you try to back up this statement.



Mar 27, 2013 at 03:32 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Mescalamba wrote:
I think we all need that one. Or most of us. But no camera can help with that, camera can only allow us to go over technical limits easier.


Of course. Hence the smiley.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Mar 27, 2013 at 03:33 PM
LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


ISO1600 wrote:
I'd take an 8mp FF, if it had amazing DR, iso one billion, and stupid high FPS.

I'd be happy with 10-24MP, 20stops of DR, clean ISO 6400, 5-10 fps, video: 1080P 24-600fps.



Mar 27, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I'm trying to imagine a situation where I'd want 20 stops of dynamic range, and I really can't. First off, most scenes, even with the harshest lighting, don't have anywhere near that much...and if you're using artificial lighting to get that large of a ratio, then you're terrible at technical lighting.

20 stops of DR would be able to record a range between 1 footcandle (typical roadway surface lighting at night) and 1 million footcandles, which is 100 times more intense than direct full noon sunlight.

14 stops of true DR can record full detail from artifically lit roadway at night to full sun. It's pretty much at the general limit of any scene you'd ever shoot. Compressing 20 stops into a scene would look wholly surreal and fake. If you really want that look, you can do it with overprocessed HDR now.

But I'd take super clean ISO 25,600.



Mar 27, 2013 at 04:06 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Jman13 wrote:
14 stops of true DR can record full detail from artifically lit roadway at night to full sun.


If you can find such a scene

I would love 20 stops of DR, but only if the manufacturers would stop delivering linear files, and would encode it to achieve gentle highlight rolloff, a-la film.



Mar 27, 2013 at 04:12 PM
mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


Among other issues, I doubt most of us have lenses that could generally handle 20 stops of dynamic range anyway. What would be a negligible amount of veiling flare in a 12-stop scene (which even very good lenses can show) completely erases all the useful information in the remaining 8 stops of range. You can check this with your current lower-DR cameras by playing with HDR captures; while it's nice to get cleaner pixels in the shadows (so 14-stop, very-low-ISO capability for non-noisy data in the least-significant-bit would be nice), HDR captures often show that the darkest areas are significantly limited by lens performance.


Mar 27, 2013 at 04:23 PM
retrofocus
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


ISO1600 wrote:
retro,

if "FF sensors get bigger in size" then they will no longer be the same format. We will not abandon 135 anytime soon. There are already larger than 135 sensors out there, and have been for years.


This is correct. I agree that this will not happen very soon in the matter of few years from now, but I can see it happen later at some point. My point was more to say that cost for medium format is going to come down when new sensors come out in FF, this process will continue. As others pointed out, yes, new lenses might be needed then, too.



Mar 27, 2013 at 04:50 PM
Paul Gardner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


When the manufacturers get off their butts and give us 16 bit ADCs in a landscape camera is when we will see a vast improvement in DR and the images produced. I want more MP but for me we are reaching the limits of pure MP increases and the next step is 16 bits to go along with 40+ MP. The D800E has proved the point of more MP and hopefully has shutup the people saying 12MP is enough.


Mar 27, 2013 at 06:06 PM
Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


You need to get sensors that can produce read noise below the threshold that a 14-bit file can resolve, otherwise it's just a larger file with no benefit. I'm not sure if modern sensors can do that yet.


Mar 27, 2013 at 06:10 PM
Taylor Sherman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


I'm pretty certain that if we all had monitors that could display 14-stops of DR, we wouldn't really ask for more DR from our cameras. The main problem is that you might be recording the dynamic range, but it can take serious effort in post to make it look good at an effective 8 stops (which is all you get from any monitor, if that even).




Mar 27, 2013 at 06:21 PM
luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · More Mpix or perfect per-pixel quality?


carstenw wrote:
If you can find such a scene

I would love 20 stops of DR, but only if the manufacturers would stop delivering linear files, and would encode it to achieve gentle highlight rolloff, a-la film.


Sign me up.



Mar 27, 2013 at 06:48 PM
1      
2
       3              7       8       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password