Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted
On 30 March 2013 19:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > There was a photography expert retired from the NSA who made conventional > film cameras with gigantic resolution, which he used to make landscape > photos. He would blow them up to wall sized murals and every inch showed > astounding detail. It took him days to take a shot sometimes because he had > to wait for good weather. I don't recall his name. > > Yep, and then he bought Nokia's Pureview smartphone, with gigantic 41 MPix sensor and was amazed what he can do with 41 megapixels. He appeared on Nokia's commercial promotion video. I too do not remember his name. 41 Mpix sensors are amazing in good lighting conditions. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted
David Jonsson wrote: > The camera market is strange and weird. They sell 13 megapixel cameras > althoug very few can view more than 2 megapixel and commonly we view far > less. > That can't be right. I have some old photos from 2 MP cameras. They are tiny! They do not begin to fill the screen. A 12 MP image more than fills the biggest computer screen now available. In the future I expect we will have screens 1 m to the side, and eventually wall-sided hi-res screens, so there will always be a use for more megapixels in cameras. One benefit of having a 12 MP camera now is that you can edit the picture, cropping out parts you do not like. The resulting image still has enough detail to be interesting, or attractive. There was a photography expert retired from the NSA who made conventional film cameras with gigantic resolution, which he used to make landscape photos. He would blow them up to wall sized murals and every inch showed astounding detail. It took him days to take a shot sometimes because he had to wait for good weather. I don't recall his name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted
On Mar 30, 2013, at 12:16 AM, David Jonsson wrote: > > The full dynamic range of the eye is 1:100 which requres encoding of 20 > bits per color or 60 bits per pixel, and the static range is 1:1 > representable with 14 or 42 bits. Such pixels would be a much better choise > compared top increasing the megapixel to absurd levels. > My camera has 41 megapixel sensor and it does splendid work. In camera technology the megapixel count does not matter itself, but how large is the sensor. And indeed this 41 Mpix sensor is the largest of its class and thus the performance is best of its class. Because the individual pixels cannot get any smaller, then the actual sensor must be made larger to fit 41 Mpix. Therefore we need 100 megapixel camera sensors, because they collect light from large area and as a bonus they leave a lot of room for zooming in good lighting conditions. Perhaps you did not realize that in digital photography, the megapixel counting is not about making higher quality raw pictures but it is left there for zooming and cropping purposes and for low light performance and for noise cancellation. What if you retrospectively want to zoom into small detail of the picture, e.g. to identify what was that bird that was captured in the background? However, why we must mimic eye? Why not just increase the color channels? Birds have four color channels. Why not use six or more color channels in digital cameras? —Jouni
[Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted
Hi The camera market is strange and weird. They sell 13 megapixel cameras althoug very few can view more than 2 megapixel and commonly we view far less. What DOES however improve quality is increasing bits per color from 8 to 16 or more. 8 bit is just a bad heritage from a time when memory was expensive and performance slow. So why aren't there any 16 bit cameras available? I found one for $1500. The full dynamic range of the eye is 1:100 which requres encoding of 20 bits per color or 60 bits per pixel, and the static range is 1:1 representable with 14 or 42 bits. Such pixels would be a much better choise compared top increasing the megapixel to absurd levels. With 60 bit colors the true intensity of the light would be recorded in the image. Further increase of features would be an alpha channel for transparency. This cahnnel should not be 8 bit. It should be 60 bits as well because transparency can be different at different colors. One 20 bit alpha-channel per color makes a 60 bit alpha channel. Together with the original color thats 120 bits per pixel. Monitors aren't much better. I just search and only found two monitors with 12 bits per color as maxiumum resolution David
