Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t750822-re-cameras-create-highly-revealing-snapshots.html)

hanson 07-02-2011 06:43 PM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
Cool, Sam,
Could someone post how the best el-pixel resolution
compares to the best resolution that was achieved
with the old Silver halide emulsions?
Which one gives finer details?
>
>

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4E0D4985.2040109@gmail.com...
> Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...amera-revealed
>
> "Through its Advanced Wide Field of View Architectures for Image
> Reconstruction and Exploitation program, DARPA has for the past year been
> working on ways to develop a camera that can take a gigapixel-quality
> image in a single snapshot. This approach is novel, given that today's
> gigapixel images actually consist of several megapixel-sized images pieced
> together digitally to provide a high level of detail over a large area.
> This is often done using a long-lens digital single-lens reflex (SLR)
> camera placed atop a motorized mount. Software controls the movement of
> the camera, which captures a mosaic of hundreds or even thousands of
> images that, when placed together, create a single, high-resolution scene
> that maintains its clarity even when the viewer zooms in on a specific
> area. DARPA plans to invest $25 million over a three-and-a-half-year
> period in its program, which includes a component called Maximally
> scalable Optical Sensor Array Imaging with Computation (MOSAIC)".
>
> See:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...amera-revealed



hanson 07-02-2011 11:03 PM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
- hanson wrote:
-- "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

hanson wrote:
Well, that may be so, Paul, but what I posted and
wanted to hear was and is:
Could someone post how the best el-pixel resolution
compares to the best resolution that was achieved
with the old Silver halide emulsions?
Which one gives finer details?


hanson 07-03-2011 12:35 AM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
Cool, Paul!... Thanks!
>

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:bdqdnf5IFdEGKpLTnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> hanson wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>> - hanson wrote:
>> -- Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>

>> hanson wrote:
>> Well, that may be so, Paul, but what I posted and
>> wanted to hear was and is:
>> Could someone post how the best el-pixel resolution
>> compares to the best resolution that was achieved
>> with the old Silver halide emulsions?
>> Which one gives finer details?

>

Paul wrote:
> I missed the O.P. so replied there.
> The article did mention large format film as one option, although I'd
> guess color is helpful for many of their spy satellite needs.
>
> But I'm sure black and white film can get a heck of a lot more detail than
> any large format sensor, because there are no large format sensors
> available other than scanning backs. Another concept in the article,
> shifted a smaller sensor (35mm square) around to catch a mosaic but that's
> not a single snapshot; it still takes time to cycle through.
>
> Still, I'm pretty sure black and white film exceeds digital for dynamic
> range plus resolution. Not true for color. In fact, if you use a
> monochrome sensor (scientific grade as used in their prototypes), that may
> get the advantage back.
>
> Another thing the article mentioned was using an older film lens because
> there are no large format lenses optimized for digital. Even though it's
> not super-high resolution, they determined that the larger format captured
> more detail than medium format. So it's not super-high resolution in terms
> of lp/mm.
>
> Also, from the comments:
> "As someone who worked with satellite pictures during the Vietnam War, I
> find this technology amazing. We had to launch very heavy, low-earth-orbit
> satellites from Vandenberg AFB, and the film was returned to earth in
> capsules that were captured in mid-air over the South Pacific. The
> resolution was breathtaking.
> This new methodology, even with its drawbacks, sounds far faster, and as
> for cost, I do not imagine it is possible for it to be as expensive as a
> Titan liquid-fuel rocket with multiple solid-fuel strap-on boosters."
>
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Sam Wormley wrote
>>>>> Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...amera-revealed

>

Paul wrote:
> OH, here, on page two:
> "Another large-format approach to taking gigapixel snapshots is the
> Gigapixl Project, which physicist Graham Flint formed about a decade ago.
> Gigapixl's camera uses 23-by-46-centimeter film—the same used in military
> spy planes such as the U-2, to capture images—which is then scanned and
> digitized to create images up to four gigapixels in size."
>
>>>>> "Through its Advanced Wide Field of View Architectures for Image
>>>>> Reconstruction and Exploitation program, DARPA has for the past year
>>>>> been working on ways to develop a camera that can take a
>>>>> gigapixel-quality image in a single snapshot. This approach is novel,
>>>>> given that today's gigapixel images actually consist of several
>>>>> megapixel-sized images pieced together digitally to provide a high
>>>>> level of detail over a large area. This is often done using a
>>>>> long-lens digital single-lens reflex (SLR) camera placed atop a
>>>>> motorized mount. Software controls the movement of the camera, which
>>>>> captures a mosaic of hundreds or even thousands of images that, when
>>>>> placed together, create a single, high-resolution scene that maintains
>>>>> its clarity even when the viewer zooms in on a specific area. DARPA
>>>>> plans to invest $25 million over a three-and-a-half-year period in its
>>>>> program, which includes a component called Maximally scalable Optical
>>>>> Sensor Array Imaging with Computation (MOSAIC)".
>>>
>>> This is the most interesting of the options they mention:
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/sl...DE7A53BE3A83BC
>>> -lens is a sphere with microlenses on the back side which project onto a
>>> hemisphere of small sensors around the lens-ball.
>>>

Paul wrote:
>>> I never heard of this idea that a sphere shaped single element lens had
>>> optical advantages of fewer aberrations though. Maybe the problem is it
>>> won't focus on a flat sensor/film so this solves that problem.



Helmut Wabnig 07-03-2011 09:31 AM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:27:51 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>hanson wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>> - hanson wrote:
>> -- Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>

>> hanson wrote:
>> Well, that may be so, Paul, but what I posted and
>> wanted to hear was and is:
>> Could someone post how the best el-pixel resolution
>> compares to the best resolution that was achieved
>> with the old Silver halide emulsions?
>> Which one gives finer details?

>
>I missed the O.P. so replied there.
>
>The article did mention large format film as one option, although I'd
>guess color is helpful for many of their spy satellite needs.
>
>But I'm sure black and white film can get a heck of a lot more detail
>than any large format sensor, because there are no large format sensors
>available other than scanning backs. Another concept in the article,
>shifted a smaller sensor (35mm square) around to catch a mosaic but
>that's not a single snapshot; it still takes time to cycle through.
>
>Still, I'm pretty sure black and white film exceeds digital for dynamic
>range plus resolution. Not true for color. In fact, if you use a
>monochrome sensor (scientific grade as used in their prototypes), that
>may get the advantage back.
>
>Another thing the article mentioned was using an older film lens because
>there are no large format lenses optimized for digital. Even though it's
>not super-high resolution, they determined that the larger format
>captured more detail than medium format. So it's not super-high
>resolution in terms of lp/mm.
>
>Also, from the comments:
>"As someone who worked with satellite pictures during the Vietnam War, I
>find this technology amazing. We had to launch very heavy,
>low-earth-orbit satellites from Vandenberg AFB, and the film was
>returned to earth in capsules that were captured in mid-air over the
>South Pacific. The resolution was breathtaking.
>This new methodology, even with its drawbacks, sounds far faster, and as
>for cost, I do not imagine it is possible for it to be as expensive as a
>Titan liquid-fuel rocket with multiple solid-fuel strap-on boosters."
>......


With a consumer type 24x36 camera the resolution limiting factor
is the optics, not the photographic film.
Diffraction limits such a photo to about 20 megapixels in theory.

Usually it is much less, about 4 Megapixels with a "good" lens.
Even less with el-cheapo lenses and wrong setting.
Any photographic optic I put on my camera has it's optimal
resolution at a certain aperture only. Put superglue on the
aperture ring, and never use zoom lenses.

Average foto 24x36 slides have less than 1 megapixel,
and that was considered a good foto before the digital age.


w.

RichA 07-03-2011 04:58 PM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
On Jul 3, 8:13*am, Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwo...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:43:44 -0700, hanson wrote:
> > Cool, Sam,
> > Could someone post how the best el-pixel resolution compares to the best
> > resolution that was achieved with the old Silver halide emulsions? Which
> > one gives finer details?

>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4E0D4985.2040109@gmail.com...
> >> Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots

>
> >>http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...apixel-camera-

> revealed
>
> >> "Through its Advanced Wide Field of View Architectures for Image
> >> Reconstruction and Exploitation program, DARPA has for the past year
> >> been working on ways to develop a camera that can take a
> >> gigapixel-quality image in a single snapshot. This approach is novel,
> >> given that today's gigapixel images actually consist of several
> >> megapixel-sized images pieced together digitally to provide a high
> >> level of detail over a large area. This is often done using a long-lens
> >> digital single-lens reflex (SLR) camera placed atop a motorized mount.
> >> Software controls the movement of the camera, which captures a mosaic
> >> of hundreds or even thousands of images that, when placed together,
> >> create a single, high-resolution scene that maintains its clarity even
> >> when the viewer zooms in on a specific area. DARPA plans to invest $25
> >> million over a three-and-a-half-year period in its *program, which
> >> includes a component called Maximally scalable Optical Sensor Array
> >> Imaging with Computation (MOSAIC)".

>
> >> See:
> >>http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...apixel-camera-

>
> revealed
>
> Believe it or not but it is the result I am interested in. The final
> picture is my aim.
>
> --
> Neil
> Linux counter 335851
> delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’


Whatever the resolution of the film, divide it by four by the time it
hits the print, no matter what lenses or techniques are used.

Anton Shepelev 07-04-2011 08:15 PM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
Helmut Wabnig:

> Usually it is much less, about 4 Megapixels with a
> "good" lens. Even less with el-cheapo lenses and
> wrong setting. Any photographic optic I put on my
> camera has it's optimal
> resolution at a certain aperture only. Put super-
> glue on the aperture ring, and never use zoom
> lenses. P Average foto 24x36 slides have less
> than 1 megapixel, and that was considered a good
> foto before the digital age.


I must be serously misunderstanding something,
because both figures seem to me severely underesti-
mated. Here is a fragment of a 2900-dpi scan of an
old Soviet slide, shot with a consumer-grade camera
through a Helios lens, well known for its softness.
It is much more than one or four megapixels:

http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/6/8...d/d116ae3b.jpg

With modern 50-ISO B/W film, the resolution of my
2900-dpi scanner is just not enough, so twelve
megapixels is way below the practical achivable
limit.

Anton

Helmut Wabnig 07-04-2011 08:51 PM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 00:15:51 +0400, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

>Helmut Wabnig:
>
>> Usually it is much less, about 4 Megapixels with a
>> "good" lens. Even less with el-cheapo lenses and
>> wrong setting. Any photographic optic I put on my
>> camera has it's optimal
>> resolution at a certain aperture only. Put super-
>> glue on the aperture ring, and never use zoom
>> lenses. P Average foto 24x36 slides have less
>> than 1 megapixel, and that was considered a good
>> foto before the digital age.

>
>I must be serously misunderstanding something,
>because both figures seem to me severely underesti-
>mated. Here is a fragment of a 2900-dpi scan of an
>old Soviet slide, shot with a consumer-grade camera
>through a Helios lens, well known for its softness.
>It is much more than one or four megapixels:
>
> http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/6/8...d/d116ae3b.jpg
>
>With modern 50-ISO B/W film, the resolution of my
>2900-dpi scanner is just not enough, so twelve
>megapixels is way below the practical achivable
>limit.
>
>Anton



Downscaled from 3,21 Mb to 384 kByte.
how much of a difference do you see?

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8982/comparisonc.jpg

A higer resolution scanner will only produce more grain noise.
The image is already overblown and the countours cannot be
made sharper and you cannot get more details out of the foto.

"Empty magnification" is produced by the scanner.
Set the scanner resolution down until you notice some details
are missing, e.g. the white lines on the red kilt cloth blend.

The smallest discernible detail measured in line-pairs per millimeter
defines resolution, not the film emulsion grain speckles which may be
much smaller than any photographed detail.

w.

Androcles 07-04-2011 09:48 PM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
news:o79417dbv321chvbcg7u16dbfmvsitto52@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 00:15:51 +0400, Anton Shepelev
| <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Helmut Wabnig:
| >
| >> Usually it is much less, about 4 Megapixels with a
| >> "good" lens. Even less with el-cheapo lenses and
| >> wrong setting. Any photographic optic I put on my
| >> camera has it's optimal
| >> resolution at a certain aperture only. Put super-
| >> glue on the aperture ring, and never use zoom
| >> lenses. P Average foto 24x36 slides have less
| >> than 1 megapixel, and that was considered a good
| >> foto before the digital age.
| >
| >I must be serously misunderstanding something,
| >because both figures seem to me severely underesti-
| >mated. Here is a fragment of a 2900-dpi scan of an
| >old Soviet slide, shot with a consumer-grade camera
| >through a Helios lens, well known for its softness.
| >It is much more than one or four megapixels:
| >
| > http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/6/8...d/d116ae3b.jpg
| >
| >With modern 50-ISO B/W film, the resolution of my
| >2900-dpi scanner is just not enough, so twelve
| >megapixels is way below the practical achivable
| >limit.
| >
| >Anton
|
|
| Downscaled from 3,21 Mb to 384 kByte.

B/W film existed long before the digital age, you moron.
It's been around since the mid-1800s. You don't need a
darkroom for a digital camera, why are you posting your
babble to rec.photo.darkroom, wabnigger?





Anton Shepelev 07-05-2011 08:30 AM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
Helmut Wabnig:

> Downscaled from 3,21 Mb to 384 kByte.
> how much of a difference do you see?


I can't figure what you have done. The IrfanView
screenshot says that the compressed image size is
different but the real size, which determines the
resolution, is the same (11.37 Mb).

Let's operate linear (pixels per inch) resulution
instead of the quadratic one (image size, megapix-
els, e.t.c.), which is misleading.

I have downsized the original fragment by a factor
of two:

http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/1/5...d/8017b14d.png

And here's a side-by-side screenshot comparing it
with the original fragment. The downscaled verstion
have been resampled by the same factor of two, with-
out interpolation, which is OK for integer factors.

http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/d/0...d/ea5735f2.png

Notice the loss of detail in the left image. Here's
the same comparison with interpolation:

http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/0/8...d/b6854364.png

Still less sharp than the original.

From this I conclude that there is more than
2900/2=1450 dpi resolution in this particular slide.

> A higer resolution scanner will only produce more
> grain noise.


A higher resolution will only improve the look of
the grain, because it will be done above the charac-
teristic frequency of the grain:

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

> "Empty magnification" is produced by the scanner.
> Set the scanner resolution down until you notice
> some details
> are missing, e.g. the white lines on the red kilt
> cloth blend.


This is bad advice when applied to scanning film. In
addition to the above, the level of details in not a
binary thing. It is also incorrect to judge it only
by high-contrast areas. Pay attention to medium- and
low-contrast areas as well -- the grey cap for exam-
ple.

> The smallest discernible detail measured in line-
> pairs per millimeter defines resolution, not the
> film emulsion grain speckles which may be much
> smaller than any photographed detail.


Yes, but this measurement can only be used to com-
pare against other measurement in the same condi-
tions -- lightning, chart contrast, e.t.c.

There is no well-defined boundary between meaningful
detail and grain. As the frequency increases, the
ratio of detail vs. grain noise decreases, and with
good film scanned at 4000 dpi it still far from
zero.

Anton

Helmut Wabnig 07-05-2011 10:07 AM

Re: Cameras Create Highly Revealing Snapshots
 
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:48:44 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics.June.2011> wrote:

>
>"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
>news:o79417dbv321chvbcg7u16dbfmvsitto52@4ax.com.. .
>| On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 00:15:51 +0400, Anton Shepelev
>| <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
>|
>| >Helmut Wabnig:
>| >
>| >> Usually it is much less, about 4 Megapixels with a
>| >> "good" lens. Even less with el-cheapo lenses and
>| >> wrong setting. Any photographic optic I put on my
>| >> camera has it's optimal
>| >> resolution at a certain aperture only. Put super-
>| >> glue on the aperture ring, and never use zoom
>| >> lenses. P Average foto 24x36 slides have less
>| >> than 1 megapixel, and that was considered a good
>| >> foto before the digital age.
>| >
>| >I must be serously misunderstanding something,
>| >because both figures seem to me severely underesti-
>| >mated. Here is a fragment of a 2900-dpi scan of an
>| >old Soviet slide, shot with a consumer-grade camera
>| >through a Helios lens, well known for its softness.
>| >It is much more than one or four megapixels:
>| >
>| > http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/6/8...d/d116ae3b.jpg
>| >
>| >With modern 50-ISO B/W film, the resolution of my
>| >2900-dpi scanner is just not enough, so twelve
>| >megapixels is way below the practical achivable
>| >limit.
>| >
>| >Anton
>|
>|
>| Downscaled from 3,21 Mb to 384 kByte.
>
>B/W film existed long before the digital age, you moron.
>It's been around since the mid-1800s. You don't need a
>darkroom for a digital camera, why are you posting your
>babble to rec.photo.darkroom, wabnigger?
>


Especially for you, Andro,
because those are the only questions
which you are capable of asking.


w.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.