Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Megapixel limit

Reply
Thread Tools

Megapixel limit

 
 
Bay Area Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
sure thing, Georgie...now when are you gonna sell me the
Brooklyn Bridge??

dave

George Preddy wrote:

> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>
>>What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a point
>>where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this perhaps 25 or
>>100. The race cant go on forever.
>> What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .

>
>
> Bayers are nowhere even close, Sigma/Foveon have past lens limits but not by much.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Woodchuck Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
Bay Area Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:JiUqc.69653$(E-Mail Removed). com:

> sure thing, Georgie...now when are you gonna sell me the
> Brooklyn Bridge??
>


The Golden Gate is closer to you, Homer. You should ask him for a price
quote on that.

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley) wrote:

>What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a point
>where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this perhaps 25 or
>100. The race cant go on forever.
> What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .


I'd say about 100MP for a 36*24mm frame, for the sharpest high-end
telephoto lenses, like the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS, which has MTF curves
almost indistinguishable from the "1" line.

Of course, the technology to do this without lots of noise does not
exist, and may not be possible.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Charles Schuler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>A nice situation would be if good lenses also acted as the anti-alias
>filter. In other words, the sensor pitch would be finer than the lens
>resolution and there would be no need for a blur filter on top of the
>sensor. I have read (can't remember the source) that this will occur
>somewhere around 20 to 30 megapixels for a 35 mm sensor. Others will no
>doubt correct me.


Yes, the best telephoto lenses are much sharper than that. Some would
require almost 150 MP to avoid aliasing in a 36*24mm frame.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
In message <Xns94EF648A7421klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>"Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:Q0Rqc.5$IJ6.4
>@fe2.columbus.rr.com:


>> It is generally considered that a 35 mm negative or slide is about
>> equivalent to a 35 megapixel image.


>No ... not really. The 6 Mpixel DSLRs are not all that far from
>even the best 35 mm film cameras, so 35 Mpixels? Don't think so.


The resolution of high-end telephotos is way beyond either.

You can *STACK* multiple teleconverters on a Canon 300mm f2.8L IS and
still get pixel-to-pixel detail with a 6MP DSLR.

Lens-based AA-filtering will only be practical when it works for all
lenses. How would you like a system where the images are only
anti-aliased when the sharpest lenses are used? Hey, wait a minute;
that sounds familiar.

Ultimately, I guess it all depends on what magnification the image is to
be viewed at, but I don't know why you'd want to sacrifice low noise for
a 30, 50, or 100MP resolution to print 6*4 inch photos.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (George Preddy) wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a point
>> where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this perhaps 25 or
>> 100. The race cant go on forever.
>> What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .


>Bayers are nowhere even close, Sigma/Foveon have past lens limits but not by much.


Sigma/Foveon chokes on sharp lenses, because they allow aliasing to
occur. Sigma/Foveon is best used for B&W images with vaseline smeared
on a filter.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
Another howler from the king of comedy. George -- you are the silliest troll
on the usenets.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> (E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley) wrote in message

news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a point
> > where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this perhaps 25 or
> > 100. The race cant go on forever.
> > What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .

>
> Bayers are nowhere even close, Sigma/Foveon have past lens limits but not

by much.


 
Reply With Quote
 
gsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
Sharp lens and Sigma camera?

Graham

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> (E-Mail Removed) (George Preddy) wrote:
>
> >(E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley) wrote in message

news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> >> What is the limit of megapixels lenses can use, there has to be a point
> >> where the highest quality lens cannot use more. Is this perhaps 25 or
> >> 100. The race cant go on forever.
> >> What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .

>
> >Bayers are nowhere even close, Sigma/Foveon have past lens limits but not

by much.
>
> Sigma/Foveon chokes on sharp lenses, because they allow aliasing to
> occur. Sigma/Foveon is best used for B&W images with vaseline smeared
> on a filter.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><



 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bill Hilton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>From: (E-Mail Removed) (m Ransley)

>
>> What Dslr can now equal Kodachrome 64, or can one .

>
>I have an 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds and large prints (ie, above 11x14") from this
>camera are noticeably better than prints from scanned fine-grained 35 mm film
>even though 4,000 dpi film scan files are much larger.


A Dutch camera magazine (called 'Camera magazine') printed some pictures
(at an A3 size spread) that include a brick wall taken with various cameras.

All cameras (Canon 1Ds, Nikon 2DH, Nikon 100) except the Kodak Pro14n, showed
very ugly brick walls because the frequencies of the patterns in wall were
close to (or just above) the resolution limit of the sensor.

Film shows gracefull degradation at higher frequencies. Digital just
collapses.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
David J. Littleboy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Roland Karlsson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns94EF648A7421klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>> "Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:Q0Rqc.5$IJ6.4
>> @fe2.columbus.rr.com:
>>
>> > It is generally considered that a 35 mm negative or slide is about
>> > equivalent to a 35 megapixel image.

>>
>> No ... not really. The 6 Mpixel DSLRs are not all that far from
>> even the best 35 mm film cameras, so 35 Mpixels? Don't think so.


> Most sensible articles put the 6MP dSLRs at 70% of 35mm.


70% of what 35mm film? Come on David, I'm sure you know better than
to post this. It depends so critically on what film you're talking
about: colour negative film is one thing, fine-grain B&W film is
something else.

Andrew.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots? Vik Rubenfeld Digital Photography 2 09-26-2005 08:51 AM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 04-01-2005 05:26 PM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 5 04-01-2005 02:08 PM
5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera Mark Digital Photography 13 03-09-2005 04:06 PM
The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color Brian C. Baird Digital Photography 44 06-17-2004 06:12 PM



Advertisments