«

Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
human eye. - from the Technology section of www.odd-info.com

On Sep 23, 12:47 pm, javawizard <javawiz...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's not quite a linear comparison

That was the only vaguely sensible thing spamboy said. It's a
completely meaningless comparison. The eye doesn't work like a camera
at all.

And you are just spamming what is almost certainly a complete-waste-of-
time-website.

So, FOAD, would you?

javawizard wrote:
> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
> days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
> typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
> megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
> much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
> you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
> human eye. - from the Technology section of www.odd-info.com

Nice post. Thanks for that and the interesting link.

On Sep 22, 9:47 pm, javawizard <javawiz...@aol.com> wrote:
> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
> days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
> typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
> megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
> much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
> you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
> human eye. - from the Technology section ofwww.odd-info.com

In the earliest days of CCD photography people tried to make such non-
rectangular pattern image chips. The results were very problematic.
One of the key methods of IC layout these days is the use of repeating
cells. That is not usable with a variable pitch photomosaic. Also
the electrical characteristics of the detector cell depends on size-
if we have a variable size detector/well, it is very hard to
normalize.

The main reason for these efforts were helmet mounted displays and
helmet sights. I can see no great reason to try overly hard to develop
such focal planes for digital photography, since most people want to
scan their eyes over a print. Do you really want prints with sharp
centers and fuzzy edges? Actually, I have seen some lenses that do a
pretty good job of simulating that anyway.

"javawizard" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
> days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
> typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
> megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
> much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
> you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
> human eye. - from the Technology section of www.odd-info.com
>


Your logic and your arithmetic need a little improvement.

Around 2000 digicams had 2 Megapixels. Now in 2007 a lot have 10 Mp.

The rate of increase seems to be around 1 Mp per year, so assuming that rate
of increase is consant your "soon" looks a bit more like100 years.

Roy G

Roy G wrote:
> "javawizard" <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
>> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
>> days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
>> typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
>> megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
>> much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
>> you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
>> human eye. - from the Technology section of www.odd-info.com
>>
>
>
> Your logic and your arithmetic need a little improvement.
>
> Around 2000 digicams had 2 Megapixels. Now in 2007 a lot have 10 Mp.
>
> The rate of increase seems to be around 1 Mp per year, so assuming that rate
> of increase is consant your "soon" looks a bit more like100 years.
>

But if the pixel count goes up by a factor 5 every 7 years by 2014 we
would have cameras with 50 MP and by 2021 cameras with 250 MP.

After all if cameras really were going up by 1 MP every year then in
1998 the cameras would have had 0 pixels, assuming that they were at 2
MP in the year 2000.

Scott

Roy G wrote:
> "javawizard" <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
>> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
>> days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
>> typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
>> megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
>> much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
>> you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
>> human eye. - from the Technology section of www.odd-info.com
>>
>
>
> Your logic and your arithmetic need a little improvement.
>
> Around 2000 digicams had 2 Megapixels. Now in 2007 a lot have 10 Mp.
>
> The rate of increase seems to be around 1 Mp per year, so assuming that rate
> of increase is consant your "soon" looks a bit more like100 years.
>
> Roy G
>
>
At the moment, unless someone comes out with quantum based sensors, the
only way to make the sensors work well with more pixels is to make
larger sensors, which means different lens systems, and, probably,
larger cameras. Does anyone but a professional NEED a 30mp camera? I
do pretty well with 4-7mp.

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Roy G wrote:
>> "javawizard" <> wrote in message
>> news: ps.com...
>>> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
>>> days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
>>> typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
>>> megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
>>> much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
>>> you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
>>> human eye. - from the Technology section of www.odd-info.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your logic and your arithmetic need a little improvement.
>>
>> Around 2000 digicams had 2 Megapixels. Now in 2007 a lot have 10 Mp.
>>
>> The rate of increase seems to be around 1 Mp per year, so assuming
>> that rate of increase is consant your "soon" looks a bit more like100
>> years.
>>
>> Roy G
>>
> At the moment, unless someone comes out with quantum based sensors, the
> only way to make the sensors work well with more pixels is to make
> larger sensors, which means different lens systems, and, probably,
> larger cameras. Does anyone but a professional NEED a 30mp camera? I
> do pretty well with 4-7mp.

The 1Ds Mark III is already at 21MP, 30MP is just a bit more.

It seems not that long ago that many people where saying that there was
no need for more then 5MP, in someways they might even have been right
but still we see the march go on and 10MP is getting to be pretty
average not.

The fact that people use 1.4X and 2x teleconverter on cameras like the
40D tells us that there is a fair bit more resolution to be had in at
least some lenses.

Scott

Roy G <> wrote:

> "javawizard" <> wrote in message
> news: ps.com...
>> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels these
>> days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel resolution was
>> typical. The human eye has a resolution of approximately 137
>> megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison, since our eyes have
>> much higher resolution in the central area than at the edges. Still,
>> you can imagine that soon cameras will be more sensitive than the
>> human eye. - from the Technology section of www.odd-info.com

> Your logic and your arithmetic need a little improvement.

> Around 2000 digicams had 2 Megapixels. Now in 2007 a lot have 10 Mp.

> The rate of increase seems to be around 1 Mp per year, so assuming that rate
> of increase is consant your "soon" looks a bit more like100 years.

The rate of increase is extremely likely to be exponential, not
linear. See "Moore's Law", which although derived specifically for
computer processors and memory, will apply to any technology deriving
from silicon real-estate transistor density, such as digital camera
sensors and associated memory and processing.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Roy G <> wrote:
>
>> "javawizard" <> wrote in message
>> news: ps.com...
>>> Typical digital cameras have a resolution of about 8 megapixels
>>> these days. Just a few years ago, one, or three-megapixel
>>> resolution was typical. The human eye has a resolution of
>>> approximately 137 megapixels. It's not quite a linear comparison,
>>> since our eyes have much higher resolution in the central area than
>>> at the edges. Still, you can imagine that soon cameras will be more
>>> sensitive than the human eye. - from the Technology section of
>>> www.odd-info.com
>
>> Your logic and your arithmetic need a little improvement.
>
>> Around 2000 digicams had 2 Megapixels. Now in 2007 a lot have 10 Mp.
>
>> The rate of increase seems to be around 1 Mp per year, so assuming
>> that rate of increase is consant your "soon" looks a bit more
>> like100 years.
>
> The rate of increase is extremely likely to be exponential, not
> linear. See "Moore's Law", which although derived specifically for
> computer processors and memory, will apply to any technology deriving
> from silicon real-estate transistor density, such as digital camera
> sensors and associated memory and processing.

There is far more to consider than MP. If your digicam has the same old
cheap lens there will be little gain beyond a certain point. I have plenty
of cheap 5-10MP still cameras that have far less image quality than others
with half they MP and better glass. Image stabilization is also a factor
along with file format and post processing in determining the final output
of a good video or photo.

A fast car won't smooth out a bump in the road.