100MP camera!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bolshoy Huy, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. Bolshoy Huy

    Bolshoy Huy Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Bolshoy Huy

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "Bolshoy Huy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/11/24/68449.html


    "Although it takes 4 hours to take a picture and only works in red light, it
    also delivers extremely high resolution."

    Typical Russian technology. Takes way too long, requires politically correct
    light, then lies about the outcome.
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Jan 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lorem Ipsum wrote:
    > "Bolshoy Huy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/11/24/68449.html

    >
    >
    > "Although it takes 4 hours to take a picture and only works in red light, it
    > also delivers extremely high resolution."
    >
    > Typical Russian technology. Takes way too long, requires politically correct
    > light, then lies about the outcome.
    >
    >


    And I always thought the that University of California was in the USA :)

    Angus
     
    angusinalberta, Jan 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Bolshoy Huy

    This old Bob Guest

    "angusinalberta" <> wrote in message
    news:6JVxf.214414$2k.186535@pd7tw1no...
    > Lorem Ipsum wrote:
    >> "Bolshoy Huy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/11/24/68449.html

    >>
    >>
    >> "Although it takes 4 hours to take a picture and only works in red light,
    >> it also delivers extremely high resolution."
    >>
    >> Typical Russian technology. Takes way too long, requires politically
    >> correct light, then lies about the outcome.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > And I always thought the that University of California was in the USA :)


    I like what is says at the bottom of the page under the heading: Photo
    Gallery:

    .. Angelina Jolie: No longer single
     
    This old Bob, Jan 13, 2006
    #4
  5. Bolshoy Huy

    MB Guest

    If Angus had read the story and gone to the link "photography," he would
    have known that the story in Pravda hadn't claimed the experiment was done
    in Russia. California scientists used the camera that a Russian had
    invented.
     
    MB, Jan 14, 2006
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    "Lorem Ipsum" <> wrote:

    > "Bolshoy Huy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/11/24/68449.html

    >
    > "Although it takes 4 hours to take a picture and only works in red light, it
    > also delivers extremely high resolution."
    >
    > Typical Russian technology. Takes way too long, requires politically correct
    > light, then lies about the outcome.


    People with scan-backs are now thinking that they have pretty damn fast
    cameras.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jan 14, 2006
    #6
  7. MB wrote:
    > If Angus had read the story and gone to the link "photography," he would
    > have known that the story in Pravda hadn't claimed the experiment was done
    > in Russia. California scientists used the camera that a Russian had
    > invented.
    >
    >

    I guess I'll just have to continue using my 200+ MPixel
    cameras (Large format view cameras).

    Roger
    Large format images at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 14, 2006
    #7
  8. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > I guess I'll just have to continue using my 200+ MPixel
    > cameras (Large format view cameras).


    Get your dimensions right. I expect your LF cameras provide about 25
    MPixel/inch^2 max; actually, I would expect the useful value to be
    closer to 6... Way short of 100 (but note that the MTF curve of the
    sensor is suspiciously missing from the short review ;-)...

    However, getting LF lenses which can usefully resolve 200 cycles/mm
    would be a hard exercise. ;-)

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Jan 14, 2006
    #8
  9. Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    > <>], who wrote in article <>:
    >
    >>I guess I'll just have to continue using my 200+ MPixel
    >>cameras (Large format view cameras).

    >
    >
    > Get your dimensions right. I expect your LF cameras provide about 25
    > MPixel/inch^2 max; actually, I would expect the useful value to be
    > closer to 6... Way short of 100 (but note that the MTF curve of the
    > sensor is suspiciously missing from the short review ;-)...
    >
    > However, getting LF lenses which can usefully resolve 200 cycles/mm
    > would be a hard exercise. ;-)
    >
    > Hope this helps,
    > Ilya


    Ilya,

    Hmmm. So, Large format 4x5 film = 3.8x4.8x6 MP is less than
    100? 8x10 film = 7.6 x 9.6 * 6MP is less than 100?

    I get ~12 MP/sq inch from my systems.
    4x5 film: > 200 MP
    8x10 film: ~ 600 to 1000 MP.

    For those unfamiliar with my work, you can check it out at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com

    Large format versus other film sizes and types are documented at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    I have tested using top of the line Linotype-Hell, Heidelberg Tango
    scanner capable of 11,000 dpi, and run tests up to 11,000 dpi.
    I stand by my results. But if you have information on how
    to get 25 megapixels/sq inch from Fujichrome Velvia, I would
    like to see it. I get consistently up to 12 megapixels/sq inch.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Bolshoy Huy

    Rich Guest

    On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:44:49 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:

    >MB wrote:
    >> If Angus had read the story and gone to the link "photography," he would
    >> have known that the story in Pravda hadn't claimed the experiment was done
    >> in Russia. California scientists used the camera that a Russian had
    >> invented.
    >>
    >>

    >I guess I'll just have to continue using my 200+ MPixel
    >cameras (Large format view cameras).
    >
    >Roger
    >Large format images at:
    >http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format


    Aside from resolved detail, what else makes large format images
    look so much better (even with modest enlargement) than images
    from smaller formats?
    I remember thinking that even reproduced in a book in relatively good
    quality reproduction (Ansel Adams three book set), LF images still
    looked better than 35mm and medium format images.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Jan 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Rich wrote:

    > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:44:49 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format

    >
    > Aside from resolved detail, what else makes large format images
    > look so much better (even with modest enlargement) than images
    > from smaller formats?
    > I remember thinking that even reproduced in a book in relatively good
    > quality reproduction (Ansel Adams three book set), LF images still
    > looked better than 35mm and medium format images.
    > -Rich


    For smaller prints (e.g. ~5x or less enlargement) apparent
    grain (noise) is virtually nonexistent, so they look very
    smooth, like digital images, but with very high resolution.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Bolshoy Huy

    BC Guest


    > Hmmm. So, Large format 4x5 film = 3.8x4.8x6 MP is less than
    > 100? 8x10 film = 7.6 x 9.6 * 6MP is less than 100?
    >
    > I get ~12 MP/sq inch from my systems.
    > 4x5 film: > 200 MP
    > 8x10 film: ~ 600 to 1000 MP.
    >


    Roger,
    12MP/in^2 seems wildly optimistic for ordinary 8x10 photography.
    Unless you're doing aerial recon (where depth of field problems do not
    come into play) with a large aperture diffraction-limited lens.

    Brian
     
    BC, Jan 16, 2006
    #12
  13. Bolshoy Huy

    Deedee Tee Guest

    I am jumping in late in this thread, so I may be restating the
    obvious. The difficulties in building a single-chip silicon sensor
    without defects (or with an acceptable number of faulty pixels)
    increases exponentially with its area as well as with the number of
    pixels. With current technologies, the bucket-passing of data from
    pixel to pixel toward the edges of a chip takes longer and longer, and
    is subjected to progressive degradation, as the sensor size and pixel
    count increases. Even if you should in some novel way solve these
    problems, and ignore the cost of reject chips, there is an upper limit
    to chip size dictated by the diametre of silicon monocrystal ingots
    (which should lie anywhere between 15 and 30 cm). A silicon slice of
    this size completely without defects is only a dream. Unless a new
    technology is used (polycrystalline silicon? organic thin-film
    semiconductors?) I shouldn't expect an affordable 8 x 10 CCD or CMOS
    sensor in the foreseeable future. A multiple chip solution, on the
    other hand, should be possible (especially for a scanning back, which
    uses a linear array of pixels).

    On 15 Jan 2006 18:11:08 -0800, "BC" <> wrote:

    >
    >> Hmmm. So, Large format 4x5 film = 3.8x4.8x6 MP is less than
    >> 100? 8x10 film = 7.6 x 9.6 * 6MP is less than 100?
    >>
    >> I get ~12 MP/sq inch from my systems.
    >> 4x5 film: > 200 MP
    >> 8x10 film: ~ 600 to 1000 MP.
    >>

    >
    >Roger,
    >12MP/in^2 seems wildly optimistic for ordinary 8x10 photography.
    >Unless you're doing aerial recon (where depth of field problems do not
    >come into play) with a large aperture diffraction-limited lens.
    >
    >Brian
     
    Deedee Tee, Jan 16, 2006
    #13
  14. BC wrote:

    >>Hmmm. So, Large format 4x5 film = 3.8x4.8x6 MP is less than
    >>100? 8x10 film = 7.6 x 9.6 * 6MP is less than 100?
    >>
    >>I get ~12 MP/sq inch from my systems.
    >>4x5 film: > 200 MP
    >>8x10 film: ~ 600 to 1000 MP.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Roger,
    > 12MP/in^2 seems wildly optimistic for ordinary 8x10 photography.
    > Unless you're doing aerial recon (where depth of field problems do not
    > come into play) with a large aperture diffraction-limited lens.
    >
    > Brian
    >

    That's why I put 600 for 8x0 which works out to about
    8 mpixel /sq inch. But under ideal conditions where depth
    of field issues do not degrade focus, like a grand scenic
    with no close foreground subjects, the higher is possible.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 22, 2006
    #14
  15. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > >>I guess I'll just have to continue using my 200+ MPixel
    > >>cameras (Large format view cameras).


    > > Get your dimensions right. I expect your LF cameras provide about 25
    > > MPixel/inch^2 max; actually, I would expect the useful value to be
    > > closer to 6... Way short of 100 (but note that the MTF curve of the
    > > sensor is suspiciously missing from the short review ;-)...


    > > However, getting LF lenses which can usefully resolve 200 cycles/mm
    > > would be a hard exercise. ;-)


    > Hmmm. So, Large format 4x5 film = 3.8x4.8x6 MP is less than
    > 100? 8x10 film = 7.6 x 9.6 * 6MP is less than 100?


    Wrong dimension. The paper is discussing 100MPixel/inch^2, not 100MPixel.

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya

    P.S. On the other hand, one should keep in mind that 100MP/inch^2 is
    much less than what today's 1/2.5" cameras produce. On the
    gripping hand, given 25cents investment, one can buy arbitrarily
    large Petri dish. ;-)
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Feb 10, 2006
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jim
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    944
    Patch
    May 20, 2004
  2. zxcvar
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,122
  3. fruitbat
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,080
    Joe Price
    Sep 17, 2003
  4. Tim
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    683
  5. Michael
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,030
    Yehuda Paradise
    Nov 22, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page