Megapixel limit

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by m Ransley, May 19, 2004.

  1. m Ransley

    m Ransley Guest

    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 .
     
    m Ransley, May 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "m Ransley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 don't think the limit has been reached. Assuming that we take a
    detector about the size of a 35mm negative, you'ld have to make
    individual sensors as small as the limit of resolution of a very good
    50mm lens, say something like a Summicron. I don't think we are there
    yet and storage and transfer of the necessary number of megabytes
    would test current but perhaps not future technology.

    Jim.
     
    James Silverton, May 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
     
    Charles Schuler, May 19, 2004
    #3
  4. 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 .


    It is generally considered that a 35 mm negative or slide is about
    equivalent to a 35 megapixel image. It's apples and oranges so an exact
    number is not possible and there is a great deal of differences between
    films just are there are differences between sensors and lenses.

    The other factor is the size of the sensor. Since most current digitals
    uses sensors that are smaller than the 35 mm image, a lens would need to
    have a greater resolution (lines per) for the same results with a digital as
    a 35 mm.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, May 19, 2004
    #4
  5. m Ransley

    m Ransley Guest

    Im sure the limit hasn't been reached K 10 and K 25 and some B&W were
    - are dam good , better than ive seen on dslrs. But I have not compared
    or used a Kodac 14 or Canon 11, to rich for me. I have K 10 from 49
    that is still sharp as a tack and vibrant with color. And now use K 64 .
    But there has to be a lens maximum of acceptance where then other
    features will be primary, ultimately giving everyone the max in
    resolution. Then it will be features. In maybe 2- 5 or 10 yrs. Foveon
    if it puts out a 14 will impress, but Nikon and Canon im sure have
    better in the lab , its just a matter of time.
     
    m Ransley, May 19, 2004
    #5
  6. "Joseph Meehan" <> 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.

    > It's apples and oranges so an exact
    > number is not possible and there is a great deal of differences between
    > films just are there are differences between sensors and lenses.


    Yepp!


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, May 19, 2004
    #6
  7. m Ransley

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: (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.

    So for practical purposes we're there already, as far as I'm concerned.

    The six megapixel models are getting close (comparing print quality) but aren't
    quite there yet.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, May 20, 2004
    #7
  8. m Ransley

    per Guest

    Consider a lens and a sensor that have the same resolution (or say "blur
    factor" to make it easier to understand). Then a reduction of the blur
    factor in either the lens or the sensor will produce a total improvement
    since they both blur the picture. This is valid to the point where the
    sensor resolution is infinite, then the lens itself will produce all blur
    (and vice versa). A larger sensor will match a larger lens for higher
    resolution.
    Canon EOS 1Ds (11 Mpixel) is the first to have higher resolution than a
    24x36mm Kodachrome slide. But a 6x6cm camera with film has even higher
    resolution. This according to tests in Ljud & Bild, Sweden.
    /per


    "m Ransley" <> wrote in
    news:...
    > 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 .
    >
     
    per, May 20, 2004
    #8
  9. "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94EF648A7421klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > "Joseph Meehan" <> 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. People who actually
    make larger prints will tell you that it's very close, with some prefering
    digital and some prefering film.

    But all the articles comparing the 1Ds to 35mm find 35mm nowhere close to
    the 1Ds.

    > > It's apples and oranges so an exact
    > > number is not possible and there is a great deal of differences between
    > > films just are there are differences between sensors and lenses.

    >
    > Yepp!


    In particular, 6MP dSLRs are _way_ ahead of 35mm at ISO 400 and above.
    Except for the perverse folks who like grain.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 20, 2004
    #9
  10. (m Ransley) wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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.
     
    George Preddy, May 20, 2004
    #10
  11. sure thing, Georgie...now when are you gonna sell me the
    Brooklyn Bridge??

    dave

    George Preddy wrote:

    > (m Ransley) wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>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.
     
    Bay Area Dave, May 20, 2004
    #11
  12. Bay Area Dave <> wrote in
    news:JiUqc.69653$:

    > 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
     
    Woodchuck Bill, May 20, 2004
    #12
  13. m Ransley

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 20, 2004
    #13
  14. m Ransley

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Charles Schuler" <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 20, 2004
    #14
  15. m Ransley

    Guest

    In message <Xns94EF648A7421klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
    Roland Karlsson <> wrote:


    >"Joseph Meehan" <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 20, 2004
    #15
  16. m Ransley

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (George Preddy) wrote:

    > (m Ransley) wrote in message news:<>...
    >> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 20, 2004
    #16
  17. m Ransley

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > (m Ransley) wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > 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.
     
    Tony Spadaro, May 20, 2004
    #17
  18. m Ransley

    gsum Guest

    Sharp lens and Sigma camera?

    Graham

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

    news:<>...
    > >> 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 <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    gsum, May 20, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>,
    Bill Hilton <> wrote:
    >>From: (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
     
    Philip Homburg, May 20, 2004
    #19
  20. m Ransley

    Guest

    David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    > "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94EF648A7421klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    >> "Joseph Meehan" <> 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.
     
    , May 20, 2004
    #20
    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. Brian C. Baird

    The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color

    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    4,183
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 17, 2004
  2. Mark

    5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera

    Mark, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    670
    Paul H.
    Mar 9, 2005
  3. Vik Rubenfeld

    URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots?

    Vik Rubenfeld, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    433
    Vik Rubenfeld
    Sep 26, 2005
  4. Mark Storkamp

    Re: Megapixel Limit

    Mark Storkamp, Jun 23, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    373
    PeterN
    Jun 24, 2011
  5. Kennedy McEwen

    Re: Megapixel Limit

    Kennedy McEwen, Jun 23, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    673
    Kennedy McEwen
    Jun 30, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page