Photography Of The Future (Terapixel Technology!)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Matt, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. Matt

    Matt Guest

    A guy called Michael, recently replied to a post of mine and said 'How many
    megapixels do we need?'. I thought this was a very good point, and made me
    think a bit. (Bear with me on this.)

    Resolution is something which will constantly increase, just like RAM and
    Processor Speed of computers. If I remember correctly, Bill Gates once said
    something along the lines of '512k RAM is enough for anybody'.

    So, when is enough, enough when it comes to megapixels?

    Bigger resolution does generally create sharper images because there is more
    information to start with, and is why some people shoot Medium and Large
    Format. The biggest advantage, apart from this, is the fact it gives you
    more power to crop in Photoshop, etc.

    Before you start typing your replies, I know there are photographers in here
    who are thinking 'why crop?', why not get the picture you want in the first
    place? Well, picture this. You are a sports photographer and are sitting
    at the boundaries. You have only one lens, which is a wide angle lens.

    You ask, 'Why no telephoto lens? The answer is, 'Because you don't need
    it!'

    The reason why you don't need it is because you just shoot away covering the
    whole scene you want to shoot, and crop the part of the photo you want
    because you have a gigapixel, or terapixel body.

    Then, because the rest of the camera is just as good, you can sit there for
    90 minutes, let the camera continuously shoot for the length of the game at
    120fps and just take the crop of the frame you want.

    Of course, this not just limited to sports photography, you could sit
    anywhere you want to get the photo you want.

    Scary isn't it! Not because of the fact that this future technology is a
    possibility, but because photography will no longer be fun!
    Matt, Nov 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matt

    Karl Guest

    Last year i bought a medium format mamiya on the grounds of image quality,
    true it is good, but what i have found most is that when i use the waist
    level finder instead of the prisum the image clatity in the view finder far
    outstrips anything i have had before and helps me see and frame the photos i
    take. I love the camera so much i will always reach for it before my 35mm
    canon.

    Thanks

    Karl

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cne22e$rtf$...
    >A guy called Michael, recently replied to a post of mine and said 'How many
    > megapixels do we need?'. I thought this was a very good point, and made
    > me
    > think a bit. (Bear with me on this.)
    >
    > Resolution is something which will constantly increase, just like RAM and
    > Processor Speed of computers. If I remember correctly, Bill Gates once
    > said
    > something along the lines of '512k RAM is enough for anybody'.
    >
    > So, when is enough, enough when it comes to megapixels?
    >
    > Bigger resolution does generally create sharper images because there is
    > more
    > information to start with, and is why some people shoot Medium and Large
    > Format. The biggest advantage, apart from this, is the fact it gives you
    > more power to crop in Photoshop, etc.
    >
    > Before you start typing your replies, I know there are photographers in
    > here
    > who are thinking 'why crop?', why not get the picture you want in the
    > first
    > place? Well, picture this. You are a sports photographer and are sitting
    > at the boundaries. You have only one lens, which is a wide angle lens.
    >
    > You ask, 'Why no telephoto lens? The answer is, 'Because you don't need
    > it!'
    >
    > The reason why you don't need it is because you just shoot away covering
    > the
    > whole scene you want to shoot, and crop the part of the photo you want
    > because you have a gigapixel, or terapixel body.
    >
    > Then, because the rest of the camera is just as good, you can sit there
    > for
    > 90 minutes, let the camera continuously shoot for the length of the game
    > at
    > 120fps and just take the crop of the frame you want.
    >
    > Of course, this not just limited to sports photography, you could sit
    > anywhere you want to get the photo you want.
    >
    > Scary isn't it! Not because of the fact that this future technology is a
    > possibility, but because photography will no longer be fun!
    >
    >
    >
    Karl, Nov 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matt

    Matt Guest

    Well, Karl, don't get me started on medium/large format of the future.

    The digital equivalent will be on satellites. This means that it will be
    possible to take photos of the world, and crop to the part you want!

    Just a thought, but is there any reason why this technology doesn't already
    exist, and is already being used by the government?



    "Karl" <> wrote in message
    news:D3wmd.190$...
    > Last year i bought a medium format mamiya on the grounds of image quality,
    > true it is good, but what i have found most is that when i use the waist
    > level finder instead of the prisum the image clatity in the view finder

    far
    > outstrips anything i have had before and helps me see and frame the photos

    i
    > take. I love the camera so much i will always reach for it before my 35mm
    > canon.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Karl
    >
    Matt, Nov 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Matt

    JME Guest

    yeah, perspective. Not much call for photos of the wedding from above.
    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cne553$lvg$...
    > Well, Karl, don't get me started on medium/large format of the future.
    >
    > The digital equivalent will be on satellites. This means that it will be
    > possible to take photos of the world, and crop to the part you want!
    >
    > Just a thought, but is there any reason why this technology doesn't

    already
    > exist, and is already being used by the government?
    >
    >
    >
    > "Karl" <> wrote in message
    > news:D3wmd.190$...
    > > Last year i bought a medium format mamiya on the grounds of image

    quality,
    > > true it is good, but what i have found most is that when i use the waist
    > > level finder instead of the prisum the image clatity in the view finder

    > far
    > > outstrips anything i have had before and helps me see and frame the

    photos
    > i
    > > take. I love the camera so much i will always reach for it before my

    35mm
    > > canon.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Karl
    > >

    >
    >
    JME, Nov 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Matt

    Doc Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cne553$lvg$...
    > Well, Karl, don't get me started on medium/large format of the future.
    >
    > The digital equivalent will be on satellites. This means that it will be
    > possible to take photos of the world, and crop to the part you want!
    >
    > Just a thought, but is there any reason why this technology doesn't

    already
    > exist, and is already being used by the government?


    Isn't there an optic limit to what you can achieve this way? Just the same
    way that you can't simply use ever more powerful multiplying lenses to boost
    the magnification of a given size telescsope (though this is the fraudulent
    basis of most consumer telescope power claims). The image loses clarity once
    you get past a mathematically determined limit.
    Doc, Nov 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Matt

    Charles Guest

    On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:18:24 -0000, "Matt" <> wrote:

    >Well, Karl, don't get me started on medium/large format of the future.
    >
    >The digital equivalent will be on satellites. This means that it will be
    >possible to take photos of the world, and crop to the part you want!
    >
    >Just a thought, but is there any reason why this technology doesn't already
    >exist, and is already being used by the government?
    >
    >
    >
    >"Karl" <> wrote in message
    >news:D3wmd.190$...
    >> Last year i bought a medium format mamiya on the grounds of image quality,
    >> true it is good, but what i have found most is that when i use the waist
    >> level finder instead of the prisum the image clatity in the view finder

    >far
    >> outstrips anything i have had before and helps me see and frame the photos

    >i
    >> take. I love the camera so much i will always reach for it before my 35mm
    >> canon.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> Karl
    >>

    >


    You going to use a lens in front of this magic camera of yours? One
    with infinite resolution, no aberrations, perfect MTF? do you have a
    catalog number for it?


    --

    - Charles
    -
    -does not play well with others
    Charles, Nov 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Matt

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:18:24 -0000, "Matt" <> wrote:
    >
    > ...
    > You going to use a lens in front of this magic camera of yours? One
    > with infinite resolution, no aberrations, perfect MTF? do you have a
    > catalog number for it?
    > ...


    Of course any lens will resolve an image for an infinite
    number of pixels. All you need is an infinite amount of
    exposure time :)

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Nov 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Matt

    Charles Guest

    On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:45:09 -0500, "Alan Meyer" <>
    wrote:

    >"Charles" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:18:24 -0000, "Matt" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> ...
    >> You going to use a lens in front of this magic camera of yours? One
    >> with infinite resolution, no aberrations, perfect MTF? do you have a
    >> catalog number for it?
    >> ...

    >
    >Of course any lens will resolve an image for an infinite
    >number of pixels. All you need is an infinite amount of
    >exposure time :)
    >
    > Alan
    >

    Maybe an infinitely small pinhole lens?


    --

    - Charles
    -
    -does not play well with others
    Charles, Nov 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Matt

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cne22e$rtf$...
    > ...
    > So, when is enough, enough when it comes to megapixels?


    The answer is, as it always is to questions like this, it
    depends on the application. There are certain scientific
    imaging applications where the more pixels the better.
    I suspect that astronomical observation may fall into this
    category. Maybe crime investigation could benefit from
    huge numbers of pixels in photos of crime scenes.

    For ordinary snapshots, we probably have all the pixels
    we need.

    > ...
    > Then, because the rest of the camera is just as good, you can sit there

    for
    > 90 minutes, let the camera continuously shoot for the length of the game

    at
    > 120fps and just take the crop of the frame you want.
    >
    > Of course, this not just limited to sports photography, you could sit
    > anywhere you want to get the photo you want.
    >
    > Scary isn't it! Not because of the fact that this future technology is a
    > possibility, but because photography will no longer be fun!


    I'm not afraid of this at all. The great photographers don't
    win their photographs in a lottery - they visualize a scene and
    move themselves into a position to capture it. Great portrait
    photographers don't just wait for a great expression on their
    subject, they elicit what they want. Great landscape artists
    don't just go outside and start shooting - they think about
    light, perspective, color framing, and everything else.

    You may think that sports photos are pretty cut and dried.
    After all, a football field or basketball court is a fixed size.
    But the great sports photographers get photos that random
    camera snaps might never get, or get only in a million photos,
    taking more time to view to find them than it takes to learn
    to be a good photographer.

    The analogy isn't perfect by any means, but I think we
    won't get great photography from random snapshooting
    for the same reason we get don't great literature from monkeys
    on typewriters or great music from cats jumping on piano keys.

    In other words, improvements in mechanics make things
    easier to do but, by themselves, do not make great
    photographs.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Nov 17, 2004
    #9
  10. Matt

    chidalgo Guest

    Matt escribio:

    > Before you start typing your replies, I know there are photographers in here
    > who are thinking 'why crop?', why not get the picture you want in the first
    > place? Well, picture this. You are a sports photographer and are sitting
    > at the boundaries. You have only one lens, which is a wide angle lens.
    >
    > You ask, 'Why no telephoto lens? The answer is, 'Because you don't need
    > it!'
    >
    > The reason why you don't need it is because you just shoot away covering the
    > whole scene you want to shoot, and crop the part of the photo you want
    > because you have a gigapixel, or terapixel body.
    >


    In sports photography, you need the telephoto lens in order to isolate
    the subject from the background (blured background). You can't do that
    with a wide-angle lens: even at f:2.8 the DOF is too much.

    --
    chidalgo
    chidalgo, Nov 17, 2004
    #10
  11. "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cne22e$rtf$...
    >A guy called Michael, recently replied to a post of mine and said 'How many
    > megapixels do we need?'. I thought this was a very good point, and made
    > me
    > think a bit. (Bear with me on this.)


    That's me... I'm a college professor... they pay me to make people think :)
    :)

    In what follows, both the wave and the quantum properties of light are going
    to get you. Read on...

    > Well, picture this. You are a sports photographer and are sitting
    > at the boundaries. You have only one lens, which is a wide angle lens.
    > You ask, 'Why no telephoto lens? The answer is, 'Because you don't need
    > it!'
    >
    > The reason why you don't need it is because you just shoot away covering
    > the
    > whole scene you want to shoot, and crop the part of the photo you want
    > because you have a gigapixel, or terapixel body.


    A body with a 1-million-by-1-million array of pixels, you mean, or something
    like that?

    Let's do some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations.

    Suppose the sensor is 2 inches (50 mm) square. (I'll admit you probably
    want the camera to be bigger than 35 mm, but not gigantically bigger.)

    Then each pixel is 50 nanometers square.

    Guess what? That's 1/10 the wavelength of light! You won't get an image
    anywhere *near* that sharp. Every photon will spread over some dozens of
    pixels.

    And then there's diffraction in the lens. Suppose you have an f/1 lens of
    50 mm focal length. (You said wide angle.) Then its aperture is also 50 mm
    and its Dawes limit (close to the Rayleigh limit) is 2.25 arc-seconds or
    1/100000 radian (roughly). That translates to 500 nanometers.

    So again, the resolution of your f/1 lens (even if someone invents a new f/1
    lens design that is limited ONLY by diffraction, magically making all
    aberrations go away) will be only 1/10 as good as your pixel array.

    In practice, lenses are never diffraction limited at f/1. Designing a lens
    is a matter of solving simultaneous equations and there hasn't been
    tremendous progress in this recently. (There are real mathematical limits
    on what can be done.) So allow another factor of 10 for the resolution to
    be worse than that.

    So now our 1,000,000-by-1,000,000-pixel array is now down to something like
    10,000 by 10,000. That's a whopping 100 megapixels, just a factor of 10
    more than we commonly have today.

    In short -- Your dream sensor is going to be about like Technical Pan Film,
    and your lens is going to be about like the best products presently
    available from Nikon, Canon, or Zeiss.

    It's fun to dream that all technology will advance the way silicon chips
    have during the past 40 years. But that's just dreaming if you don't take
    into account the underlying physics.


    Michael Covington
    Associate Director, Artificial Intelligence Center
    The University of Georgia - www.ai.uga.edu/mc
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 17, 2004
    #11
  12. "Matt" <> wrote in message
    news:cne553$lvg$...
    > Well, Karl, don't get me started on medium/large format of the future.
    >
    > The digital equivalent will be on satellites. This means that it will be
    > possible to take photos of the world, and crop to the part you want!
    >
    > Just a thought, but is there any reason why this technology doesn't
    > already
    > exist, and is already being used by the government?


    Physics. There are real limits to the resolution you can get with a camera
    of reasonable size (even ten feet in diameter) due to diffraction, and
    there's also the unsteadiness of the air.

    Why do we get better pictures of Jupiter with the Hubble Space Telescope
    than with ground-based telescopes? Because we don't have to take pictures
    through the air. A satellite trying to take a picture of the ground has the
    same problem as a telescope trying to look up and out through the air. The
    air is very unsteady. Resolution better than 0.5 arc-second is rarely
    achievable regardless of telescope size, and much of the time, it's ten
    times worse than that.

    0.5 arc-second is roughly 1/400000 radian, or the resolution needed to read
    a newspaper (distinguishing 0.5mm features) from 200 yards away.
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 17, 2004
    #12
  13. "Doc" <> wrote in message
    news:_%wmd.1312$...
    >
    > "Matt" <> wrote in message
    > news:cne553$lvg$...
    >> Well, Karl, don't get me started on medium/large format of the future.
    >>
    >> The digital equivalent will be on satellites. This means that it will be
    >> possible to take photos of the world, and crop to the part you want!
    >>
    >> Just a thought, but is there any reason why this technology doesn't

    > already
    >> exist, and is already being used by the government?

    >
    > Isn't there an optic limit to what you can achieve this way? Just the same
    > way that you can't simply use ever more powerful multiplying lenses to
    > boost
    > the magnification of a given size telescsope (though this is the
    > fraudulent
    > basis of most consumer telescope power claims). The image loses clarity
    > once
    > you get past a mathematically determined limit.


    Bingo. Diffraction limits. Exactly.
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 17, 2004
    #13
  14. "Alan Meyer" <> wrote in message
    news:qaxmd.1962$...

    > Of course any lens will resolve an image for an infinite
    > number of pixels. All you need is an infinite amount of
    > exposure time :)


    Not strictly true, but it does touch on another point. If you have tiny,
    tiny pixels on the sensor, then it's going to take longer to get a
    reasonable number of photons into each of them. Astronomers are already
    familiar with this.
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Matt wrote:
    > A guy called Michael, recently replied to a post of mine and said 'How many
    > megapixels do we need?'. I thought this was a very good point, and made me
    > think a bit. (Bear with me on this.)


    Oh dear. :)

    > Resolution is something which will constantly increase, just like RAM and
    > Processor Speed of computers. If I remember correctly, Bill Gates once said
    > something along the lines of '512k RAM is enough for anybody'.


    "640k ought to be enough for anybody."

    Resolution is not something which will constantly increase. Even with
    an infinite pixel sensor you then become limited by the optics in front.

    > So, when is enough, enough when it comes to megapixels?


    What's the application?

    For my purposes it's when the size of the individual pixels, when
    printed or displayed and then viewed at the appropriate/desired distance
    exceeds the resolving capability of the viewer's eyes. Anything beyond
    that is essentially wasted information except for the possibility of
    noise reduction which could have been done ahead of time by using
    fewer, larger, pixels in the sensor.

    [snip of why we'd no longer need telephoto lenses]

    > The reason why you don't need it is because you just shoot away covering the
    > whole scene you want to shoot, and crop the part of the photo you want
    > because you have a gigapixel, or terapixel body.


    At some point you will become limited by photon noise. After that you
    don't want to make your sensing elements any smaller. Compare the noise
    levels of an average point-n-shoot to those of a DSLR when both cameras
    are at ISO 400 for an example of how smaller sensing elements affect
    noise levels in the final image.

    Since there is a minimum desireable limit for the size of a sensing
    element--beyond which noise becomes impractical to deal with--there
    is a limit as to how fine a detail the camera can resolve at the
    sensor.

    Let's assume for argument's sake that the limit is 1.0 microns for the
    size of a sensing element--that's about 1/9 the size of some of the
    elements used in some point-n-shoots. A square 1 gigapixel sensor would
    measure about 3.1 centimeters across... not too bad in terms of size.
    A square 1 terapixel sensor would measure about 1 meter across... not
    something you want to use for a walk around town.

    You would need sensor elements that are 0.036 microns across--less than
    1/10 the size of the shortest light wavelengths they're supposed to
    detect--in order for your 1 terapixel sensor to fit comfortably in a
    35mm camera body.

    > Scary isn't it! Not because of the fact that this future technology is a
    > possibility, but because photography will no longer be fun!


    Where are these facts of which you speak? I think you may have a lot
    of reading and research ahead of you.

    BJJB
    BillyJoeJimBob, Nov 17, 2004
    #15
  16. Matt

    Guest

    On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:25:47 -0000, "Matt" <> wrote:

    <SNIP>

    Very interesting observation.

    And very plausable at some point in the future.

    One thing I am waiting on is a camera that will mimic the performance
    of different traditional film types at the touch of a button.
    , Nov 17, 2004
    #16
  17. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:25:47 -0000, "Matt" <> wrote:
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    > Very interesting observation.
    >
    > And very plausable at some point in the future.


    Only when they invent light that isn't made of waves or photons.
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 17, 2004
    #17
  18. Matt wrote:

    > Well, Karl, don't get me started on medium/large format of the future.
    >
    > The digital equivalent will be on satellites. This means that it will be
    > possible to take photos of the world, and crop to the part you want!
    >
    > Just a thought, but is there any reason why this technology doesn't already
    > exist, and is already being used by the government?


    Glass just isn't up to the task.

    --
    Ben Thomas
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Nov 17, 2004
    #18
  19. Matt

    Crownfield Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:25:47 -0000, "Matt" <> wrote:
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    > Very interesting observation.
    >
    > And very plausable at some point in the future.
    >
    > One thing I am waiting on is a camera that will mimic the performance
    > of different traditional film types at the touch of a button.


    you could have 4 rpogrammable shutter release buttons,
    one for each style:
    ektachrome, velvia, ...
    Crownfield, Nov 17, 2004
    #19
  20. "Crownfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > wrote:


    >> One thing I am waiting on is a camera that will mimic the performance
    >> of different traditional film types at the touch of a button.

    >
    > you could have 4 rpogrammable shutter release buttons,
    > one for each style:
    > ektachrome, velvia, ...


    How about Parameter 1 and Parameter 2 on the Canon Digital Rebel? Higher
    contrast and lower contrast respectively (rather like Velvia vs. Kodachrome
    64). And also user-settable parameters.

    As I understand it, all of these have more dynamic range than film does.
    There would be little point in throttling it down to exactly match film.
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 17, 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. Bill Karoly

    Re: Is DSLR the best (future) technology?

    Bill Karoly, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    296
    Ken Alverson
    Aug 29, 2003
  2. Jason O'Rourke

    Re: Is DSLR the best (future) technology?

    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    377
    Peter
    Aug 28, 2003
  3. Matt Benson

    Re: Is DSLR the best (future) technology?

    Matt Benson, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    294
    Paul H.
    Aug 29, 2003
  4. Stephen G. Giannoni

    Re: Is DSLR the best (future) technology?

    Stephen G. Giannoni, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    353
    Nils Rostedt
    Sep 1, 2003
  5. Waylon Kenning
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,003
Loading...

Share This Page