An Interesting Fact About Digital Cameras and the Human Eye

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by javawizard, Sep 23, 2007.

  1. javawizard

    javawizard Guest

    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
    javawizard, Sep 23, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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-

    So, FOAD, would you?
    mark.thomas.7, Sep 23, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. javawizard

    Jonathan Guest

    Nice post. Thanks for that and the interesting link.
    Jonathan, Sep 23, 2007
  4. 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

    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. :)
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Sep 23, 2007
  5. javawizard

    Roy G Guest

    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, Sep 24, 2007
  6. javawizard

    Scott W Guest

    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 W, Sep 24, 2007
  7. javawizard

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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, Sep 24, 2007
  8. javawizard

    Scott W Guest

    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 W, Sep 24, 2007
  9. 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, Sep 27, 2007
  10. javawizard

    Jonathan Guest

    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.
    Jonathan, Sep 28, 2007
  11. But all of those things you mention are technological problems which
    have already been solved, so they're not going to slow down the rate
    at which these new cameras arrive on the market.
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 28, 2007
  12. But Moore's law involved methods of photolithography, where the
    wavelength used was not really a factor as far as results. UV or even
    ebeam was fine as long as the photoresist was happy.

    Unless we want UV or X-ray cameras, the wavelength of the light we are
    using DOES make a difference. Imaging chips for VISIBLE wavelength do
    run into some restrictions that Moore's law does not worry about.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Sep 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.