LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Resulting native resolution images are 19,580 x 12,600 pixels.
Read more.Resulting native resolution images are 19,580 x 12,600 pixels.
That sounds like a good thing to use in all kinds of scientific researches. Though I am sure the day will come, when some company will try to put this kind of sensor in a phone.
I wonder how that compares to the sensors in spy satellites?Originally Posted by enemys
It's about time DSLR sized sensors got an upgrade, they've been stagnant for far to long. Whilst smartphone snappers have been improved massively.
smartphone snappers have been limited by optics for sometime now to the point compact camera's now use smartphone sensors and because they're tiny regular optics allow for incredible amounts of zoom.
It appears zoom factor is now a bigger selling point than megapixels in compacts which is a shame. As it's much better to crop a photo to size than take one at mega zoom (shake, framing etc)
I have recently had a shoot off between a sony 20mp dslr with a 300mm lens (12x effective zoom) and a lumix zoom camera which had 12mp sensor and 30x zoom.
I have hoped for a while that someone would scale up the latest technology in smartphone snappers to a decent sized sensor and moved the megapixel count up significantly
I wonder how that compares to the sensors in spy satellites?
Not even in the same ballpark. Hell not even on the same continent. The ones in satellites can tell the difference between 2 objects that are only a baseball-width apart from their geosynchronous orbit. Like, hundreds of miles up ha. They can't do stuff like read license plates but they can differentiate massive detail, that's how they're defined. I think the lenses are measured in gigapixel. The newer ones are definitely, and the lenses are MASSIVE, the first spy satellite camera and housing was the size of a VW Beetle.
(I recently watched a Modern Marvels episode on satellites, was super interesting)
Interestingly the first AF system debuted in the U2 spyplane in the 1950s.
Say what? FHD is 2MP, 4K is around 8MP, so 125x FHd or 30x 4K is almost exactly "the full 250-megapixel capture". There's absolutely no scope for decreasing the frame size while also meeting their resolution claims.
Wrong. DSLR sensors have been diffraction limited longer than smartphone sensors.
Wrong. DSLR sensors have been diffraction limited longer than smartphone sensors. And the vast majority of smartphones have no zoom whatsoever.smartphone snappers have been limited by optics for sometime now to the point compact camera's now use smartphone sensors and because they're tiny regular optics allow for incredible amounts of zoom.
Wrong. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=optical+zoom+vs+digital+zoomIt appears zoom factor is now a bigger selling point than megapixels in compacts which is a shame. As it's much better to crop a photo to size than take one at mega zoom (shake, framing etc)
Pointless. Smartphone sensors are an ugly blurry mess. No serious photographer would want "the latest technology in smartphone snappers" to get anywhere close to their real cameras.I have hoped for a while that someone would scale up the latest technology in smartphone snappers to a decent sized sensor and moved the megapixel count up significantly
Spy satellites use sensors far lower resolution than this one. Spy satellites don't orbit geosynchronously. Lenses aren't measured in pixels whatsoever. Goes to show how much you know about spy satellites...I wonder how that compares to the sensors in spy satellites?
Not even in the same ballpark. Hell not even on the same continent. The ones in satellites can tell the difference between 2 objects that are only a baseball-width apart from their geosynchronous orbit. Like, hundreds of miles up ha. They can't do stuff like read license plates but they can differentiate massive detail, that's how they're defined. I think the lenses are measured in gigapixel. The newer ones are definitely, and the lenses are MASSIVE, the first spy satellite camera and housing was the size of a VW Beetle.
(I recently watched a Modern Marvels episode on satellites, was super interesting)
j.o.s.h.1408 (08-09-2015)
Should have just looked it up
I remember at 6th form our physics teacher calculating back from how many arc seconds of resolution was required to get the claimed resolution of a satellite back to how big the aperture would have to be in order to resolve that from low earth orbit, and showed that the satellite would have to be the size of a single decker bus. This, he said was clearly bonkers because you can't launch something that big, so the claimed resolution was probably faked to scare people.
A few years later, Hubble was sent up. It is 13.2m long, and 4.4m wide, and 11 Tonnes so about the size of a busI guess this is the civilian version of what governments have been doing for years.
Hubble is 0.64 megapixel on its high resolution sensor.
In terms of consumer cameras, I question the practical usefulness of this. It's rather like ever-decreasing dot size on inkjet printers - there comes a point, after you pass the ability of the human eye to perceive the difference, that it becomes marketing hype with zero practical benefit.
IMHO, up to a point, increased sensor resolution gives a useful digital zoom by cropping. It allows, for instance, a perspective or depth of field not achievable by moving closer. It also allows far greater photographer laziness.
But a point will come when the resolution of the sensor will exceed the ability of the optics, thus requiring ever finer, and hugely more expensive lenses, to reap the resolution benefit.
And then there's the killer limitation. What do most people do with the image? Stick it on social media? That doesn't exactly demand huge resolutions. Go old school and actually print it? Some dinosaurs, like me, still do. But what resolution do you need for a 7x5 inch enprint? Nowhere near that, that's for sure.
So, for a few ultra-dinosaurs (me again) that print A3, or even larger (yup, guilty again) what resolution is needed? Well, thing is, if I print large, it'll be hung on a wall, and if you hang an image on the wall, the point is to view from a distance and you can get away with surprisingly low res when you do that. I doubt the vast majority could tell the difference between 8MP and 20MP, never mind 250MP, by the time it's printed and hung on the wall, from across the room.
No doubt there'll be specialist applications, maybe medical/scientific photography, etc, but for consumer grade cameras, I struggle to see the point. I suspect, like ultra-small inkjet dot-sizes, it's more value to marketing men than consumers.
They don't make memory cards big enough to hold all the information from just one image let alone 250 images, plus you will need an a i7 computer to transfer every image to the card and a cache bigger than 1tb to contain the data flow of 6 or more burst shots.
so you won't see this anytime soon
Much much higher. Satellites use an array of old radiation-hardened sensors to achieve the resolution they want, but with vastly superior optics to achieve the focal points they need to gather photons from the areas of interest.
An estimated 150MB JPEG would mean about 400 images on my 64GB SD card.
500GB RAW image would fit 118 times on the same 64GB card. The shot buffer may need at least 4GB to buffer 6 bursts (RAW). Remember that the sensor may have 125MP green, 62.5MP red and 62.5MP blue to equal the claimed total of 250MP. RAW has upto 16bits per physical pixel, JPEG can use 2 to 8bits per virtual RGB pixel on average (JPEG groups them into blocks and data&calculations shared across multiple pixels).
Satellites can use lower MP rated sensors over a small area but take multiple images which are processed and stitched together on the ground.
It's quite clear the sensor is not designed for traditional SLR photography so the arguments regarding physical and practical limitations for such a use should be ignored.
Now Canon has announced it is making a 120MP DSLR.
http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep08e2.html
Indeed, and I've always thought the excessive megapixel counts on smartphones have also been just a ton of marketing garbage. My 11-year old 8 MP DSLR still outperforms most modern smartphones under anything but outdoors on a clear sunny day, and frankly we don't get many of those around here (Scotland). Granted, I've since upgraded to a 16MP DSLR for functionality reasons but even that's miles ahead of any phone sensor. It's the same as the Canon sensor that recorded absurdly low light levels, good for a few specialist/scientific applications, not much benefit in your average consumer kit.In terms of consumer cameras, I question the practical usefulness of this. It's rather like ever-decreasing dot size on inkjet printers - there comes a point, after you pass the ability of the human eye to perceive the difference, that it becomes marketing hype with zero practical benefit.
IMHO, up to a point, increased sensor resolution gives a useful digital zoom by cropping. It allows, for instance, a perspective or depth of field not achievable by moving closer. It also allows far greater photographer laziness.
But a point will come when the resolution of the sensor will exceed the ability of the optics, thus requiring ever finer, and hugely more expensive lenses, to reap the resolution benefit.
And then there's the killer limitation. What do most people do with the image? Stick it on social media? That doesn't exactly demand huge resolutions. Go old school and actually print it? Some dinosaurs, like me, still do. But what resolution do you need for a 7x5 inch enprint? Nowhere near that, that's for sure.
So, for a few ultra-dinosaurs (me again) that print A3, or even larger (yup, guilty again) what resolution is needed? Well, thing is, if I print large, it'll be hung on a wall, and if you hang an image on the wall, the point is to view from a distance and you can get away with surprisingly low res when you do that. I doubt the vast majority could tell the difference between 8MP and 20MP, never mind 250MP, by the time it's printed and hung on the wall, from across the room.
No doubt there'll be specialist applications, maybe medical/scientific photography, etc, but for consumer grade cameras, I struggle to see the point. I suspect, like ultra-small inkjet dot-sizes, it's more value to marketing men than consumers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
