How many pixels are enough? 416MP?

[David_S85]

Need images with 10,200 x 13,600 native resolution? Here's (part of) your new camera (http://www.betterlight.com/super10K_PR.html). $23,000. Camera body, lenses, etc., all extra.

[ian408]

Feh. Not enough.

[David_S85]

Feh. Not enough.

Ian, there are some image sensors for astronomy (http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/790182.html)you might want to look into. 3.2 GP.

[bauerman]

I don't seem to need anything over 6MP......but I guess I'm a "cheap date".....

[ian408]

Ian, there are some image sensors for astronomy (http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/790182.html)you might want to look into. 3.2 GP.

Might work :D

I should have used a smiley on that last one. That thing is HUGE! And at
$23K, a bargin :D

[David_S85]

I don't seem to need anything over 6MP......but I guess I'm a "cheap date".....

Hehehehe.

I started with a 640 x 480 px camera (Sony Mavica 3.5" using floppies) that delivered 0.3MP. My current 20D having 8.2MP is a monster compared to it. And with images stitched as panoramas at well over 10K pixels across, it does seem to be enough for me.

Still, the camera companies won't leave enough alone. I can fully understand why 3.2GP is necessary for astronomical images. All fine and good. And capturing museum masterpieces on the 416MP scanning insert also has its place too.

When I see new consumer digicams employing 1/2.5" 10MP sensors; that's when I begin scratching my head. :scratch

[CatOne]

Need images with 10,200 x 13,600 native resolution? Here's (part of) your new camera (http://www.betterlight.com/super10K_PR.html). $23,000. Camera body, lenses, etc., all extra.

You can get a LOT more pixels than that out of the Betterlight. Stephen Johnson has his back hooked up to a Cambo Wide and he can take 2+ GB panoramics. He took one in Antarctica; I was standing next to him for the 20 minutes he took to set up the shot (35mm shooters need not apply... you need 4x5 patience here!) The scanning cameras can have essentially infinite resolution because they can be set up to pan, and thus can dynamically take photos by moving/pivoting.

[David_S85]

Might work :D

I should have used a smiley on that last one. That thing is HUGE! And at
$23K, a bargin :D

I DL'd the PDF on the pricing, opened it expecting to see $60,000+, but when I read $23K I was surprised. The digital backs on medium format go for more than that, and they're (only :wink ) at about 39MP.

There is the portability factor to be considered too. This 416MP toy is forever tethered and studio use only.

[ian408]

I guess portability means pano?

[David_S85]

I guess portability means pano?

Portability, for practical remote use, means you can stick one or two CF cards into a digital back (medium format) and not require a tethered computer.

Here is more (older article) about the scanning inserts for larger format (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml).

Phase One 39MP digital back quality tested (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml).

[ivar]

so do they count each R, G and B as a single pixel? The article says native resolution is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels. If I multiply that I come to a third of 416 roughly :dunno

[David_S85]

so do they count each R, G and B as a single pixel? The article says native resolution is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels. If I multiply that I come to a third of 416 roughly :dunno

Hehehehehe. You did that too?

[ivar]

Hehehehehe. You did that too?:lol3 well it's hard to miss really. 10x13 = 130... so even though though it's slightly bigger, it can never reach 416 I think....