Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Imaging Technology: Theory, Alternatives, Practice and Advances.

Imaging Technology: Theory, Alternatives, Practice and Advances. This is a brand independent discussion of theory, process or device. Ignore this forum unless this matters to you!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 14th, 2009, 08:42 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,491
Default Pixel war over? An interesting article about Moore's Law at LL.

Hi,

I've just read this very interesting article at the Luminous Landscape site by Ray Maxwell about the Moore's Law and why it does not apply to digital photography. Certainly recommended.

Cheers,
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old July 14th, 2009, 09:16 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 27,083
Default Could we use more pixels?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cem_Usakligil View Post
Hi,

I've just read this very interesting article at the Luminous Landscape site by Ray Maxwell about the Moore's Law and why it does not apply to digital photography. Certainly recommended.

Cheers,
Michael Reichman does like to announce new era. He did so correctly in recognizing the Canon 3D as the change-maker in photography way back in 3 MP days. Here however, the Maxwell's article references the physical limits of the wavelength of light on lenses and asserts that we can take no more pixels because lenses cannot use them. Well, that may not be quite true. Just some ideas to stimulate discussion. Could these work

1. Perhaps the lens does not need to fully focus the image on the plane so wide apertures can be used and the recorded potentials in the sensels be used to reconstruct the image by deconvolving.

2. No small apertures are used, rather ND filters instead.

This would put off partially the limits of the COC being decreased by smaller apertures. DOF determined by reconstruction of the image at different planes of the subject.

I think we will hit the wall eventually, but there's likely much more image quality that might be squeezed out by improving the optics and relying on mathematical solutions to complete focus, define DOF by focus stacking, extend the dynamic range, decrease noise as well as increase resolution.

These are not meant as statements but rather as questions to seed a debate.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old July 14th, 2009, 09:26 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
OPF Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
I think we will hit the wall eventually, but there's likely much more image quality that might be squeezed out by improving the optics and relying on mathematical solutions to complete focus, define DOF by focus stacking, extend the dynamic range, decrease noise as well as increase resolution.

These are not meant as statements but rather as questions to seed a debate.
And rightly so, especially since the article focused (pun intended) on only one issue, Diffraction at the pixel level. Having more pixels will allow to output them individually at a smaller size, so the diffraction in output is not impacted by sensel size. Diffraction is only related to the relative aperture, the f-number. Smaller pixels do allow a more precise sampling of the diffraction pattern, which allows software to deconvolve it more accurately and restore sharpness.

There are also several other (related) issues, like dynamic range and MTF, that impact image quality. I'm not sure we've reached that "wall" yet, on the contrary.

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old July 14th, 2009, 10:20 AM
Daniel Buck Daniel Buck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 374
Default

I think digital cameras probably have enough megapixels now, I would think the focus would be on quality rather than Quantity now. The ability to shoot in very very dim light, with smooth results. Already, I'm amazed at what some of the new cameras look like at 1600 and 3200+ ISO, I think an even higher quality higher ISO would be astounding :-)

A nice smooth (but crisp) 128000 ISO, with a 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 lens would make a very interesting low-light setup for indoors!
__________________
Daniel Buck - Photographer and 3d artist
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
3d work: DanielBuck.net
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old July 14th, 2009, 10:35 AM
Michael Fontana Michael Fontana is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,557
Default

A bigger dynamic range would be more interesting to me than a few MP more.
__________________
http://www.proimago.net
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old July 14th, 2009, 10:41 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 27,083
Default

More pixels mean greater ability to segment temporally the mapping of luminosity as we can assign some pixels to faster frame rate to account for brighter light and earlier filling of the well. Also, as Bart points out, finely resolving the concentric waves of diffraction would allow better deconvolution and undoing of this artifact to resolving fine detail.

This means great dynamic range and resolution.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 29th, 2009, 02:03 PM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,491
Default "Not So Fast in Dismissing Moore’s Law" by Nathan Myhrvold

Here is another article written by Nathan Myhrvold as a response to the first one and is also extremely interesting to read.

Cheers,
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HSV/HSL color models and the "hexcone" and "bi-hexcone" - new tutorial article Doug Kerr CM Theory and Practice 2 May 12th, 2008 09:18 AM
40D review by Phil Askey Ron Morse Canon Eos Mount DSLRs 12 November 1st, 2007 04:15 PM
Rainer Travel Photography Article Now Online! Asher Kelman Photography as Art 50 September 14th, 2006 03:24 AM
Interesting article... Nill Toulme Sports 0 June 20th, 2006 05:32 AM
CMOS sensor - new tutorial article Doug Kerr Canon Eos Mount DSLRs 6 June 5th, 2006 04:58 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2014 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!