100 MP Alpha - lens resolution

[A1000]

Soon we will have 20 MP cell phones, per Sony Ericsson.

4/3 format has roughly 1/4 area of 35 mm FF. They have 12 MP cameras. For same density in 35 mm it is nearly 50 MP.

If Sony uses new lens system in the future, with close lens to CMOS distance. 50 MP compatibale lenses would be easier to make.

In ClearVid CMOS 50 MP resolution is interpolated to 100 MP effective output. 50 MP resolving lens is enough for this output, naturally this resolution will not be at all F stops,

Even Sonolta will love it because of the cropping possibilities and could use it for backup for the 6 MP camera he loves.

[A1000]

Your old lenses will work with adaptor.

[KevinBarrett]

I think I figured the geometry of it up with current pixel densities and whatnot, and a FF camera might be capable of about 1.3 GP

So we'll pretend we've already done all of the megapixel speculation between here and there, okay?

[NevHi]

So you will use it to to do photos like this?

http://www.gadling.com/2009/01/24/absol ... uguration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- it is a whopping 1,474 megapixels.

[KevinBarrett]

How many cameras are in that picture?

[Dusty]

Wow what a picture! That would also have been a great opportunity for the Gigapixel Project to shoot.

Not too bad for only about $700 worth of equipment.

Dusty

[PhotoTraveler]

They will be able to make lenses that can support crazy high resolutions. Astronomy and Semi-Conductor lenses put what we use to shame.

I can see as they get to say 100MP, we move away from the zoom lens, maybe even away from interchangeable lenses, or simple much fewer lenses.

Instead you buy your 16mm lens (for a FF camera), it can fully resolve hundreds of MP. It's not cheap, and not very small, but it's one lens, simple construction (these cameras are EVIL's, maybe even no shutter). But the lens is rather exotic with everything we can think of thrown at it. This single lens is now your zoom. As we will just go to digital zoom as we have so much to work with.

Have a couple of these, like a 16, 85, 200, 400, a fisheye, a macro, and that's about it. When you need tele, you use that 400 and can crop down to 1000mm without breaking a sweat.

Many folks might only have a 16 and 85, that's it. So while one of these lenses may cost 2-3k in todays dollars, maybe much more, it's not bad compared to buying multiple lenses.

[Dr. Harout]

They will be able to make lenses that can support crazy high resolutions. Astronomy and Semi-Conductor lenses put what we use to shame.

I can see as they get to say 100MP, we move away from the zoom lens, maybe even away from interchangeable lenses, or simple much fewer lenses.

Instead you buy your 16mm lens (for a FF camera), it can fully resolve hundreds of MP. It's not cheap, and not very small, but it's one lens, simple construction (these cameras are EVIL's, maybe even no shutter). But the lens is rather exotic with everything we can think of thrown at it. This single lens is now your zoom. As we will just go to digital zoom as we have so much to work with.

Have a couple of these, like a 16, 85, 200, 400, a fisheye, a macro, and that's about it. When you need tele, you use that 400 and can crop down to 1000mm without breaking a sweat.

Many folks might only have a 16 and 85, that's it. So while one of these lenses may cost 2-3k in todays dollars, maybe much more, it's not bad compared to buying multiple lenses.

Yes, I do believe in that.

[David Kilpatrick]

I've either written somewhere on line, on in a magazine article, that once a full frame camera has a high enough res, sports photographers can revert to the 1950s method. They used to have quarter plate or 5 x 4 VN Press of Speed Graphic cameras with a rapid filmpack back (earlier, an Ensign Carbine back). The camera just needed to be aimed at the half of the pitch where the action was, and the focus moved between two fixed stops - one for the near touchline, one for the far. The photographers knew exactly where to move the focus between the two as the action moved around a pitch, and they just kept the whole half covered by a standard focal length lens.

Then, back at the darkroom, they would pull a sub-35mm area out of the 5 x 4 shot, and this would be area where the action was. Sometimes they also got great expressions, action etc in other parts of the shot. Timing was everything. They would have a camera set up aimed at the goals as well, pre focused, just fire the shutter at the right moment. A large area round the goal was included so no worry about composition, do it later.

I think that even with a 24 megapixel camera you could work this way and pull 1.5 megapixel sections out for newspaper use. Go to 50, 100 or more megapixels and I can see that a 100mm f/2 lens might be all that was needed.

Lenses for very small formats already achieve extreme resolutions. The '28-200mm' of the Konica Minolta Dimage 5/7/A series (one lens, it's labelled 35-250 on the 5 because the sensor is smaller) resolves over 400 line pairs per millimetre at its shortest focal length wide open.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Yeah, talking about astro cameras and lenses, you hear stories about those lenses on the bigbird satellites that can read number plates from orbit...from 100 Km up, so what are those lenses made out of?
Then the let them burn up in the atmosphere after the satellite runs out of hypergolic fuel, or a gyro fowls up...next one put a parachute on it please, address..northeast coast of Oz.
Greg

[Dusty]

Greg, with the size of those lenses, you wouldn't be able to put them in your camera bag - unless you used a small car for your bag!

Dusty

[Dusty]

Then, back at the darkroom, they would pull a sub-35mm area out of the 5 x 4 shot, and this would be area where the action was.
David

When I was taught to do weddings on 6x6 cm, it was similar, in that we didn't have so many perfect framing and centering issues, and no worry as to whether or not to shoot vertical or horizontal. We had a large enough negative to deal with a lot of those issues. Coming from 35mm, it was a bit of a different mindset. Of course, I then ran into an old-timer who used to do them on his 4x5 Bush Pressmans!

That's why I love the megapixel race. I want to be able to do, in a handy format, what we used to do with medium format. Or even large format! If you've seen the work of the Gigapixel Project, then imagine that ability to zoom into a picture and still crop out a nice 16" print.

Again, I know that some want extreme high ISOs, or rapid frame rates. I believe that we eventually will have all 3, but in 3 different cameras, and some cross-over at the cost of some compromises.

Dusty

[PhotoTraveler]

Greg, Just look up the Hubble, and write "DoD" on the side instead of nasa. And adjust the focusing lens for close focus instead of "infinity". The bigbirds are the same basic piece as the hubble, as least the same airframe. Built in the same plant, shipped in the same containers..... people have connected the dots from there.

The idea you can read license plates is getting into fantasy, you can't do that, even if the earth had no atmosphere that would be difficult. But they can get very tight, down to making out people pretty well, even some objects.

[Greg Beetham]

Greg, with the size of those lenses, you wouldn't be able to put them in your camera bag - unless you used a small car for your bag!

Dusty

I know, ha ha, it's more a camera attached too a telescope.....but what a telescope, and it's the thought of those optics going to waste.
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Greg, Just look up the Hubble, and write "DoD" on the side instead of nasa. And adjust the focusing lens for close focus instead of "infinity". The bigbirds are the same basic piece as the hubble, as least the same airframe. Built in the same plant, shipped in the same containers..... people have connected the dots from there.

The idea you can read license plates is getting into fantasy, you can't do that, even if the earth had no atmosphere that would be difficult. But they can get very tight, down to making out people pretty well, even some objects.

PT you're a thpoil thport...anyway didn't you see that Bond movie...?
Greg