The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Will it ever end?

Jamgolf

Member
I wonder if the pursuit of resolution will ever end? How many digital pixels will be considered enough?

In the days of film 8"x10" was medium of ultimate resolution and image quality. And it has withstood the test of time. A photographer could go from medium format to 4x5, 5x7 but 8x10 was basically it. Ultra-large film formats eg. 48"x48" or even 16"x20" did not become main stream and 8x10 remained the choice of photographers seeking that quality.

With digital, when will we reach that point? A point that will withstand the test of time just as 8x10 film did. Or are we already there?

Will a 80 or 100 or 120 mega-pixel camera/back become the defacto choice such that anything beyond that point will simply be a specialty format similar to 48"x48" flim?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Cheers!
 
Diffraction limit for f/4.0-f/5.6 is about 16 MP for M43, 64 MP for 135 format and 160 MP for 645 format. After that, the sensor technology may shift towards X3 (such like the current Sigma DP series), where we get quadruple real pixels.

Curved sensors may be evolutionary for compact cameras such like the Sony RX1R. Back-illuminated sensors such like the one used in Samsung NX1 may resurrect some wide angles. Organic sensors may be a game changer.

We are in the digital era and technology will continue to develop. Unfortunately this will just make our current gear obsolete and depreciate, and if we are dragged into the trap of trying to keep up-to-date with the latest cool stuff we drain our wallet.
 

jagsiva

Active member
I suspect physics of glass, diffraction, atmospheric factors etc. will make resolution at a particular sensor size max out at some point. At 5 microns we are getting there.

But this doesn't meant that they can't make larger sensors. A full 6x9 CMOS sensor at 100-120MP with nice fat pixels would be just awesome! we certainly have glass that can cover that now.
 

Jamgolf

Member
I suspect physics of glass, diffraction, atmospheric factors etc. will make resolution at a particular sensor size max out at some point. At 5 microns we are getting there.

But this doesn't meant that they can't make larger sensors. A full 6x9 CMOS sensor at 100-120MP with nice fat pixels would be just awesome! we certainly have glass that can cover that now.
Jag, certainly sensor size can and probably will become larger. I doubt sensor size will grow to be as big as 8"x10". Perhaps 100-120MP 6x9cm sensor, as you said, will be that equilibrium point.
 
Last edited:

Jamgolf

Member
Whether or not the pursuit of higher resolution will ever end, I predict that talking about it won't.
I sincerely hope that talking about it will end :)
That state of the art will reach a point that anything further would not be considered necessary.

Were Richard Avedon and Ansel Adams wishing for 16"x20" or 48"x48"? Who knows. But their 8"x10" works have withstood the test of time.
 

mbn

New member
as long as companies are able to come up with "new" technology, there will be people that dont need it, and buy it anyway.:D

its like these new tv's with a bend screen.
nobody asked for them, nobody needs them, but they are able to make and sell them.
or the ever evolving iphone, porsche, adidas sneaker, ...
 

Stephan S

New member
When Lois Conner makes the "switch to digital" and sells her 8x10, 7x17 cameras and stops making contact prints, the discussion, very well, may be over. Looking at one of her prints is as close one can get to looking out a window.

Until then we rage, rage! against the dying of the light!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I think todays world of many countries relies too much on constantly producing economical growth. This is only possible if the industry makes people buying things they don't really need.
And the photo industry is not different here. (And yes, I am also a victim).
For the end user its not easy to find out which "innovations" have a real impact/advantage and which ones just marketing.
I think the industry focuses on factors which increase sales, and since reviewers and users talk a lot about resolution and noise and DR they focus on such things.
Personally I wish they would focus more on a) lenses b) color c) user interface.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Something else to consider is that all the talk of higher resolutions and reference to 8x10 etc overlook the fact that whenever you've had such bleeding edge technologies there have also been limitations. In the case of resolution we hit a point where diffraction (and manufacturing abilities) becomes an issue. With the larger film formats it's actually gravity and film flatness plus the optics and a whole plethora of human error opportunities.
 

Jamgolf

Member
as long as companies are able to come up with "new" technology, there will be people that dont need it, and buy it anyway.:D

its like these new tv's with a bend screen.
nobody asked for them, nobody needs them, but they are able to make and sell them.
or the ever evolving iphone, porsche, adidas sneaker, ...
I see what you mean but I believe there can be a point where more is not better (or does not matter).

For instance a vast majority TVs sold have moderate 45" to 60" screens. Not everyone is buying the 80" and 100" screens. So manufacturers have to do other things like 3D and curved screens and other gimmicks.

A car (eg. Porsche) can have too much horse power. And a vast majority of consumers do not buy that uber car. They prefer their 400hp Carrera S over the 500hp turbo.

So I think/hope there will be a point where the same happens to digital cameras.
 

Jamgolf

Member
Something else to consider is that all the talk of higher resolutions and reference to 8x10 etc overlook the fact that whenever you've had such bleeding edge technologies there have also been limitations. In the case of resolution we hit a point where diffraction (and manufacturing abilities) becomes an issue. With the larger film formats it's actually gravity and film flatness plus the optics and a whole plethora of human error opportunities.
Thanks for chiming in Graham.

Then perhaps such/similar technical limitations combined with costs, demand and diminishing perceived incremental improvements will lead to that point of equilibrium. A sweet-spot where components (lenses, cameras, software etc.) will be optimized in harmony with respect to image quality. And further tinkering will be deemed unprofitable.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
As long as someone can make money by selling pixels, then manufacturers will continue to provide them. Cameras are a reflection of the market.

Exactly speaking, what is the downside of better performance? It is kind of like complaining about having too much money, although bigger and better sensor can help out there.
 

JonMo

New member
Think of the benefits of super high resolution;
you could use a selfie to see whether you are developing Glaucoma!
 

Jamgolf

Member
Will - thank you for your comments.

As long as someone can make money by selling pixels, then manufacturers will continue to provide them
But isn't digital camera/back a much more complex and disruptive upgrade, usually involving upgrade of lenses, sometime computers, storage etc as well. So at some point fewer people will be able to afford or be willing, hence decreasing profitability for manufacturers hence a downward spiral to the equilibrium/sweet-spot.


Exactly speaking, what is the downside of better performance? It is kind of like complaining about having too much money,
Is more always better? I think beyond a certain point it does not matter. And beyond even that point it enters the bizzaro/obnoxious territory.

Performance of a car 250 hp is nice, 400hp is great, 500hp is awesome, 1000hp is danagerous.

How would one quantify too much money?
Getting 10 million dollars will have a huge affect on most people's lives. Getting another 10 million will have a far smaller incremental affect. Getting another 10 million will have practically no effect and so on :)
 

archivue

Active member
With today technologie, for my type of shooting... 60mp backs are better than 80 because of depth of field limitation !

how can i imagine camera of the future ?

i'd like to have all of this in one camera :
No more shutter (exposure made by the sensor itself )
Automatic focus stacking in camera
Better dynamic range
Really good in camera level
iso 25 to iso 3200 completely clean
longue exposure capabilities without noise
live view
perfect color fidelity
lens movements capabilities

and of course for cheap ;-)

But mega pixels, isn't the main problem now !
 
Top