If only you had 247 MP... What could you have done?

[rdeloe]

There's lots of excitement about the possibility of cameras built around the upcoming Sony IMX811-AAMR sensor, which offers 247 MP. For example, see this thread: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-sony-mf-sensor-in-phase-one.76352/ There are also folks in that thread wondering who would need this kind of sensor.

I started this thread to explore the photographic benefits of a 247 MP sensor. However, rather than the usual take, which is "If I had this I could do...", I'd like to take us in a different direction.

Can you post an image that you made that you think was not completely successful with the technology you used, but would have been more successful (perhaps completely successful) with a 247 MP sensor? Let's assume that the rest of the chain is in place (camera, lenses, processing pipeline, etc.) For this to work, please also explain why using a 247 MP sensor would have made the difference you were looking for with that image.

Full disclosure: I can't provide any examples. I'm not suggesting all my photographs are completely successful! Far from it. Rather, I couldn't find one example where I could say "This could have been so much better if I had used a 247 MP sensor." I accept that the problem may be a failure of my imagination.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think your are askimg a rhetorical question here ...

Clearly, the way you set it up, you want to make the point that there's somehow no need for it by reducing it to a 247 MP aspect assuming the rest is in place. This means one can only fail except if one says it is because I could have cropped and then printed it in an acceptable way, etc. while ofc all the years past people have shot gazillions of images with 10-150 megapixels, countless of them being "succesful" - which you also not define.

The point with the new system will be that all components will be new: new I/O, new screen, new battery system hopefully, etc. so the IQ5 will most likely be sth were the sum makes it a great advancement.

In terms of 250 MPX the clear advantages vs. 150 or lower are:

1) Ability to crop - I often crop to compose; I love this a lot about high-res base files. For me the biggest win and the closest you can get in terms of argument of why it makes a hard difference. It IS a big difference if you crop 30% away from 250 MPX vs. 150 MPX - clearly this makes only a difference in print. Not for the screen.
2) Ability to pixel bin -> its cool to have a super sampled 60 megapixel image with no noise and high DR
3) Potentially other tech tricks P1 will add to the mix based on advancements in processing power, etc.
4) We don't know about DR, but it may very well be that we get finally hardware based dual readout tech (instead of fast consecutive readout and combination in camera) on a P1 back or w/o that natively 0.5-1.5 more DR which would be awesome

So the IQ5 will not only be a question of more MPX, but it will most likely be a more flexible, more advance back with hopefully some nifty P1 tricks.

The question around successful also doesnt make sense because everyone knows that its not the camera, but the photographer who makes a successful picture ... so almost everyone except a photographer needing to deliver a certain resolution natively to a client would fail if they just compare MPX.

And how can you, if it is about cropping or resolution post a success difference on a tiny forum post pic - even if the differentiator of success is defined as more room to crop, you can't show it here.

Which leads me to another application you could potentially do with 250 and not 150 -> "spy" into a neighbouring house or any "spy" mission. The 138 HR and the IQ5 will be formidable spy tools. You could probably read the presentation slides on a PC of a corporate worker from the building across the street with this kit. If the IQ5 can record and you can zoom in lossfree into the sensor while recording ... that would be amazing

No?

 

[Pieter 12]

The main advantage I could imagine would be the ability to heavily crop into the photo. Example: you are photographing a scene, and something quite interesting happens in a smaller portion of it the would warrant a change of lens to a longer focal length, but there is no time for that (or you don't have that lens). So, cropping into a relatively small portion of the photo would still leave you with a decent image. Maybe such sensors would negate the need for moderate zoom lenses.

 

[SrMphoto]

<snip>

In terms of 250 MPX the clear advantages vs. 150 or lower are:

1) Ability to crop - I often crop to compose; I love this a lot about high-res base files. For me the biggest win and the closest you can get in terms of argument of why it makes a hard difference. It IS a big difference if you crop 30% away from 250 MPX vs. 150 MPX - clearly this makes only a difference in print. Not for the screen.

Yes, but one should consider that cropping is the same as shooting with a smaller sensor.

2) Ability to pixel bin -> its cool to have a super sampled 60 megapixel image with no noise and high DR

The result of pixel binning is the same as when you resize the 250MP image to a 60MP image in the post. Also, Bayer CFA does not work with pixel binning.

A 250MP sensor would contain more information, which is always good (better post-processing). The false colors (moire) would be reduced even more.

 

[Pieter 12]

Yes, but one should consider that cropping is the same as shooting with a smaller sensor.

Yes, but the ability to get that smaller sensor image without having to have the longer lens, plus the ability to later change the composition and still retain the same size image as the smaller sensor. Neither of which can be done with the smaller sensor alone.

 

[rdeloe]

I think your are askimg a rhetorical question here ...

Clearly, the way you set it up, you want to make the point that there's somehow no need for it by reducing it to a 247 MP aspect assuming the rest is in place. This means one can only fail except if one says it is because I could have cropped and then printed it in an acceptable way, etc. while ofc all the years past people have shot gazillions of images with 10-150 megapixels, countless of them being "succesful" - which you also not define.

The point with the new system will be that all components will be new: new I/O, new screen, new battery system hopefully, etc. so the IQ5 will most likely be sth were the sum makes it a great advancement.

In terms of 250 MPX the clear advantages vs. 150 or lower are:

1) Ability to crop - I often crop to compose; I love this a lot about high-res base files. For me the biggest win and the closest you can get in terms of argument of why it makes a hard difference. It IS a big difference if you crop 30% away from 250 MPX vs. 150 MPX - clearly this makes only a difference in print. Not for the screen.
2) Ability to pixel bin -> its cool to have a super sampled 60 megapixel image with no noise and high DR
3) Potentially other tech tricks P1 will add to the mix based on advancements in processing power, etc.
4) We don't know about DR, but it may very well be that we get finally hardware based dual readout tech (instead of fast consecutive readout and combination in camera) on a P1 back or w/o that natively 0.5-1.5 more DR which would be awesome

So the IQ5 will not only be a question of more MPX, but it will most likely be a more flexible, more advance back with hopefully some nifty P1 tricks.

The question around successful also doesnt make sense because everyone knows that its not the camera, but the photographer who makes a successful picture ... so almost everyone except a photographer needing to deliver a certain resolution natively to a client would fail if they just compare MPX.

And how can you, if it is about cropping or resolution post a success difference on a tiny forum post pic - even if the differentiator of success is defined as more room to crop, you can't show it here.

Which leads me to another application you could potentially do with 250 and not 150 -> "spy" into a neighbouring house or any "spy" mission. The 138 HR and the IQ5 will be formidable spy tools. You could probably read the presentation slides on a PC of a corporate worker from the building across the street with this kit. If the IQ5 can record and you can zoom in lossfree into the sensor while recording ... that would be amazing

No?

Paul, it's not a trick question. I know there will be lots of cool new things that people might be able to do. What I'm interested in is whether people can look at work they've done with what exists already, and think of ways that work could have been better, more successful, or whatever metric they use, with what this new sensor provides.

A tiny forum picture will work fine for this if you take the exercise seriously. Try it. Put up a picture you made with older technology that you think needs what the new sensor provides and walk us through.

I am genuinely interested in what people come up with.

 

[rdeloe]

The main advantage I could imagine would be the ability to heavily crop into the photo. Example: you are photographing a scene, and something quite interesting happens in a smaller portion of it the would warrant a change of lens to a longer focal length, but there is no time for that (or you don't have that lens). So, cropping into a relatively small portion of the photo would still leave you with a decent image. Maybe such sensors would negate the need for moderate zoom lenses.

Somewhat of a side note, but I think this is the ultimate direction of photography. If such a thing as still photography still exists in a decade or two, the concept of doing what we do now -- point a camera at the world and select a specific field of view and perspective in a particular moment -- will seem quaint. Think how cell phone photography already works. Most modern phones actually take a short video when you press the shutter, and the still picture is chosen from the best frame in that video (e.g., the one where the person wasn't blinking). I envision a future where people can go into the data stream and snip out a still picture if they're feeling nostalgic for an old-timey "photograph".

 

[SrMphoto]

The main advantage I could imagine would be the ability to heavily crop into the photo. Example: you are photographing a scene, and something quite interesting happens in a smaller portion of it the would warrant a change of lens to a longer focal length, but there is no time for that (or you don't have that lens). So, cropping into a relatively small portion of the photo would still leave you with a decent image. Maybe such sensors would negate the need for moderate zoom lenses.

Cropping degrades IQ (increases noise). It is better to change lense

Yes, but the ability to get that smaller sensor image without having to have the longer lens, plus the ability to later change the composition and still retain the same size image as the smaller sensor. Neither of which can be done with the smaller sensor alone.

My point is that cropping leaves IQ on the table (noise increase).

 

[Pieter 12]

Cropping degrades IQ (increases noise). It is better to change lense

My point is that cropping leaves IQ on the table (noise increase).

Sure. But it compares favorably with the image from a small sensor. And there are times when you don't have that long lens, or the scene will change by the time you change lenses. So it is a question of getting an image or nothing.

 

[Pieter 12]

Somewhat of a side note, but I think this is the ultimate direction of photography. If such a thing as still photography still exists in a decade or two, the concept of doing what we do now -- point a camera at the world and select a specific field of view and perspective in a particular moment -- will seem quaint. Think how cell phone photography already works. Most modern phones actually take a short video when you press the shutter, and the still picture is chosen from the best frame in that video (e.g., the one where the person wasn't blinking). I envision a future where people can go into the data stream and snip out a still picture if they're feeling nostalgic for an old-timey "photograph".

Or grab a 180º panorama and clip out what they want.

 

[MGrayson]

There's lots of excitement about the possibility of cameras built around the upcoming Sony IMX811-AAMR sensor, which offers 247 MP. For example, see this thread: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-sony-mf-sensor-in-phase-one.76352/ There are also folks in that thread wondering who would need this kind of sensor.

I started this thread to explore the photographic benefits of a 247 MP sensor. However, rather than the usual take, which is "If I had this I could do...", I'd like to take us in a different direction.

Can you post an image that you made that you think was not completely successful with the technology you used, but would have been more successful (perhaps completely successful) with a 247 MP sensor? Let's assume that the rest of the chain is in place (camera, lenses, processing pipeline, etc.) For this to work, please also explain why using a 247 MP sensor would have made the difference you were looking for with that image.

Full disclosure: I can't provide any examples. I'm not suggesting all my photographs are completely successful! Far from it. Rather, I couldn't find one example where I could say "This could have been so much better if I had used a 247 MP sensor." I accept that the problem may be a failure of my imagination.

How large does the MP count of the original have to be to count? Does it have to be 100MP already? 24MP?

This is 12MP (Olympus µ43) and it suffers at 36" wide. I'd love more detail on the floating tree.


This is 16MP (Canon 1DsII) and I wish I could print it bigger. (First picture I ever sold.) There's no such thing as too much detail for this image, IMO.


So yes, both would have benefitted from 247MP. I'd have been happy with the Leica S 37.5MP or the IQ160's 60MP, too.

Oh, and this was Pentax 67 taken in 1984. NYC's Chinatown. It scans to a 50MP image, but a lot of detail gets lost. (This view looks exactly the same today.)


Matt

 

[Alan]

I've delivered files in the 2-300MP range - stitched from 24-150MP frames. With proper planning there really wasn't much difference in effort between starting with low vs high-res frames. Most of the labor was post-production on the giant stitched files.

 

[rdeloe]

How large does the MP count of the original have to be to count? Does it have to be 100MP already? 24MP?

Good question. I left it open to see what would show up. Thank you for giving it a shot.

I was expecting "So I can print larger". Your first two examples are that, and your third one implies it. Ballpark, at 300 ppi and in 3:2 aspect ratio, this new sensor could print to around 65" x 43" assuming a Canon printer at 300 ppi. Some people believe they can tell the difference between 300 ppi and 600 ppi. I don't think double-blind tests will be friendly to that claim, but who knows. That aside, there's no arguing that print huge" is definitely a solid reason for more pixels (especially when combined with 'I don't like AI uprezzing so I need real data').

I can see why your park picture is popular. The trees have amazing gesture happening, and the orange flags are a delight. Would you see all those extra details in the print sizes you were selling?

Now I'm moving into the realm of aesthetics, so you can discount my opinion completely, but I don't think your NYC Chinatown image would be improved by more details. It's perfect as is in my view. Being able to see the individual tiles on the roof of that church at centre would add nothing, unless it's a huge print from up close where the roof looks smeary.

 

[MGrayson]

Good question. I left it open to see what would show up. Thank you for giving it a shot.

I was expecting "So I can print larger". Your first two examples are that, and your third one implies it. Ballpark, at 300 ppi and in 3:2 aspect ratio, this new sensor could print to around 65" x 43" assuming a Canon printer at 300 ppi. Some people believe they can tell the difference between 300 ppi and 600 ppi. I don't think double-blind tests will be friendly to that claim, but who knows. That aside, there's no arguing that print huge" is definitely a solid reason for more pixels (especially when combined with 'I don't like AI uprezzing so I need real data').

I can see why your park picture is popular. The trees have amazing gesture happening, and the orange flags are a delight. Would you see all those extra details in the print sizes you were selling?

Now I'm moving into the realm of aesthetics, so you can discount my opinion completely, but I don't think your NYC Chinatown image would be improved by more details. It's perfect as is in my view. Being able to see the individual tiles on the roof of that church at centre would add nothing, unless it's a huge print from up close where the roof looks smeary.

The park picture has fine detail in the distant branches that I think would give a different feel at print sizes wider than 24”. That’s as large as I sold, and it suffers when printed larger.

The detail I want more of in the Chinatown image is in the distant cars. I like that Avenue.

At the sizes I print, 40-50MP is all I need. If your question was “what 100MP image would benefit from 250MP”, then I’d say for me, none.

 

[rdeloe]

The park picture has fine detail in the distant branches that I think would give a different feel at print sizes wider than 24”. That’s as large as I sold, and it suffers when printed larger.

The detail I want more of in the Chinatown image is in the distant cars. I like that Avenue.

At the sizes I print, 40-50MP is all I need. If your question was “what 100MP image would benefit from 250MP”, then I’d say for me, none.

I think you've connected the dots clearly, i.e., you have a solid understanding of what you need "more" for, and it makes sense. I could say the same thing given that I think a print that is 17" on the short edge is rather large. But I get that for some folks that's tiny.

The cropping argument makes a kind of sense too if that's how one works. It's not how I work, but I think I'm a bit weird that way.

Regarding your Chinatown picture, I see what you mean. But the haze or smog in the background tells my brain to not expect a lot more detail. I think there's a potentially important point here (for me anyway). As we are gifted more and more resolution by the sensor gods, we have come to expect detail that we could not see with our own eyes. As an exercise, I like to stop and look around sometimes just to recalibrate what I should reasonably expect to see in that situation. A lot of the time, high resolution sensors and pixel peeping give us an unreasonable expectation about what we ought to be able to see. I recognize that this is an aesthetic argument.

 

[AndereObjektiv]

Sure,

Here's one:

Made with the Canon EOS M6 mkII which has a high sensor spatial resolution of 158.9 lp/mm but a small APS-C sensor, it has high spatial resolution but low dynamic range and captures less details but at a higher acuity compared to a larger sensor.

Many of my forest photos could all use more details, and the higher angular spatial resolution of smaller pixels provides that. The rations of detail vs aberration and sensor area affecting detail are present in every image. I'm after hyper-reality with many of my images, with everything in focus, everything resolving far past what is seen by eye on scene. I'd like more of all.

 

[corvus]

For me, such a sensor size is hardly relevant. 50 to 100MP is completely sufficient. In my first exhibition in 2014, the images shown had a maximum of 36MP, many even only 12MP - and that on average with an edge length of around 60cm. I know that wasn't a good print resolution, and I was perhaps a little naive. However, there was not a single response from the viewers about the sharpness in detail. The discussions revolved exclusively around content, expression, graphics, compositions in a group of images, etc. But maybe I'll find another image if I look at the original prints again, of which I kept a few back then.
Today, however, I would be a little more critical or more adaptable - but 247MP? (I didn't intend to start a stampede in the other 247 thread with my question about diffraction blur Hmm, apart from the fact that that is not affordable for me, I would place value on other aspects. Full shifts, connectivity, electronic shutter and especially the overall weight. So I don't understand why smaller sensors aren't retained in the current development to get a good affordable combination with a really great workflow.

It would be different if I ever wanted to create images like the ones I saw in Andreas Gursky's exhibition (but that would be extremely presumptuous). If you've ever seen it in the original, you'll be impressed. It works both in the macrocosm, when you look at a 3m wide image from a distance, and in the microcosm, when you "go into" the image and new scenes reveal themselves. Very impressive! I really like these works (especially since there is often a latent social criticism involved). I don't think he would think as long about 247MP as I do

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Digital cameras have been a push need since more than a decade. Arguably since the FF35mm era of 20ish megapixels most use cases besides fine art large prints and billboards were covered. But even those were shot with a P20-P30.

Its about flexibility and the stuff around it which will make the back a joy to use. The new I/O will hopefully allow for seamless wireless working ...

 

[ThdeDude]

Can you post an image that you made that you think was not completely successful with the technology you used, but would have been more successful (perhaps completely successful) with a 247 MP sensor? Let's assume that the rest of the chain is in place (camera, lenses, processing pipeline, etc.) For this to work, please also explain why using a 247 MP sensor would have made the difference you were looking for with that image.

Yes, I have images taken in the early days of the iPhone that definitely have noticeable technical deficiencies and that would have been (more) "successful" images if the iPhone then would have had a 247MP sensor (or even better, 247MP sensors).

Hoping for 48MP sensor for all lenses in the upcoming iPhone 16 Pro.

 

[vieri]

There's lots of excitement about the possibility of cameras built around the upcoming Sony IMX811-AAMR sensor, which offers 247 MP. For example, see this thread: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-sony-mf-sensor-in-phase-one.76352/ There are also folks in that thread wondering who would need this kind of sensor.

I started this thread to explore the photographic benefits of a 247 MP sensor. However, rather than the usual take, which is "If I had this I could do...", I'd like to take us in a different direction.

Can you post an image that you made that you think was not completely successful with the technology you used, but would have been more successful (perhaps completely successful) with a 247 MP sensor? Let's assume that the rest of the chain is in place (camera, lenses, processing pipeline, etc.) For this to work, please also explain why using a 247 MP sensor would have made the difference you were looking for with that image.

Full disclosure: I can't provide any examples. I'm not suggesting all my photographs are completely successful! Far from it. Rather, I couldn't find one example where I could say "This could have been so much better if I had used a 247 MP sensor." I accept that the problem may be a failure of my imagination.

Easy answer: I can't, because there is none.

As you, I don't mean that my images are completely successful as they are - far from it. What could improve them, however, is by no means the amount of Mp. Is the amount of attention and skill I put into making them.

I feel that this is not just a good question - it is THE question. And, I feel that all the answers pointing out how such a sensor would come together with other benefits, which would make it worth against today's IQ4, are revealing. So, perhaps another good question would be:

- Would P1 offer a choice of 150mp AND 247mp backs, with the EXACT same features, and the EXACT same bells and whistles that technology will offer by the time the new back will be out, with the ONLY differences between the two backs being Mp and price, which price differential would you be ready to accept to get the extra Mp?

Best regards,

Vieri