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

[MGrayson]

No one, I hope, is asserting that more MP would be the best way to improve an image. The question is simply (as I’m understanding it) what images would have been improved with higher resolution. The number 247 is a red herring, and is just a stand-in for “more than you had”. If it were “what images would be better at 247MP than at 150MP”, then my answer would be “none”, and not just because I don’t have any that large.

Matt

 

[rdeloe]

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.

That's another example that I can understand. When this is your goal and your desire, there's no upper boundary on "enough". I'm curious though: who can see the hyper-realistic detail you are trying to achieve? Is it only you on your computer monitor at high magnification, or do you create installations where visitors can zoom in and out of the scene -- immersing themselves in that detail if they want, or zooming out to see the whole forest?

 

[ThdeDude]

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?

Good question!

 

[daz7]

There are already ten years old sensor models offering 200megapixel images, albeit in a pixel shift mode. (Hasselbald and Sinar multishot backs for example)
Is 200 megapixel needed? Sometimes, yes. It is nice to be able to print super large prints at 300, or even 600 dpi if someone can see the difference between the two.
247 megapixels at a single shot mode will be a very nice feature. Is it going to be useful? For some folks, maybe, not for me though.
I have made a DIY motorised attachment to slide the back in up to 8 different positions to cover nearly a full 4x5 inch image and I use that mostly with a 33 or 50 megapixel back in a single shot mode, getting around 100-200 megapixel image and I have never needed more. If needed though, I can use a multishot 192mp back on that gear and come back with a 4"x4" sensor equivalent gigapixel resolution photo, I just doubt I would ever need that much of information. But who knows, maybe I will need to print 3 meters long at 300 dpi one day.

What I find much more useful from aesthetic point of view, is to be able to cover a larger image circle on my view camera, than to shoot with a massive resolution. In fact, too much resolution can backfire quickly, showing lens' shortcomings and reducing the lens ability to shoot at smaller apertures, which I love to do.

 

[rdeloe]

No one, I hope, is asserting that more MP would be the best way to improve an image. The question is simply (as I’m understanding it) what images would have been improved with higher resolution. The number 247 is a red herring, and is just a stand-in for “more than you had”. If it were “what images would be better at 247MP than at 150MP”, then my answer would be “none”, and not just because I don’t have any that large.

Matt

Yes and no.... The conversation in the other thread was about a specific sensor, which brings more pixels, but presumably other characteristics. So yes, it's about improvements due to more pixels. But it's not just more pixels, e.g., the conversation about going from 12 MP to 50 MP is different, I think, than the one that is about the upper limit.

@AndereObjektiv makes the case for people for whom there is no upper limit. If your goal is hyper-realistic detail -- in effect, endless detail as you zoom in -- then there is no upper limit. A sensor with 247 MP is simply an intermediate, partially satisfactory solution. However, if you anchor the conversation in a physical print -- as your examples have done -- then I think there are upper limits because there are details that paper and ink cannot resolve no matter how many pixels there are.

There are other concerns unrelated to the number of pixels, e.g., @AndereObjektiv pointed to "higher angular spatial resolution of smaller pixels".

 

[rdeloe]

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

That's where I was going with my question to @AndereObjektiv regarding the purpose of extremely high detail. Gursky creates what I was describing for an electronic installation, but with ink on paper. It's the same idea though, which you've captured nicely with "macrocosm" versus "microcosm".

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.

I'm not surprised at all that viewers had this reaction. I have seen the same thing. The general viewing public is, in my experience, almost completely uninterested in "sharpness in detail" -- unless that is part of the point of the display (e.g., the Gursky installation you describe). For more "normal" sized prints in a gallery setting, you can spot the photographers at the show because they're the ones getting grease from their noses on your prints! The rest of the audience is standing back to appreciate the image you made as a whole thing.

 

[rdeloe]

There are already ten years old sensor models offering 200megapixel images, albeit in a pixel shift mode. (Hasselbald and Sinar multishot backs for example)
Is 200 megapixel needed? Sometimes, yes. It is nice to be able to print super large prints at 300, or even 600 dpi if someone can see the difference between the two.
247 megapixels at a single shot mode will be a very nice feature. Is it going to be useful? For some folks, maybe, not for me though.
I have made a DIY motorised attachment to slide the back in up to 8 different positions to cover nearly a full 4x5 inch image and I use that mostly with a 33 or 50 megapixel back in a single shot mode, getting around 100-200 megapixel image and I have never needed more. If needed though, I can use a multishot 192mp back on that gear and come back with a 4"x4" sensor equivalent gigapixel resolution photo, I just doubt I would ever need that much of information. But who knows, maybe I will need to print 3 meters long at 300 dpi one day.

What I find much more useful from aesthetic point of view, is to be able to cover a larger image circle on my view camera, than to shoot with a massive resolution. In fact, too much resolution can backfire quickly, showing lens' shortcomings and reducing the lens ability to shoot at smaller apertures, which I love to do.

In the last couple years I have spent far too much time in a hospital waiting room that contained a huge panoramic scene, mounted onto a curving wall. The photographer printed on what looks to be a 44" printer, breaking the photo up into strips that were 44" wide and floor-to-ceiling tall. From a distance, it worked. But standing even a metre away, it was very obvious that a lower resolution file had been pushed far beyond what was reasonable.

It would have worked much better from up close with files stitched together from a 247 MP sensor! Nonetheless, I bet people considered it astonishing when it first went up.

 

[Paul2660]

That’s the whole point. The vast majority people don’t care. Your point of the pano in the hospital is a classic example. I see this all time. Large prints in viewing areas where they can be examined at close range and they are falling apart. But the average person viewing could care less.

I personally can’t see the need for 247mp for anything I shoot or print on a 44 inch printer or larger. The huge cost of moving all new lenses, camera body etc makes this an easy decision. Plus the weight of an P1 system or tech system no longer appeals to me.

Since most art directors I have worked with are more focused on cost and their personal profits. So they pick lessor quality images and push them beyond the limit of the image.

I will pass.

Paul

 

[cunim]

Here's an image that could benefit from 250MP. It was made by tiling dozens of images using an automated microscope stage with a 1MP camera and high numerical aperture 10X objective. The idea was to get both the gross anatomy and the cellular anatomy (an immunostained section of human bran stem) into the same image. It would have been much better (more cellular detail) with a larger MF sensor (allows use of higher magnification) and with as much sensor resolution as possible.

The impression I have is that P1 are moving heavily towards markets in which photography is not a creative practice but a tool. Biological imaging is one such market, though I suppose it is the CH stuff that is motivating P1. (slide from the Mann lab at Columbia, image by me)

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Cant wait to scan with it. It will give the scan a natural texture.

 

[hcubell]

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

Rob's question is exactly the right question to be asked and your response is exactly what I would expect would be the answer from anyone other than the very few photographers in the world who are selling very large fine art prints, at huge prices, and likely use a tech camera. Prints that are 40+ inches on the short side. If that's the target market, what are the chances that Phase One has (or would be willing to commit) the financial resources to develop a digital back for the target market? Zero chance. OTOH, there may be a much bigger market that Phase would want to target...its B2B geospatial surveying business...where a new 250MP back may make sense. However, if recent practice is any guide to the future, I would not expect a technological tour de force for an IQ5 that incorporates significant new features that are important for photographers, particularly when weighed against the $55,000 outlay for an IQ5. Everything that Phase has been doing on the hardware side has involved an extremely limited commitment of financial resources for R&D and other costs on the production side. It has become a limited risk, "integrator", using components manufactured by others. I think there is zero chance of Phase producing a versatile MILC camera system with modern AF and new AF lenses.

 

[vieri]

Rob's question is exactly the right question to be asked and your response is exactly what I would expect would be the answer from anyone other than the very few photographers in the world who are selling very large fine art prints, at huge prices, and likely use a tech camera. Prints that are 40+ inches on the short side. If that's the target market, what are the chances that Phase One has (or would be willing to commit) the financial resources to develop a digital back for the target market? Zero chance. OTOH, there may be a much bigger market that Phase would want to target...its B2B geospatial surveying business...where a new 250MP back may make sense. However, if recent practice is any guide to the future, I would not expect a technological tour de force for an IQ5 that incorporates significant new features that are important for photographers, particularly when weighed against the $55,000 outlay for an IQ5. Everything that Phase has been doing on the hardware side has involved an extremely limited commitment of financial resources for R&D and other costs on the production side. It has become a limited risk, "integrator", using components manufactured by others. I think there is zero chance of Phase producing a versatile MILC camera system with modern AF and new AF lenses.

I use a tech camera, I sell very large prints at high enough prices (10k per print), and I know better than thinking that MP alone would improve any of my images in any meaningful way.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Doppler9000]

Here's an image that could benefit from 250MP. It was made by tiling dozens of images using an automated microscope stage with a 1MP camera and high numerical aperture 10X objective. The idea was to get both the gross anatomy and the cellular anatomy (an immunostained section of human bran stem) into the same image. It would have been much better (more cellular detail) with a larger MF sensor (allows use of higher magnification) and with as much sensor resolution as possible.

The impression I have is that P1 are moving heavily towards markets in which photography is not a creative practice but a tool. Biological imaging is one such market, though I suppose it is the CH stuff that is motivating P1. (slide from the Mann lab at Columbia, image by me)

I would have thought a smaller, denser sensor would be more efficient than an MF sensor, given the smaller image circles of high NA objectives. High NA, larger format lenses tend to be horribly expensive.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The megapixel question was deemed obsolete sind the 20-40 megapixel days ... but in the end you'll still want it. P45+ was considered "sufficient" so many times ... yet here we are approaching 300.

 

[cunim]

I would have thought a smaller, denser sensor would be more efficient than an MF sensor, given the smaller image circles of high NA objectives. High NA, larger format lenses tend to be horribly expensive.

Sorry I was unclear. I meant putting the back onto a microscope, not using photo lenses

 

[Doppler9000]

Sorry I was unclear. I meant putting the back onto a microscope, not using photo lenses

Sorry for being slow here. Are you speaking about using microscope objectives? In general, they have pretty small image circles.

 

[JaapD]

With such an abundance of pixels I would directly transfer the 2x2 RGBG pixel set to one ‘real’ color pixel. Starting from 247 Mpix you’ll get roughly 62 Mpix. And 6dB less noise / improved dynamic range. Seems pretty ideal to me.

Also less problematic w.r.t. diffraction, allowing it to spread out 2 pixels wide, and still have full MTF on the 62 Mpix image.

…. And apart from all the above, I really also like oversampling techniques, where the optics acts as optical low pass filter. So for various reasons I do appreciate high Mpix sensors very much.

Cheers,
JaapD.

 

[corvus]

The megapixel question was deemed obsolete sind the 20-40 megapixel days ... but in the end you'll still want it. P45+ was considered "sufficient" so many times ... yet here we are approaching 300.

I could like a modern "P45+". So with WiFi, ES, wireless remote shutter release, live view, foldable high-resolution screen and/or good tablet connection, separate case for on the go (a 907x in Danish) ... yes, I know, ok, it probably won't happen after all

 

[buildbot]

I could like a modern "P45+". So with WiFi, ES, wireless remote shutter release, live view, foldable high-resolution screen and/or good tablet connection, separate case for on the go (a 907x in Danish) ... yes, I know, ok, it probably won't happen after all

I feel the same. I'm more interested at this point in using older sensors with way more advanced processing than what was around when they were released - give us a CCD back with excellent thermoelectric cooling, advanced ADCs, high res touch screen, EVF out, Wifi 7, etc.

With such an abundance of pixels I would directly transfer the 2x2 RGBG pixel set to one ‘real’ color pixel. Starting from 247 Mpix you’ll get roughly 62 Mpix. And 6dB less noise / improved dynamic range. Seems pretty ideal to me.

Also less problematic w.r.t. diffraction, allowing it to spread out 2 pixels wide, and still have full MTF on the 62 Mpix image.

…. And apart from all the above, I really also like oversampling techniques, where the optics acts as optical low pass filter. So for various reasons I do appreciate high Mpix sensors very much.

Cheers,
JaapD.

Phase One has a patent for how they do the binning in the sensor plus backs - it's actually somewhat complex: https://www.fotoskoda.cz/images-old/multi/popisobr/MAMIYA/PhaseOne-Sensorplus.pdf

 

[Paul Spinnler]

260 is the best P1 CCD ever made. Last gen, 60 is sweet spot, works with SK and Rodie. The 80 CCDs fail with SK.