Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hampered by the fact that there is no need. No practical advantage going upping the rez of sensors to do quality work. I don't think there is a race to up sensor density. When one wants quality one does not use pinky fingernail sized sensors one uses full frame or medium format. The sizes these sensors already come in are well beyond need. The marketing people might sell them as what you got that the photographer down the street don't got. That's why them may still go up a bit. So the art director guys goes "this is the highest rez sensor available" and you can go "yes". And you rent it. On 10/23/13 6:26 AM, "Peter Dzwig" <pdzwig at summaventures.com> wrote: > As far as I can see the absolute limit (if that has any meaning) is > constrained > by the number of sensors that you can fit on a chip of a given size. That > is > limited by the "scale size" of the individual sensors that we can provide > on a > chip and by the architecture of the individual sensors themselves. > > In terms of commercial processors we are currently working at "scale > sizes" at > the tens of nanometer level and smaller scales are available in labs in > very > limited quantities. These are well below current scale sizes used in photo > sensors. > > Sensor size and sensor architecture (ie the design of the each individual > pixel-sensors themselves)limits the number of sensors that we can fit in a > given > area. There is also the question of varying types of sensor; for example > Bayer > vs Foveon X3 vs others and new designs. > > With respect to larger chip sizes with larger chip sizes for a given sensor > architecture goes lower manufacturing yield and substantially increased > cost, > although resolution increases theoretically. > > In short we are nowhere near any theoretical limit that might be achieved. > > However for normal camera usage the issue is as the list has pointed out > one > of > reduced returns. We can only resolve a certain amount and beyond that the > effort > is wasted. This is less of an issue for other kinds of camera. > > Peter > > On 23/10/2013 06:30, Frank Filippone wrote: >> I think a response from Bob Adler and his experience with Digital-MF would >> be a good place for further understanding..... >> >> It is not so much about the number of pixels, but rather the inter-spacing >> distance of those pixels that counts..... >> >> Noise being the number 1 problem..... >> >> BTW, I hope everyone understands that most existent lenses are going to be >> limited... the Sensor being better than the lens....and don't even try to >> think through the issues with the mechanical RF.... >> >> You need to be able to look through the lens for focusing, and have micro >> adjustability of your lenses' focus, and best of all, have a EVF to make >> things go right.....to even approach the limits of these 24-36MP >> cameras..... or lenses designed for them..... >> >> I won't mention the tripod, delayed shutter release, no wind, no land >> movement from passing trucks, nor object movement.....otherwise you just >> do >> not get the improved quality that these sensors are capable of..... >> >> The best rationale for a 24-36MP camera is for the ability to crop with >> higher pixel count as your daily 7-18MP user of today...... >> >> Frank Filippone >> Red735i at verizon.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/