268 Mega pixels!?

[sunshine51]

What does a 268 MP sensor look like & what does it weigh?

Furthermore...what do the images from it look like?

Hasselblad ain't got nothin on this I tell ya!

http://petapixel.com/2011/06/16/what-a-268-megapixel-sensor-looks-like/

http://petapixel.com/2011/06/10/huge-visible-light-telescope-shoots-268-megapixel-photos-of-space/

[MJP]

Is that in Canon EF mount?

[ETatBKK]

one day it will be on our hand, under a commercial branded camera !

what would be 268MP translated into today's photographic term ? what kind of details we could capture on a portrait, or on a panorama, or a hologram ? how many focusing layers or HDR exposures it could be stored ?

just imagine :- )

[MJP]

one day it will be on our hand, under a commercial branded camera !

what would be 268MP translated into today's photographic term ? what kind of details we could capture on a portrait, or on a panorama, or a hologram ? how many focusing layers or HDR exposures it could be stored ?

just imagine :- )

At full frame pixel density?

Noisy as hell.

[ETatBKK]

I roughly get an idea what a 'frame' means today :

a Mamiya Leaf Credo 80MP digital back, is 10,328x7,760 pixel, that costs USD33,995 at B&H :- )

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Resolution_80+Megapixels&ci=2788&N=4288584281+4166995405&Ntt=Mamiya+Leaf+Credo+Digital+Back

268MP, then what a number ?

one day it will be on our hand, under a commercial branded camera !

what would be 268MP translated into today's photographic term ? what kind of details we could capture on a portrait, or on a panorama, or a hologram ? how many focusing layers or HDR exposures it could be stored ?

just imagine :- )

At full frame pixel density?

Noisy as hell.

Edited January 26, 2015 by ETatBKK

[MJP]

I roughly get an idea what a 'frame' means today :

a Mamiya Leaf Credo 80MP digital back, is 10,328x7,760 pixel, that costs USD33,995 at B&H :- )

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Resolution_80+Megapixels&ci=2788&N=4288584281+4166995405&Ntt=Mamiya+Leaf+Credo+Digital+Back

268MP, then what a number ?

one day it will be on our hand, under a commercial branded camera !

what would be 268MP translated into today's photographic term ? what kind of details we could capture on a portrait, or on a panorama, or a hologram ? how many focusing layers or HDR exposures it could be stored ?

just imagine :- )

At full frame pixel density?

Noisy as hell.

The trouble is, if you pack so many pixels on say, a 35mm format sensor, the signal to noise ratio would make the photos look like sandpaper. I think.

It's why the Sony A7s is great in low light. 12 big mega pixels spread over a 35mm sensor. My A7r is 36.4mp on the same sized sensor, but turn the ISO up beyond 3200 and the quality is ghastly. I even notice noise at ISO50.

Edited January 26, 2015 by MJP

[sunshine51]

^^^ EtB...a very big number!

I'm hoping it comes in a PL mount.....

[FracturedRabbit]

Good luck finding a lens that would resolve that level of detail.

[MJP]

Good luck finding a lens that would resolve that level of detail.

Tair-11A?

[ETatBKK]

The trouble is, if you pack so many pixels on say, a 35mm format sensor, the signal to noise ratio would make the photos look like sandpaper. I think.

It's why the Sony A7s is great in low light. 12 big mega pixels spread over a 35mm sensor. My A7r is 36.4mp on the same sized sensor, but turn the ISO up beyond 3200 and the quality is ghastly. I even notice noise at ISO50.

the Credo 80MP is for a medium format camera, should not be an issue.

yet, why the pixel density is related to the signal-to-noise ratio ? a technical question, thanks.

[vaultdweller0013]

The trouble is, if you pack so many pixels on say, a 35mm format sensor, the signal to noise ratio would make the photos look like sandpaper. I think.

It's why the Sony A7s is great in low light. 12 big mega pixels spread over a 35mm sensor. My A7r is 36.4mp on the same sized sensor, but turn the ISO up beyond 3200 and the quality is ghastly. I even notice noise at ISO50.

the Credo 80MP is for a medium format camera, should not be an issue.

yet, why the pixel density is related to the signal-to-noise ratio ? a technical question, thanks.

The overly simplistic answer is that there is a certain amount of noise when reading a pixel that is "generally" not dependent on the size of the pixel. However, the signal strength is dependent on the, size as a larger pixel will collect more photons than a smaller pixel. Now, for the the a7s vs. a7r, the pixels are about 3x bigger on the a7s, so the signal strength for a single pixel should be about 3x stronger than on the a7r, both with about the same level of noise, so the SNR for the a7s should be about 3x higher than the a7r at a pixel level.

However, there is a lot more to it than that, e.g. how well can you scale down a high resolution image in software to reduce noise; different sensors have different read noise and this can have some dependence on pixel size; different bodies exhibit different read noise; different outside temperatures exhibit different read noise. Then if you add in different total sensor sizes, it is no longer as simple of a comparison like can be done between the a7s and a7r (this discussion about sensor size could be a thread in and of itself). Plus, technology is always improving, so a small pixel today could be better than a large pixel from a year ago. Then there was the big advancement of backside illuminated senors (BSI in general, or "Exmor R" from Sony) that greatly improved small pixel pitch sensors; in non-bsi sensors, a certain amount of the sensor area is essentially "wiring" that is not sensitive to light. For large pixel pitch sensors, this area is small compared to the photo-sensitive areas, for small pixel pitch sensors, it is not. So, by moving the wiring to be on a seperate layer behind the photo-sensitive layer, they are able to colllect a significant amount of additional light on small sensors.

[sunshine51]

^^^ V...a very good explanation of a rather complicated subject.

This "camera" weighs in at 1700 pounds without lens. It is called the OmegaCam.

The lens is actually a Cassegrain telescope which must have a considerable heft

to it so I don't think we'll be having one around our necks any time soon.

Here's some more info Petapixel didn't mention....

"Design features of OmegaCAM include four auxiliary CCD cameras, two for

auto-guiding and two for on-line image analysis. Up to 12 filters can be used,

ranging from ultraviolet to near-infrared. The entire detector system operates

in vacuum at about -140 degrees Celsius behind a large dewar window.

This window not only protects the detectors from air and moisture, but also

acts as an additional corrector lens."

Plus operating at -140 C will help to reduce any noise associated with

"V's" good description above...to an absolute minimum.

More info here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLT_Survey_Telescope

So in the meantime...those clever Chinese have had this on the market for

some time now....and it's very portable too...even comes in 2 colours;

pink or blue....watch out OmegaCam....

Edited January 27, 2015 by sunshine51

[sunshine51]

An addendum to my post above....

Some better info on the OmegaCam is here...

https://www.eso.org/paranal/instruments/omegacam/inst/index.html

[ETatBKK]

The overly simplistic answer is that there is a certain amount of noise when reading a pixel that is "generally" not dependent on the size of the pixel. However, the signal strength is dependent on the, size as a larger pixel will collect more photons than a smaller pixel. Now, for the the a7s vs. a7r, the pixels are about 3x bigger on the a7s, so the signal strength for a single pixel should be about 3x stronger than on the a7r, both with about the same level of noise, so the SNR for the a7s should be about 3x higher than the a7r at a pixel level.

However, there is a lot more to it than that, e.g. how well can you scale down a high resolution image in software to reduce noise; different sensors have different read noise and this can have some dependence on pixel size; different bodies exhibit different read noise; different outside temperatures exhibit different read noise. Then if you add in different total sensor sizes, it is no longer as simple of a comparison like can be done between the a7s and a7r (this discussion about sensor size could be a thread in and of itself). Plus, technology is always improving, so a small pixel today could be better than a large pixel from a year ago. Then there was the big advancement of backside illuminated senors (BSI in general, or "Exmor R" from Sony) that greatly improved small pixel pitch sensors; in non-bsi sensors, a certain amount of the sensor area is essentially "wiring" that is not sensitive to light. For large pixel pitch sensors, this area is small compared to the photo-sensitive areas, for small pixel pitch sensors, it is not. So, by moving the wiring to be on a seperate layer behind the photo-sensitive layer, they are able to colllect a significant amount of additional light on small sensors.

very clear elaboration, thanks !!

I did some homework too. there are digital back for 9x11-inch large format camera too, and they indeed advertise the LARGE PIXEL SIZE - 75 micron.

http://largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

on standard DSLR, I see there will be a limitation on the competition of MP ( before we see 268MP :- ). I guess the excessive MP will be developed into supporting functions, like light field photograph, wider range of HDR . . .

[MJP]

The overly simplistic answer is that there is a certain amount of noise when reading a pixel that is "generally" not dependent on the size of the pixel. However, the signal strength is dependent on the, size as a larger pixel will collect more photons than a smaller pixel. Now, for the the a7s vs. a7r, the pixels are about 3x bigger on the a7s, so the signal strength for a single pixel should be about 3x stronger than on the a7r, both with about the same level of noise, so the SNR for the a7s should be about 3x higher than the a7r at a pixel level.

However, there is a lot more to it than that, e.g. how well can you scale down a high resolution image in software to reduce noise; different sensors have different read noise and this can have some dependence on pixel size; different bodies exhibit different read noise; different outside temperatures exhibit different read noise. Then if you add in different total sensor sizes, it is no longer as simple of a comparison like can be done between the a7s and a7r (this discussion about sensor size could be a thread in and of itself). Plus, technology is always improving, so a small pixel today could be better than a large pixel from a year ago. Then there was the big advancement of backside illuminated senors (BSI in general, or "Exmor R" from Sony) that greatly improved small pixel pitch sensors; in non-bsi sensors, a certain amount of the sensor area is essentially "wiring" that is not sensitive to light. For large pixel pitch sensors, this area is small compared to the photo-sensitive areas, for small pixel pitch sensors, it is not. So, by moving the wiring to be on a seperate layer behind the photo-sensitive layer, they are able to colllect a significant amount of additional light on small sensors.

very clear elaboration, thanks !!

I did some homework too. there are digital back for 9x11-inch large format camera too, and they indeed advertise the LARGE PIXEL SIZE - 75 micron.

http://largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

on standard DSLR, I see there will be a limitation on the competition of MP ( before we see 268MP :- ). I guess the excessive MP will be developed into supporting functions, like light field photograph, wider range of HDR . . .

Good example is the difference between my 16mp K-5IIs and 24mp K-3. Both have the same sized sensor.

The K-5IIs, in my opinion takes the better photograph. Higher dynamic range and way less noise. Pentaxian's were disappointed when the K-3 appeared with such a high pixel density and looking back over my photos from each camera, the K-5IIs is turning out the better stuff.

Consider also the very expensive pro-DSLR's. The Canon 1DX is only 18mp and that's across 35mm format. The Nikon D4s is only 16mp on 35mm!