What next after the megapixel wars?

[gmb45]

For years, consumers have been sold digital cameras largely on the basis of one number ? the megapixels crammed onto its image sensor. But recently an industry bigwig admitted that squeezing in ever more resolution has become meaningless.

Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department, said that 12 megapixels is plenty for most photography purposes and that his company will henceforth be focusing on improving colour accuracy and low-light performance.

That will surely raise the quality of most home snaps, but his admission suggests something much bigger for the future of photography. As most of the technological hurdles of capturing still and moving images on consumer-grade cameras have been met, the real frontier of innovation now lies in what happens to images after they have been captured.
New dimensions

Already we are seeing how powerful software tools are making still photos just an intermediate on the way to something more interactive.

One example, Microsoft's Photosynth, which organises collections of photos of the same scene as a 3D space. It's an approach that can be more easily understood by watching video of it in action.

The latest project on Photosynth meshes photos into an almost seamless 3D environment in which you can even walk inside buildings (see video).

The way Google Street View presents realistic views of the world using linked still images is another example of the potential of this kind of technology.
Gigapixel gains

A recently released robotic tripod called Gigapan that makes it much simpler to stitch together incredibly large, detailed images from hundreds or thousands of individual shots, puts new powers in amateur hands. The technology is also helping scientists to record vulnerable environments, or create super-accurate photographic archives.

Another technique, dubbed super resolution, combines multiple photos to reveal detail not visible in any of the originalsMovie Camera.

One-click methods to make a face in a photo more attractive, or turn 2D photos into realistic 3D modelsMovie Camera are also now possible.
Special effects

And it's not just stills photography that is benefitting from advances in tech. Sites like YouTube have got us used to the idea that anyone can edit and share a rough and ready video, but the tricks of Hollywood studios are also being democratised.

Researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, have made a package that lets you edit the surface of objects in a movie just once and have the changes persist throughout the footageMovie Camera ? with more traditional techniques, every frame would have to be edited. Software firm Adobe is working on a similar package that also makes it possible to move objects inside a movie with just a few clicks. Smart software can make previously unthinkable post-production techniques available to anyone.

So, in the future, our cameras will no longer merely provide snapshots and footage to be viewed in the traditional ways ? increasingly, their output will be aimed at feeding software and online tools that roll them into novel ways to experience photography.

The basics of capturing images will still undergo gradual evolution, but for a technological revolution we should look to the software that works on a camera's output.

[forntida]

The way Google Street View presents realistic views of the world using linked still images is another example of the potential of this kind of technology.
Gigapixel gains


You have me lost here. Surely every movie video is just a series of still pics or is there something you are not telling me.

[chroma]

The industry will closely emulate the x86 Processor marketing strategy.
ZOMG 1GHz
OH NOES SUPAR FAST LEET 2.4GHz
Then things moved on to upping the front side bus and finaly on to multiple cores.

as an analogue to the digital camera industry it will be ZOMG MEGAPIXAAALZ
Till most consumers realise that more pixels isnt always better, you get overspill causing mosiac from small sensors that cram too may pixels, the photons overspill onto surrounding points causing blur/mosiac and a range of artifacting.

Things will move on to:
Clipping ratios (like aspect ratio, how much of the actual scene is captured, sensor size / type has an impact here)

Then on to extrapolation methods like 1 sensor plus an advanced Bayer Filter Algorythm and anti-aliasing (to reduce mosic and jaggies) expect a lot of missleading jargon when this occurs
(an analogue would be the instruction sets on a processor, mine has 3DNow! oh yeah? well mine has MMX and SSE so suck it)
Or multiple sensors for Red, Green and Blue Photons using the Foveon technique.

All the while as an analogue to FSB speeds on processors you'll get memory speeds, flash capable of storing 128 12megapixel photos per second etc.

[Mr Pumpy]

Ive realized that no matter how good me camera is my photo's are always gonna be average.

[forntida]

Ive realized that no matter how good me camera is my photo's are always gonna be average.


Yes, I'm afraid it is all down to your aesthetic value. You must be able to see a picter skew scene in your mind and vision. I think I am gibbering.:D

[Mr Pumpy]

Yes, I'm afraid it is all down to your aesthetic value. You must be able to see a picter skew scene in your mind and vision. I think I am gibbering.:D

I'd rather not talk about my aesthetic value thankyou ver much.
Ive been to the doctors and he's given me some cream to rub on twice a day.

[forntida]

I'd rather not talk about my aesthetic value thankyou ver much.
Ive been to the doctors and he's given me some cream to rub on twice a day.

I'll put you in the picture. (see what I did there to stay on thread?)

You are supposed to rub that cream on yourself not the missus.:D

[gmb45]

The industry will closely emulate the x86 Processor marketing strategy.
ZOMG 1GHz
OH NOES SUPAR FAST LEET 2.4GHz
Then things moved on to upping the front side bus and finaly on to multiple cores.

as an analogue to the digital camera industry it will be ZOMG MEGAPIXAAALZ
Till most consumers realise that more pixels isnt always better, you get overspill causing mosiac from small sensors that cram too may pixels, the photons overspill onto surrounding points causing blur/mosiac and a range of artifacting.

Things will move on to:
Clipping ratios (like aspect ratio, how much of the actual scene is captured, sensor size / type has an impact here)

Then on to extrapolation methods like 1 sensor plus an advanced Bayer Filter Algorythm and anti-aliasing (to reduce mosic and jaggies) expect a lot of missleading jargon when this occurs
(an analogue would be the instruction sets on a processor, mine has 3DNow! oh yeah? well mine has MMX and SSE so suck it)
Or multiple sensors for Red, Green and Blue Photons using the Foveon technique.

All the while as an analogue to FSB speeds on processors you'll get memory speeds, flash capable of storing 128 12megapixel photos per second etc. :goodpost:

[mtv1]

well said pinki pooof

[gmb45]

well said pinki pooof hmmm green suits u sir :D V.I.P STIG :D

[mtv1]

thanks u fooooooooker

[firemouth]

You have me lost here. Surely every movie video is just a series of still pics or is there something you are not telling me.

well, kinda. though video is a series of "images" they are not still. if they were you would get the jerky movement you see on very old black and white films. the shutter is set to allow a, very small amount of blur. this makes the "moving" image seem smooth.

lol, what Olympus is saying is, digi media will never get as good as film, in the foreseeable future, so why try. its true the difference is, unlikely, to be noticed in normal use. but why try, for so few? the Cmos Canon use has far Less noise,than ccd's, but even that will struggle to get close to print film quality (i agree very few will notice, and even fewer use the difference. but that does not mean its not there). we need a new
"imaging technology". as its not on the horizon now, lets make the best of what we have. instead of ever increasing pixel counts, for less and less gain.

[on_the_jazz]

well, kinda. though video is a series of "images" they are not still. if they were you would get the jerky movement you see on very old black and white films. the shutter is set to allow a, very small amount of blur. this makes the "moving" image seem smooth.

I thought the whole point was getting to the stage where each frame was crystal clear? ie HD picture, tweaking frame rates, 200Hz tv's; all to get the perfect blur free image. Frames in cartoons definitely have no blur added. Each frame is a perfect picture but it doesn't look jerky at all.


lol, what Olympus is saying is, digi media will never get as good as film, in the foreseeable future, so why try. its true the difference is, unlikely, to be noticed in normal use. but why try, for so few? the Cmos Canon use has far Less noise,than ccd's, but even that will struggle to get close to print film quality (i agree very few will notice, and even fewer use the difference. but that does not mean its not there). we need a new
"imaging technology". as its not on the horizon now, lets make the best of what we have. instead of ever increasing pixel counts, for less and less gain.

The gadget show shot 2 identical scenes and then blew the photo up to cover the side of a building. They must have been the size of 2 or 3 billboards each. Everyone agreed that one image was better by far and it turned out to be the digital camera. I think digital camera's have been better than film ones, in terms of image quality, for a few years now.
I'm still trying to find that clip on youtube but have no idea which series it was.

edit: Woohoo I found it - http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

[firemouth]

I thought the whole point was getting to the stage where each frame was crystal clear? ie HD picture, tweaking frame rates, 200Hz tv's; all to get the perfect blur free image. Frames in cartoons definitely have no blur added. Each frame is a perfect picture but it doesn't look jerky at all.



The gadget show shot 2 identical scenes and then blew the photo up to cover the side of a building. They must have been the size of 2 or 3 billboards each. Everyone agreed that one image was better by far and it turned out to be the digital camera. I think digital camera's have been better than film ones, in terms of image quality, for a few years now.
I'm still trying to find that clip on youtube but have no idea which series it was.

edit: Woohoo I found it - FiveFWD - Challenge - Blow Up - Part 3 video from The Gadget Show (http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3)

yep watched that, its bull. true 400ASA digi is the equal of 400ASA film. in that scenario. but when you get to Real life" ASA's 100asa digi, is many 10's of maga pixels short of getting close to the same quality. if you move to transparency, it 30+ mega pixel's short. that's the point Olympus are making. nobody, in there right mind, thinks 12mp cameras are anything like the quality of print films, even the devout, realise its 18mp for equalling print and 25-50mp for slide. ccd's and cmos give way too much noise to achieve those sorts of pixel counts, in a sensor no bigger than 24x36mm. so what's the point trying? its hard for all those "photographers" lol, lol. who spent large amount's on lenses, only to find the only way they can see the quality of their prized lens. is to stick an adaptor for a 30 year old camera, load a roll of slide film. and take their shots. knowing "photographers" lol, lol, as i do, they will be livid. but that's no surprise 90% of "photographers" lol, lol, are "gadget freaks", who take pictures.

[on_the_jazz]

Wow I haven't heard the term 'ASA' used for a long time, you must be old school! (I mean that in a good way).
I confess I've never tested film vs digital myself but as you say the average person isn't going to notice too much difference. Also the convenience of editing and printing your own photo's is going to tip the balance for most.
They are making ccd sizes bigger these days (same number of megapixels but just a bigger ccd) so lets see if that makes it even closer.

[firemouth]

Wow I haven't heard the term 'ASA' used for a long time, you must be old school! (I mean that in a good way).
I confess I've never tested film vs digital myself but as you say the average person isn't going to notice too much difference. Also the convenience of editing and printing your own photo's is going to tip the balance for most.
They are making ccd sizes bigger these days (same number of megapixels but just a bigger ccd) so lets see if that makes it even closer.

yep, too right. the vast majority will never notice. so why buy lenses of ?1000. when the best the camera can resolve, would be that if a ?200 one.lol, then they save the image in JPG!! that's the thing, even Olympus see no point in conning people any more. until we can significantly increase quality. its little more than a con to keep producing new cameras( or cameras with ever increasing pixel counts).

CCD's or CMOS will not get bigger. well that's not true. there are already large format CCD's. but these are useless as portable units. as a result 24x36 will be the biggest image sensor, to be placed in a 35mm equivalent camera. anything larger would require a totally new lens range including "lens mount". the lenses would be bigger and heavier, making autofocus a nightmare.

I 100% agree on the editing front. digi wins hands down. but, also, Photography looses too. its no coincidence that photography, for the most part, is taught with print film still. the processes you go through to make a print. highlight the salient points of photography.
try going to a "photography/camera" club. ask about, see how many people know how the figure of 18% relates to photography. actually the founding basis of capturing an image, even today.
or asking them what film they think was used to shoot classic films like the Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind. again the answer leads to one of the founding principals of photography.
even better, ask how many save their pictures in RAW format.
these guys can talk me round any camera on sale today. yet few if any could take a shot of an aircraft (in the air) that is properly exposed and focused, with their multi hundred ? gear. yet it can be done with no problem with the same camera on manual, for both focus and exposure.(lol its quicker too)
the above is not to show my vast knowledge of photography, indeed i have only mentioned above, things that any "self-respecting" camera owner should know before they take a shot. but too many dont.

[MartDiamond]

Megapixels are irrelevant on a certain point, 7.0 I thought but I'm not sure

[firemouth]

Megapixels are irrelevant on a certain point, 7.0 I thought but I'm not sure

indeed so. for compact cameras 5-7 is about the maximum worth buying. 12-18 for the larger format SLR's (and 18 only on an 24x36mm format). why? because the tech can not handle any more resolution, without excessive noise. its a classic case of "buy this now, don't worry. it will be as good as print soon". when the truth was very different. "buy this now, because we have decided its what we are going to make". and then. "oh sorry it will never be as good a quality as print"!

now all this sounds like i think digi is not worth the effort. far from it, its made reasonable quality photographs avaliable to all. i use them myself. and have loved Photoshop and its trick since it moved on to the pc. but in terms of pure optical resolution, and improving the art of Photography, its taken us back 50 years.

[on_the_jazz]

CCD's or CMOS will not get bigger. well that's not true. there are already large format CCD's. but these are useless as portable units. as a result 24x36 will be the biggest image sensor, to be placed in a 35mm equivalent camera.

Leica Camera AG - S-System (http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/s_system/)

What happens on professional camera's, more often than not, filters down to the rest.

[firemouth]

Leica Camera AG - S-System (http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/s_system/)

What happens on professional camera's, more often than not, filters down to the rest.

24x36mm cameras are the professional" digi tool. if you want top quality. you still use film, as a pro. newspaper hack, don't need quality, and make up the bulk of "pro camera" sales.

their is nothing coming down the line. they simply cant supply the resolution. we need new tech. I wont say its an, outright, con. because the move to digi was needed. both from environmental and practical reasons. but even the most expensive, mini format cameras (up to 24x36) fail at comparison with film. i'm talking "ultimate" quality here. very very few will ever use it. but the poor fools are still paying "top quality" prices for their lenses. even though there are no cameras(digi) that can resolve to that level. unfortunately, there has been a corresponding slide in (average) lens quality, with no adjustment in price, as digi took hold. honestly if you place a "modern DIGI" lens on an optical testing platform, they are pathetic, or would have been considered so 25 years ago. fortunately, for the manufacturers, the cameras are of such low resolution, nobody notices. lol quids in. charge a fortune for lenses, sell low quality lenses. and get away with it, coz nobody has a camera good enough to tell. CLASSIC!

[spideyogie]

it will never end
they will always found a way to make our stuff obsolete :D

[gmb45]

it will never end
they will always found a way to make our stuff obsolete :D welcome to dk m8 :D