What next after the megapixel wars?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • gmb45

    #1

    What next after the megapixel wars?

    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
    DK Veteran
    • Feb 2009
    • 1281

    #2
    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.
    I can't wake up Grumpy now in case I am accused of Dwarfism

    Comment

    • chroma
      V.I.P. Member
      • Feb 2009
      • 1976

      #3
      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.
      He who laughs last thinks slowest.

      Comment

      • Mr Pumpy
        DK Veteran
        • Jan 2009
        • 1467

        #4
        Ive realized that no matter how good me camera is my photo's are always gonna be average.
        I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I do not know the answer.

        Comment

        • forntida
          DK Veteran
          • Feb 2009
          • 1281

          #5
          Originally posted by Mr Pumpy
          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.
          I can't wake up Grumpy now in case I am accused of Dwarfism

          Comment

          • Mr Pumpy
            DK Veteran
            • Jan 2009
            • 1467

            #6
            Originally posted by forntida
            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.
            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 refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I do not know the answer.

            Comment

            • forntida
              DK Veteran
              • Feb 2009
              • 1281

              #7
              Originally posted by Mr Pumpy
              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.
              I can't wake up Grumpy now in case I am accused of Dwarfism

              Comment

              • gmb45

                #8
                Originally posted by 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.

                Comment

                • mtv1
                  The Stig PT
                  • Apr 2008
                  • 4413

                  #9
                  well said pinki pooof


                  >>>>>>>>>>Dreambox Tools<<<<<<<<<<

                  Comment

                  • gmb45

                    #10
                    Originally posted by mtv1
                    well said pinki pooof
                    hmmm green suits u sir V.I.P STIG

                    Comment

                    • mtv1
                      The Stig PT
                      • Apr 2008
                      • 4413

                      #11
                      thanks u fooooooooker


                      >>>>>>>>>>Dreambox Tools<<<<<<<<<<

                      Comment

                      • firemouth
                        DK Veteran
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 410

                        #12
                        Originally posted by forntida
                        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.

                        , 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.

                        Firemouth rules for life.
                        If it aint broke, don't fix it!
                        If its broke, fix it and use it again!
                        If it proper broke, use it for something else!

                        Comment

                        • on_the_jazz
                          DK Veteran
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 557

                          #13
                          Originally posted by firemouth
                          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.

                          Originally posted by firemouth
                          , 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
                          Last edited by on_the_jazz; 23 June, 2009, 13:38.

                          Comment

                          • firemouth
                            DK Veteran
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 410

                            #14
                            Originally posted by on_the_jazz
                            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
                            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" , . 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" , , as i do, they will be livid. but that's no surprise 90% of "photographers" , , are "gadget freaks", who take pictures.

                            Firemouth rules for life.
                            If it aint broke, don't fix it!
                            If its broke, fix it and use it again!
                            If it proper broke, use it for something else!

                            Comment

                            • on_the_jazz
                              DK Veteran
                              • Jul 2008
                              • 557

                              #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...