The Megapixel Race

On 26 Oct 2006 14:05:31 -0700, Scott W wrote:

> My largest image to date is 392 MP, takes a bit less then 2 minutes to
> load it into Photoshop elements. This photo would produce a print 5
> 1/2 feet square at 300ppi, more then what most people would ever need.
> It is a bit of a pain editing it but not too bad and I only have 1 GB
> of ram in my system.

I suppose even 2 minutes of loading time per picture is pretty
reasonable, since these aren't 4x6 snapshots that will be printed by
the bucketload. But wouldn't Photoshop (or Elements) still be
pretty limited to very basic editing operations? I haven't used it,
but from what others have said about PS, the amount of memory needed
can quickly rise by many hundreds of percent depending on what is
needed (multiple layers?, number of "undo" levels?, other?)


> Other then the pain of using a scanning system the problem with the
> scanning backs is they cost about 20 times too much.

Then your motto could be "A stitch in time saves 20 times."
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

ASAAR <caught RemoveThis @22.com> writes:
> I suppose even 2 minutes of loading time per picture is pretty
> reasonable, since these aren't 4x6 snapshots that will be printed by
> the bucketload. But wouldn't Photoshop (or Elements) still be
> pretty limited to very basic editing operations? I haven't used it,
> but from what others have said about PS, the amount of memory needed
> can quickly rise by many hundreds of percent depending on what is
> needed (multiple layers?, number of "undo" levels?, other?)

I don't understand why there's a need to load the whole photo into
memory, instead of scaling it down, working on a scaled version, then
applying the changes to the big version. This is like what the movie
industry does all the time with film: transfer it to video, do all
their editing on a video editing system, and the system then generates
an edit list (i.e. a list of frame numbers where the cuts and splices
are supposed to go) and the edits then get applied to the movie film.

With photo editing, all the stuff like titling, crops, color
adjustments, etc. can be done on a small version and applied
afterwards to the big version in batch mode. The one thing you can't
do that way is zoom down to the pixel level while editing. But you
can do that by reading just the part of the big file that you want to
zoom in on (you might have to make an initial pass through the file to
carve it up into regions so you can quickly locate any pixel location).
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

Greg _ wrote:
> In article <1161896731.760561.321800.DeleteThis@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Whereas a 8 x 10 LF camera has 4 times
> > the area of a 4x5 it tends to be used at higher f/numbers and this
> > greatly reduces the resolution.
>
> Eh???? Mid range on an 8x10 is f/45- 64 have you ever seen DOF at that
> F/stop I have -lots
And the resolution at f/45 sucks big time. Figure it this way, f/64
gives you the same DOF on a 8 x 10 as you would get from a 4 x 5 at
f/32, assuming the same field of view. But you are going to get twice
the resolution at f/32 as you are from f/64 so in the end the two
cameras will end up with the same amound of detail captured. The 8 x
10 will have less grain, which IMO is good, but the file size from
scanning each should be about the same.

Already at f/16 diffraction is beginning to limit resolution and going
to f/64 cuts the total number of usable pixels that can be extracted
from the film by a factor of 16.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <23i0k2t90lf4u5eurf4j6ottji0mpqgt6o RemoveThis @4ax.com>, ASAAR says...

> already high prices will probably become quite a bit higher. I
> don't think that will force most of the photographers to abandon LF,
> as I don't seen any digital alternatives on the near horizon.

Sorry, but can't you get LF resolutions already nowadays with scanning
backs? They should be in the 120+ MP range.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

On 26 Oct 2006 14:45:43 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

> I don't understand why there's a need to load the whole photo into
> memory, instead of scaling it down, working on a scaled version, then
> applying the changes to the big version. This is like what the movie
> industry does all the time with film: transfer it to video, do all
> their editing on a video editing system, and the system then generates
> an edit list (i.e. a list of frame numbers where the cuts and splices
> are supposed to go) and the edits then get applied to the movie film.

I'd say that the entire photo needs to be loaded initially, but
software could be smarter, saving the minimum required instead of
the entire image, and some software does this. The drawback is that
it can also have a speed penalty if every time you load an image to
resume working on it, the original image has to be loaded and then
have all of the changes applied. There are probably some operations
that wouldn't work very well unless a lot of memory was used. Sort
of like the problems computers can get into when lack of real memory
overdoes the use of virtual memory, causing disk thrashing.


> With photo editing, all the stuff like titling, crops, color
> adjustments, etc. can be done on a small version and applied
> afterwards to the big version in batch mode. The one thing you can't
> do that way is zoom down to the pixel level while editing. But you
> can do that by reading just the part of the big file that you want to
> zoom in on (you might have to make an initial pass through the file to
> carve it up into regions so you can quickly locate any pixel location).

But what if the color adjustments that looked good on a small
section of the image is less than ideal when you see it applied to
the entire image? Having a duplicate image in memory may be
wasteful, but being able to "undo" the operation very quickly has a
lot of value, especially for those working commercially, where time
is money. I'm fortunate in not having these memory problems, for
two reasons. First, my camera's jpg images don't require much
memory. Second, Fuji's support for their very large RAW files is so
poor that I've only briefly looked at it a couple of times. Maybe
I've missed it, but I haven't even found that any operations on RAW
files are possible, such as adjusting WB. All I've found so far is
the ability to convert the Fuji's RAW files (.RAF) to TIFF. I'd be
better off if I had less good fortune . . .
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <7xy7r33ard.fsf.DeleteThis@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

> John McWilliams <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> writes:
> > >> *If* I understand it, I disagree: At some point in the future,
> > >> there will be a digital camera (not limited to military) that will
> > >> out-resolve an 8 x10.
> > > Dreamer.
> > Accurate prognosticator.
>
> Microprocessor chips are made on 12" wafers right now. Such a wafer
> could hold a 7.5" x 9.37" die, giving 8x10 proportions and only
> slightly less area. Even if yield wasn't perfect and some pixels here
> and there had to be interpolated, such a thing would surely outresolve
> 8x10 film. It might also be possible to use beamsplitters to expose
> the same image on two separate such sensors through the same lens
> simultaneously, so sensels on each would fill in the defects in the
> other. That might be necessary if there had to be areas in the sensor
> reserved for getting the data out.

And the consumer cost would be? And the size of the implementation
equipment would be? Relative to the size of?
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <z7ydncp4qYVGV93YnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
John McWilliams <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> Paul Rubin wrote:
> > John McWilliams <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> writes:
> >>>> *If* I understand it, I disagree: At some point in the future,
> >>>> there will be a digital camera (not limited to military) that will
> >>>> out-resolve an 8 x10.
> >>> Dreamer.
> >> Accurate prognosticator.
> >
> > Microprocessor chips are made on 12" wafers right now. Such a wafer
> > could hold a 7.5" x 9.37" die, giving 8x10 proportions and only
> > slightly less area. Even if yield wasn't perfect and some pixels here
> > and there had to be interpolated, such a thing would surely outresolve
> > 8x10 film. It might also be possible to use beamsplitters to expose
> > the same image on two separate such sensors through the same lens
> > simultaneously, so sensels on each would fill in the defects in the
> > other. That might be necessary if there had to be areas in the sensor
> > reserved for getting the data out.
>
> Thanks, Paul. I don't have the tech background to know what's possible
> right now. It's only a matter of time before there's such a beast, and
> then it's a question of how much does it cost? And is there a real
> demand at any price.
>
> John

Pure BS.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <MPG.1fab09aebf5013a798b1aa DeleteThis @news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredDELETE_molon DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <23i0k2t90lf4u5eurf4j6ottji0mpqgt6o DeleteThis @4ax.com>, ASAAR says...
>
> > already high prices will probably become quite a bit higher. I
> > don't think that will force most of the photographers to abandon LF,
> > as I don't seen any digital alternatives on the near horizon.
>
> Sorry, but can't you get LF resolutions already nowadays with scanning
> backs? They should be in the 120+ MP range.

5k gets you a 6x7 sensor that adapts to 4x5. Not FF 4x5 even.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <JtidnVnVDKNKmdzYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d RemoveThis @speakeasy.net>,
"rafe b" <rafeb RemoveThis @foobar.com> wrote:

> "Alfred Molon" <alfredDELETE_molon RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1fab09aebf5013a798b1aa@news.supernews.com...
> > In article <23i0k2t90lf4u5eurf4j6ottji0mpqgt6o RemoveThis @4ax.com>, ASAAR says...
> >
> >> already high prices will probably become quite a bit higher. I
> >> don't think that will force most of the photographers to abandon LF,
> >> as I don't seen any digital alternatives on the near horizon.
> >
> > Sorry, but can't you get LF resolutions already nowadays with scanning
> > backs? They should be in the 120+ MP range.
>
>
> There are at least two or three major problems with
> scanning backs:
>
> 1. Max. sensor length around 3.5" -- so they
> don't even cover the "full" 4x5" area.
> 2. Long exposure times.
> 3. High cost
> 4. Support infrastructure (control unit, laptop, etc.)
>
> Scanning backs are mainly used for indoor, studio work
> and for art reproduction, though a few brave souls use
> them for landscapes (eg. Stephen Johnson.)
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com

I've debated buying the Betterlight 5k model I have the laotop and the
camera but I can lots of 4x5 for 5k.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <JtidnVnVDKNKmdzYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d DeleteThis @speakeasy.net>,
"rafe b" <rafeb DeleteThis @foobar.com> wrote:

> "Alfred Molon" <alfredDELETE_molon DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1fab09aebf5013a798b1aa@news.supernews.com...
> > In article <23i0k2t90lf4u5eurf4j6ottji0mpqgt6o DeleteThis @4ax.com>, ASAAR says...
> >
> >> already high prices will probably become quite a bit higher. I
> >> don't think that will force most of the photographers to abandon LF,
> >> as I don't seen any digital alternatives on the near horizon.
> >
> > Sorry, but can't you get LF resolutions already nowadays with scanning
> > backs? They should be in the 120+ MP range.
>
>
> There are at least two or three major problems with
> scanning backs:
>
> 1. Max. sensor length around 3.5" -- so they
> don't even cover the "full" 4x5" area.
> 2. Long exposure times.
> 3. High cost
> 4. Support infrastructure (control unit, laptop, etc.)
>
> Scanning backs are mainly used for indoor, studio work
> and for art reproduction, though a few brave souls use
> them for landscapes (eg. Stephen Johnson.)
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com

5k buys a lot of 4x5 or 8 x10 no doubt, even with processing, but I
would have a lot of trouble shooting that much even in one years time.

Then what do I do with it, scan it? I have hard enough time finding
time to do the stuff I am doing now. (Like completing that test
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <MPG.1fab2892524bd85198b1ac RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredDELETE_molon RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <JtidnVnVDKNKmdzYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d RemoveThis @speakeasy.net>, rafe b
> says...
>
> > There are at least two or three major problems with
> > scanning backs:
> >
> > 1. Max. sensor length around 3.5" -- so they
> > don't even cover the "full" 4x5" area.
>
> But that does not matter, as long as they give you the resolution.

Lets see hard copy examples. you bring to me and I'll look at them
against my prints.

> > 2. Long exposure times.
>
> Except for this new unit which captures 160 MP in one second.

One second can be a very long time.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <7xlkn2iwe0.fsf RemoveThis @ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

>
> I don't understand why there's a need to load the whole photo into
> memory, instead of scaling it down,

Depends on the ultimate requirement.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

In article <JtidnVnVDKNKmdzYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net>, rafe b
says...

> There are at least two or three major problems with
> scanning backs:
>
> 1. Max. sensor length around 3.5" -- so they
> don't even cover the "full" 4x5" area.

But that does not matter, as long as they give you the resolution.

> 2. Long exposure times.

Except for this new unit which captures 160 MP in one second.

> 3. High cost
> 4. Support infrastructure (control unit, laptop, etc.)
>
> Scanning backs are mainly used for indoor, studio work
> and for art reproduction, though a few brave souls use
> them for landscapes (eg. Stephen Johnson.)

--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race