Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

maxing out on MPs

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:44:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
Would there be a need for one? The file size would be too big
to even store on a hdd.

At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.

More about : maxing mps

January 7, 2005 5:44:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

At one time I was told that a 212 Mb harddrive would be the biggets I would
ever need. Billgates also said that 640 k would be the most menory ever
needed.




"Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com...
> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
> Would there be a need for one? The file size would be too big
> to even store on a hdd.
>
> At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.
>
January 7, 2005 6:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

24"x36" prints at 300 dpi would need 10,800x7,200 pixel images (77.8MP).
That's probably a little better than 4x5 large format film <g>.

Developwebsites wrote:
> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
> Would there be a need for one? The file size would be too big
> to even store on a hdd.
>
> At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:

> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?

Almost certainly.

Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.

> Would there be a need for one?

I could find it even now.

> The file size would be too big
> to even store on a hdd.

My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.

The last drive I bought was a 250, in external case, and cost about $170
total.

You can get 500MB drives small enough for a laptop.

See my first comment.

> At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.

I shoot covers for magazines. For a full-bleed subject, framed perfectly,
350 ppi for 175+ line offset, I need pretty much exactly 12 mpixels.

It would be nice to have twice that or more for flexibility.

It is entirely possible that consumer and normal pro-grade bodies will
likely top out around that resolution in the foreseeable future.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
> developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote:
>> The file size would be too big
>> to even store on a hdd.
>
> My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>
> The last drive I bought was a 250, in external case, and cost about $170
> total.
>
> You can get 500MB drives small enough for a laptop.

You mean GB, right?

I just got a 250GB internal drive at Best Buy for $99 after rebate. As a
former purchaser of that 20MB, $500 drive (HardCard), I am still stunned by
what storage costs now.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:

> developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
> news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>
> > will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>
> Almost certainly.
>
> Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.

Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet. There are
only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be 90MP
of noise.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:

> My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.

OK, so its going to be one of those threads!

I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
$14,000 each!

Tearbyte drives should be available this year (I hope),
probably in the $500 range. That would be a change
of $24.52 /megabyte to $0.0005 per megabyte in 21 years,
or a factor of over 49,000 in cost.

Roger
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:43:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bruce Lewis wrote:
> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
>>news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>
>>
>>>will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>>
>>Almost certainly.
>>
>>Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>
>
> Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet. There are
> only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
> before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be 90MP
> of noise.
>

Hardly.

I do 200+ megapixels right now.
Fujichrome Velvia in 4x5 format scanned at ~3000 ppi gives
about a 650 megabyte file in 8-bits/channel, 1.2 GByte files
in 16-bit/channel files. I make 30x40 inch prints that have incredible
fine detail, and even 4x5 FOOT prints with still
impressive detail. There has always been a market/need
for large format images. The detail is the closest thing
to being there. My tests show 4x5 film with Fuji Velvia
is equivalent to about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.

Roger Clark
Example photos:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-...
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 9:16:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
>
>> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
>>> news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>>>
>>>
>>> Almost certainly.
>>>
>>> Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet. There are
>> only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
>> before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be 90MP
>> of noise.
>>
>
> Hardly.
>
> I do 200+ megapixels right now.
> Fujichrome Velvia in 4x5 format scanned at ~3000 ppi gives
> about a 650 megabyte file in 8-bits/channel, 1.2 GByte files
> in 16-bit/channel files. I make 30x40 inch prints that have incredible
> fine detail, and even 4x5 FOOT prints with still
> impressive detail. There has always been a market/need
> for large format images. The detail is the closest thing
> to being there. My tests show 4x5 film with Fuji Velvia
> is equivalent to about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.
>
> Roger Clark
> Example photos:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-...
>
Yea, but can I put the camera in my shirt pocket? If not, I wouldn't
have it when I needed it. Bet you carry 50 lbs. of equipment along to a
photo sesssion.. Fact is, VERY few people need to print a 30x40
picture, let alone a 4x5 foot one. Your needs are a bit outside the
'mainstream'.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 9:18:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Eric Gill wrote:
>
>> My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>
>
> OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>
> I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
> $14,000 each!
>
> Tearbyte drives should be available this year (I hope),
> probably in the $500 range. That would be a change
> of $24.52 /megabyte to $0.0005 per megabyte in 21 years,
> or a factor of over 49,000 in cost.
>
> Roger
>
Only a couple of years ago 1GB drives were selling for $2200. Now you
can find sales where the price is $.50 a gigabyte. Amazing!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 10:10:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/7/05 10:43 AM, in article
Xns95D76D22AF515ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246, "Eric Gill"
<ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

> developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
> news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>
>> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>
> Almost certainly.
>
> Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>
>> Would there be a need for one?
>
> I could find it even now.
>
>> The file size would be too big
>> to even store on a hdd.
>
> My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>
I will never forget the $2K I shelled out for an external 20 meg HD for my
Mac Plus in the late 80's. Was told that it was more storage than I would
ever need. Feel sorta like Willie Gates arguing that no one would need a
computer faster than _____ (fill in the blank).


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 10:10:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 1/7/05 10:43 AM, in article
> Xns95D76D22AF515ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246, "Eric Gill"
> <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
>>news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>
>>
>>>will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>>
>>Almost certainly.
>>
>>Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>>
>>
>>>Would there be a need for one?
>>
>>I could find it even now.
>>
>>
>>>The file size would be too big
>>>to even store on a hdd.
>>
>>My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>>
>
> I will never forget the $2K I shelled out for an external 20 meg HD for my
> Mac Plus in the late 80's. Was told that it was more storage than I would
> ever need. Feel sorta like Willie Gates arguing that no one would need a
> computer faster than _____ (fill in the blank).
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>
Or Steve Jobs saying no one would ever need more than 16k of ram....? Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:03:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:29:31 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>Eric Gill wrote:
>
>> My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>
>OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>
>I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>$14,000 each!
>
>Tearbyte drives should be available this year (I hope),
>probably in the $500 range. That would be a change
>of $24.52 /megabyte to $0.0005 per megabyte in 21 years,
>or a factor of over 49,000 in cost.

Sadly, beer prices seem to be increasing at an inverse rate.

Somewhere in the universe, something has gone awfully wrong.

For the next election I'll vote for anyone who can index link beer
prices to disk storage, bring back the 3 liter flush and outlaw those
damn ticker tape things on the news channels.

There also needs to be a world-wide standard on nibbles that come with
Chinese take-aways. This should, of course, be the UK's prawn cracker.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:32:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nm9zmzl6ugw.fsf@mint-
square.mit.edu:

> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
>> news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>
>> > will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>>
>> Almost certainly.
>>
>> Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>
> Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet.

Sure. But it would be a good idea to *understand* them first.

I'd suggest you do some research on just how many photons might fall, say,
on a cubic centimeter in normal sunlight.

To the nearest billion would do.

> There are
> only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
> before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be 90MP
> of noise.

<sigh> Noise is primarily an artifact of our detectors.

See my previous comment.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:32:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:

> Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nm9zmzl6ugw.fsf@mint-
> square.mit.edu:
>
>
>>Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
>>>news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>>>
>>>Almost certainly.
>>>
>>>Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>>
>>Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet.
>
>
> Sure. But it would be a good idea to *understand* them first.
>
> I'd suggest you do some research on just how many photons might fall, say,
> on a cubic centimeter in normal sunlight.
>
> To the nearest billion would do.

This is not hard hard for a square centimeter, and nearest
trillion, but is hard for cubic centimeter and nearest billion.
While the number of photons depends on what you define
as a fully exposed picture, here is one benchmark:
The Canon 10D has a full well capacity of about 44,200.
Assuming a quantum efficiency of 90%, that means
the sensor reaches saturation 49,100 photons/pixel
(7.2 micron spacing). The active area is somewhat smaller,
say it is 0.6 (not sure about this), then we get about 30
square microns for the active area, or about
1600 photons/square micron
= 1,600 billion photons/square centimeter.
In bright sunlight, say sunny f/16 rule: 1/100 sec at iso 100.
So that is 160 trillion photons per second per square centimeter
from a very bright surface.

It's up to the reader to check my math.

reference page for full well capacity:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

Roger
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:32:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:
> Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nm9zmzl6ugw.fsf@mint-
> square.mit.edu:
>
>
>>Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
>>>news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>>>
>>>Almost certainly.
>>>
>>>Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>>
>>Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet.
>
>
> Sure. But it would be a good idea to *understand* them first.
>
> I'd suggest you do some research on just how many photons might fall, say,
> on a cubic centimeter in normal sunlight.

Why would you deal with a cubic measure? Makes more sense to use only
one plane, so square centimeter would make more sense (and be much
easier to calculate.

>
> To the nearest billion would do.
>
>
>> There are
>>only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
>>before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be 90MP
>>of noise.
>
>
> <sigh> Noise is primarily an artifact of our detectors.
>
> See my previous comment.
>


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:03:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Did not.

"Bub" <Bub@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o 7WdnTEsqJAWNUPcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> At one time I was told that a 212 Mb harddrive would be the biggets I
> would
> ever need. Billgates also said that 640 k would be the most menory ever
> needed.
>
>
>
>
> "Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
> news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com...
>> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>> Would there be a need for one? The file size would be too big
>> to even store on a hdd.
>>
>> At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 1:10:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ok, so optically, what is the best possible resolution that we can relate
to - let's say a pine needle at 300 feet. Or, conversely, a molecule of
mold on some cheese. Because optics and sensors produce similar results.
As long as the optics are accurate, and the sensor is fine enough, we should
have access to the information.




"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:41DEE164.8070906@qwest.net...
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> > Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
> >>news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
> >>
> >>
> >>>will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
> >>
> >>Almost certainly.
> >>
> >>Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
> >
> >
> > Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet. There are
> > only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
> > before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be 90MP
> > of noise.
> >
>
> Hardly.
>
> I do 200+ megapixels right now.
> Fujichrome Velvia in 4x5 format scanned at ~3000 ppi gives
> about a 650 megabyte file in 8-bits/channel, 1.2 GByte files
> in 16-bit/channel files. I make 30x40 inch prints that have incredible
> fine detail, and even 4x5 FOOT prints with still
> impressive detail. There has always been a market/need
> for large format images. The detail is the closest thing
> to being there. My tests show 4x5 film with Fuji Velvia
> is equivalent to about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.
>
> Roger Clark
> Example photos:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-...
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 1:22:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mgqtt0tj3m8ejeg5etrhfhv9m1pn2hmp1d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:29:31 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Eric Gill wrote:
>>
>>> My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>>
>>OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>>
>>I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>>$14,000 each!
>>
>>Tearbyte drives should be available this year (I hope),
>>probably in the $500 range. That would be a change
>>of $24.52 /megabyte to $0.0005 per megabyte in 21 years,
>>or a factor of over 49,000 in cost.
>

> Sadly, beer prices seem to be increasing at an inverse rate.
>
> Somewhere in the universe, something has gone awfully wrong.


Thanks for the laugh, buddy. :-)

Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 1:42:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com...
> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
> Would there be a need for one? The file size would be too big
> to even store on a hdd.
>
> At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.


There is plenty of need for it now! Lots of professionals use image files
larger than that, I believe.

"You can never have too much horsepower."

Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:25:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in
news:NGFDd.3486$i15.2894@fe07.lga:

> Eric Gill wrote:
>> Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nm9zmzl6ugw.fsf@mint-
>> square.mit.edu:
>>
>>
>>>Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
>>>>news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
>>>>
>>>>Almost certainly.
>>>>
>>>>Betting against science advancing is a fool's gambit.
>>>
>>>Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet.
>>
>>
>> Sure. But it would be a good idea to *understand* them first.
>>
>> I'd suggest you do some research on just how many photons might fall,
>> say, on a cubic centimeter in normal sunlight.
>
> Why would you deal with a cubic measure? Makes more sense to use only
> one plane, so square centimeter would make more sense (and be much
> easier to calculate.

Yep. Typed in a hurry.

Got an answer yet?

>> To the nearest billion would do.
>>
>>
>>> There are
>>>only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
>>>before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be
>>>90MP of noise.
>>
>>
>> <sigh> Noise is primarily an artifact of our detectors.
>>
>> See my previous comment.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:30:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MP-dneQ0ZcWVgELcRVn-1w@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>24"x36" prints at 300 dpi would need 10,800x7,200 pixel images (77.8MP).
>That's probably a little better than 4x5 large format film <g>.

Hardly. 6*9 medium format with slide film is in that kind of ballpark,
quality wise. 5*4 should bury it.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:53:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Not with current lens technology.
Even Nikon chief engineer claims DX lens can only have sustainable
resolution of 16mpx.

But imagine one day .. when you can basically crop a part of an image and
zoom it til 10000% ? :) 

PS : 10 Mpx on Consumer or DSLR ?

=bob=


"Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20050107094418.08186.00002749@mb-m05.aol.com...
> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
> Would there be a need for one? The file size would be too big
> to even store on a hdd.
>
> At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:13:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
> > Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Betting against the laws of nature advancing is a safe bet. There are
> > only so many photons of potential information that can enter a lens
> > before something moves. If there ever is a 100MP camera it will be 90MP
> > of noise.
>
> Hardly.

If it's a 24x36mm sensor, then the noise will be 100/16.7 times worse than
the 10D/300D/1Dsmk2, or 6 times worse. Since not everything scales, it would
probably be 8 times worse. So you get 10D's ISO 800 noise in your ISO 100
shots. Yuck. (And since you claim that these cameras are (or are close to
being) essentially quantum limited, there really isn't much hope for
anything better than 8 times worse noise at 100MP relative to 16.7MP.)

Also, you need lenses that have sqrt(6) (= 2.45) times better resolution,
and there are people who use Zeiss wide angle primes on the 1Dsmk2 claiming
that they're noticeably better than Canon's. So lenses can't keep up. (Some
of the Canon telephotos might be able to, though.)

IMHO, 16.7 MP is just about a perfect compromise between resolution and
noise for a 24x36mm sensor. And it gives you _nice_ prints: 11x14 at 300
dpi, 13x19 at 250 dpi, and 16x24 at 200 dpi. The only one of those that's
questionable would be the 16x24, but 200 dpi from dSLRs looks quite decent
if you keep 12" away from it, and only the most perverse grain sniffer gets
closer than 12" to a 16x24. (I haven't done a scientific study, but I'd
think that on a gallery wall, people would walk up to and inspect larger
prints at about 12" though, so for 16x24 and larger, LF would be noticeably
better.)

> I do 200+ megapixels right now.
> Fujichrome Velvia in 4x5 format scanned at ~3000 ppi

That's cheating<g>.

> gives
> about a 650 megabyte file in 8-bits/channel, 1.2 GByte files
> in 16-bit/channel files. I make 30x40 inch prints that have incredible
> fine detail, and even 4x5 FOOT prints with still
> impressive detail. There has always been a market/need
> for large format images. The detail is the closest thing
> to being there. My tests show 4x5 film with Fuji Velvia
> is equivalent to about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.

Hmm. I used to think that you overestimated Velvia (it's MTF50 is a mere 45
lp/mm), but I just did the following calculation. If you assume 3 pixels are
required to render a 50% MTF level in a digital file, then from the MTF50,
Velvia should be "worth" (45 x 3 * 25.4) = 3300 dpi.

So scanning at 3000 dpi is a bit on the conservative side, and 4x5 from
Velvia is easily 180MP of quality pixels.

The only odd thing here is that people who do darkroom work normally
consider somewhere between 4x (real hard-core LF types) and 8x (unfussy MF
types such as myself) as about the enlargement limit for grain-sniffable
quality prints, and my calculated 3300 dpi implies an 11x enlargement. I'd
guess that the problem is that the 45 lp/mm MTF50 doesn't include the lens
MTF, and there aren't a lot of lenses with decent MTFs at 45 lp/mm. So the
actual MTF50 on the film in a real photograph is problably more like 30 or
35 lp/mm, which is more in line with the 4x to 8x limits that we see in real
life.

But you are right about the detail bit. Walking up to a 30x40 quality print
from 4x5 is a real pleasure.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:17:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:22:12 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>My tests show 4x5 film with Fuji Velvia
>is equivalent to about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.

Even not knowing how you judged this, to me it seems intuitively
reasonable. That's about 10MP per square inch of film, or 15MP for a 35mm
equivalent. This seems to accord with what everyone else is saying - that
somewhere between 8 and 16MP on a DSLR you meet or exceed film quality
(considered as a gestalt of all attributes).

It's hard to compare camera MP to scanned file sizes, but I always felt the
potential results from my Nikon Coolscan 4000 exceeded the quality of the
film I was feeding it, and this would be the approximate equivalent of a
24MP camera sensor.

Paul
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 4:17:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Chefurka wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:22:12 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My tests show 4x5 film with Fuji Velvia
>>is equivalent to about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.
>
>
> Even not knowing how you judged this, to me it seems intuitively
> reasonable. That's about 10MP per square inch of film, or 15MP for a 35mm
> equivalent. This seems to accord with what everyone else is saying - that
> somewhere between 8 and 16MP on a DSLR you meet or exceed film quality
> (considered as a gestalt of all attributes).
>
> It's hard to compare camera MP to scanned file sizes, but I always felt the
> potential results from my Nikon Coolscan 4000 exceeded the quality of the
> film I was feeding it, and this would be the approximate equivalent of a
> 24MP camera sensor.
>
> Paul
>
See:

executive summary:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....

different film formats:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....

Many other articles on this page, includes film scans from drum
scans to consumer scanners, various film formats, various tests:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail

Roger
Photo Galleries: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:06:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
> Eric Gill wrote:
>
> > My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>
> OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>
> I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
> $14,000 each!

My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte cost a
megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:06:21 +0900, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>> Eric Gill wrote:
>>
>> > My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>>
>> OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>>
>> I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>> $14,000 each!

>My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte cost a
>megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.


That doesn't sound right. IIRC, in '78, 64K was over $1000. I was happy in
'79 to buy a 16K S-100 memory board for $325. Consumed 3 amps at 8V.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Eric Gill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>>
>>OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>>
>>I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>>$14,000 each!
>
>
> My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte cost a
> megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
First RAM I bought, cost $299 for 8K. Yes, KILOBYTES! Sigh.
And that was in 1981 dollars....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Eric Gill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>>
>>OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>>
>>I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>>$14,000 each!
>
>
> My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte cost a
> megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
David,
In 1972 I don't think you could have bought a megabyte of ram for the
computer AT your college!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Littleboy responds:

>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>> Eric Gill wrote:
>>
>> > My first hard drive was 20 *megabytes* and cost $500.
>>
>> OK, so its going to be one of those threads!
>>
>> I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>> $14,000 each!
>
>My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte cost a
>megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.

Ah, the tales. I wanted to fill my PC out to 1 meg back around '88 or so. From
640K to 1 meg cost was $1100. Needless to say, it stayed at 640. My SIL's
company sprang for a 1 gig drive about a decade ago--give or take a year or
so--for 10 grand and felt they'd gotten a bargain. I paid $315 to boost a blown
20 meg hard drive to 32 megs around '89. The first half of the price was
covered under warranty.

Now, I sit here with a nearly two year old 3 gig Pentium with a gig of memory,
a 120 gig internal drive and a 120 gig external, with a 19" flat screen CRT
monitor, bought for less than I paid for a single floppy 64K KayPro cp/m
"portable" machine back in '82 or '81.

I've got a laser printer that puts my original Okidata Laserline 6 to shame:
cost was about $350 (with fax, copier, scanner included) versus the Laserline's
$2000.

Things have changed for the better.

Charlie Self
"A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to
the ground." H. L. Mencken
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:30:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <aFFDd.3479$E45.1600@fe07.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Only a couple of years ago 1GB drives were selling for $2200. Now you
>can find sales where the price is $.50 a gigabyte. Amazing!

It seems just yesterday we were celebrating $1/MB. Then again, we
didn't have hires movies, entire CDs, and RAW image files on our hard
disks back then.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:04:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"TCS" <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >"Roger N. Clark )" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
> >> $14,000 each!
>
> >My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte cost a
> >megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.
>
> That doesn't sound right. IIRC, in '78, 64K was over $1000. I was happy
in
> '79 to buy a 16K S-100 memory board for $325. Consumed 3 amps at 8V.

I'm pretty sure it's right: 1972 was before semiconductor memory, and that
was a refrigerator sized box of magnetic core memory to use with a DEC
PDP-10.

PUSHJ,
PUSHJ,
POPJ P.
JRST . + 1203 (jerst to point plus twelve-oh-three)

PUSHJ,
PUSHJ,
POPJ P.
Losers all, DMCG.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:04:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:04:28 +0900, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>"TCS" <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> >"Roger N. Clark )" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>> >> $14,000 each!
>>
>> >My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte cost a
>> >megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.
>>
>> That doesn't sound right. IIRC, in '78, 64K was over $1000. I was happy
>in
>> '79 to buy a 16K S-100 memory board for $325. Consumed 3 amps at 8V.

>I'm pretty sure it's right: 1972 was before semiconductor memory, and that
>was a refrigerator sized box of magnetic core memory to use with a DEC
>PDP-10.

That I was aware of that, but a MB for $1000 sounds low. Was core that much
cheaper than semiconductor memory? I guess so.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:26:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"TCS" <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
news:slrnctuurv.ri8.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net...
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:04:28 +0900, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com>
wrote:
>
> >"TCS" <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> >> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >> >"Roger N. Clark )" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
> >> >> $14,000 each!
> >>
> >> >My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte
cost a
> >> >megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.
> >>
> >> That doesn't sound right. IIRC, in '78, 64K was over $1000. I was
happy
> >in
> >> '79 to buy a 16K S-100 memory board for $325. Consumed 3 amps at 8V.
>
> >I'm pretty sure it's right: 1972 was before semiconductor memory, and
that
> >was a refrigerator sized box of magnetic core memory to use with a DEC
> >PDP-10.
>
> That I was aware of that, but a MB for $1000 sounds low. Was core that
much
> cheaper than semiconductor memory? I guess so.

Read more closely: I wrote "megabuck" not "kilobuck"<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:26:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "TCS" <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnctuurv.ri8.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net...
>
>>On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 15:04:28 +0900, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>"TCS" <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Roger N. Clark )" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I bought at work two 571 megabyte disk drives in 1984 for
>>>>>>$14,000 each!
>>>>
>>>>>My favorite is memory: in 1972 (when I started college) a megabyte
>
> cost a
>
>>>>>megabuck. My current PC has 2 GB.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't sound right. IIRC, in '78, 64K was over $1000. I was
>
> happy
>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>'79 to buy a 16K S-100 memory board for $325. Consumed 3 amps at 8V.
>>
>>>I'm pretty sure it's right: 1972 was before semiconductor memory, and
>
> that
>
>>>was a refrigerator sized box of magnetic core memory to use with a DEC
>>>PDP-10.
>>
>>That I was aware of that, but a MB for $1000 sounds low. Was core that
>
> much
>
>>cheaper than semiconductor memory? I guess so.
>
>
> Read more closely: I wrote "megabuck" not "kilobuck"<g>.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
Did any computer of 1972 vintage even have megabyte addressing range?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:26:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> Did any computer of 1972 vintage even have megabyte addressing range?

Yes, but via various paging or windowing mechanisms! As I recall, we used
an IBM 370/165, the model just before virtual memory came in. For
addressing, that seems to have had 16 base registers with a 12-bit offset.
I can't remember what the 16 base registers were, though, perhaps 32 bits?

David
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:27:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>> Did any computer of 1972 vintage even have megabyte addressing range?
>
> Yes, but via various paging or windowing mechanisms! As I recall, we
> used an IBM 370/165, the model just before virtual memory came in. For
> addressing, that seems to have had 16 base registers with a
> 12-bit offset. I can't remember what the 16 base registers were,
> though, perhaps 32 bits?
> David

See:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/UoCCL/misc/EDSAC99/history.html

The 1973 entry quotes: IBM memory doubled from 1Mbytes to 2, file store
1000Mbytes

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:27:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>
>>Did any computer of 1972 vintage even have megabyte addressing range?
>
>
> Yes, but via various paging or windowing mechanisms! As I recall, we used
> an IBM 370/165, the model just before virtual memory came in. For
> addressing, that seems to have had 16 base registers with a 12-bit offset.
> I can't remember what the 16 base registers were, though, perhaps 32 bits?
>
> David
>
>
The ibm 360 series had 16 32bit registers, usable as 8 64 bit pairs, as
best I can recall. I believe I last operated a 370 model 155 that had
512k of ram. Consider a big machine at the time.

Last IMB equipment I used before retirement was an ES9000 with something
like 32 megabytes of ram in a sysplex with three processors all working
together. A few terabytes of online disk space.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote in news:o crvt094qkp1ot1mfm910f88h7r67orli5@4ax.com:

> In message <aFFDd.3479$E45.1600@fe07.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Only a couple of years ago 1GB drives were selling for $2200. Now you
>>can find sales where the price is $.50 a gigabyte. Amazing!
>
> It seems just yesterday we were celebrating $1/MB. Then again, we
> didn't have hires movies, entire CDs, and RAW image files on our hard
> disks back then.

No kidding.

I got into publishing at basically the basement level for computers - set
type in strips and pasteup everything (at least we could use a laser
printer). The first graphics we could scan and use were line art - a dozen
or so graphics would fit on a floppy.

That 20MB drive was quite adequate for a while.

By '92 I was doing full color magazines in the 32-64 page range, and the
files had ballooned up to a bit over a gig for each. The machines were
bloody *expensive*, and we were still always desperately short of fixed
disk space.

And, Jesus - those damned SyQuest units!
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:29:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Xns95D870B12DA11ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246>,
Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And, Jesus - those damned SyQuest units!

Knock, Knock

Who's there?

Syquest!

Syquest who?

Syquest, seeking track 22!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:45:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 09:41:48 -0000, David J Taylor <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>Ron Hunter wrote:
>[]
>> Did any computer of 1972 vintage even have megabyte addressing range?

>Yes, but via various paging or windowing mechanisms! As I recall, we used
>an IBM 370/165, the model just before virtual memory came in. For
>addressing, that seems to have had 16 base registers with a 12-bit offset.
>I can't remember what the 16 base registers were, though, perhaps 32 bits?

In the late 70's, there were some microcomputers that had bank switching to get
larger address space. I recall an ad for "The Megabte Micro" around '1977. Of
course, the cabinet could only hold about 256K (8 32K boards) tops due to the
size of static ram chips them. Each of those 32K boards needed 64 chips. I
doubt the power supply could even handle that.

8086 PCs would use bank switching to get around the 640K DOS memory limit.
Expanded memory, extended memory, etc.
Of course, microsoft would be using that even on 80386's which could address
2GB IIRC.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 3:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote:

> will there come a day when there will be a 100MP camera?
> Would there be a need for one? The file size would be too big
> to even store on a hdd.
>
> At the present time, I dont see a need for above 10MP.
>
Years back when I told a computer salesman I wanted a 56k modem, he looked
at me as if I as crazy. 'Listen' he said 'a 28k modem is all you're ever
going to need - this is the Rolls-Royce of modems, but if you want to waste
money on a useless toy, I'll sell you one'

Take a look at the Apple site for their hugely expensive G5 Macs with 1
petabyte hard-drives.

Pretty soon we'll all be thinking how quaint those cameras were that
actually took roll film, just as we look back at those huge glass plate
negatives.

I'm sure there were people 5 years ago who said the same thing about 1mpxl
cameras. (far too big to store on floppy discs)
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 3:47:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:47:56 +0900, stewy <stewy@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Pretty soon we'll all be thinking how quaint those cameras were that
>actually took roll film, just as we look back at those huge glass plate
>negatives.


Nah. I shoot 4x5 and scan it at 2500 dpi...
that gives me a bit over 110 million pixels
per frame. Print that image at 24" x 36"
and you can see individual pine needles
twenty feet away with a wide angle lens
(that's a 90mm, on 4x5.)

Here's an example, and a detail view...

www.terrapinphoto.com/kitchen2.jpg
www.terrapinphoto.com/kitchendetail.jpg

You can clearly see the mesh in the window
screen, about twelve feet from the camera.

I love my 10D and G2 but film is scalable
in a way that digital capture is not. If
I could scan my 4x5 at 4000 dpi, I'd have
nearly 300 million pixels to work with.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
!