Megapickles bragging rights

[bernard_L]

https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news...ra-snap-first-3200-megapixel-images-slac.aspx

https://lsst.slac.stanford.edu/#camera-design

This should put to rest certain frivolous discussions. Not only the sensor, but the whole camera is something to admire (IMO).

 

[George Mann]

It doesn't matter how many sensor sights an optical antenna has as long as the end result remains an artificial facsimile!

I use slide film because it is a direct, real-time rendering that gives me an exact and realistically rendered duplicate of what I photographed.

 

[Jim Jones]

 

[Jim Jones]

Bragging rights are nothing new.

 

[grat]

It doesn't matter how many sensor sights an optical antenna has as long as the end result remains an artificial facsimile!

I use slide film because it is a direct, real-time rendering that gives me an exact and realistically rendered duplicate of what I photographed.

No, it gives you a reasonably accurate approximation. The resulting image is still at the mercy of the lens, the silver and dyes used in the emulsion, the substrate, and the developing process. In that sense, it is also an artificial facsimile.

Digital uses a different method of approximating the same scene, but both analog and digital capture are approximations based on directing light towards a light-sensitive medium, and translating that medium into something that the optic nerve will perceive as being very similar to the original scene.

 

[George Mann]

No, it gives you a reasonably accurate approximation. The resulting image is still at the mercy of the lens, the silver and dyes used in the emulsion, the substrate, and the developing process. In that sense, it is also an artificial facsimile.

Yes and no. Yes, the resulting accuracy of the image is at least somewhat dependent on the factors you listed above.

However, a direct analog capture can never be an artificial facsimile because it being a direct one, instead of being a product of a sophisticated software algorithm such as digital.

Furthermore, I always strive to capture the most accurate and realistic image that I can, using what I have found to be the best lens, film and processing available at the time.

I have captured the most accurate images on the current stock of Ektachrome, using my ever faithful Nikkor 50mm F2 (Japanese Summicron).

The results I achieve are clearly more accurate and realistic than any digital camera to date!

 

[bernard_L]

Too bad this has turned into yet another analog-versus-digital discussion. It was just meant as a heads-up about a (IMO) remarkable instrument and a sarcastic reference to the megapickles race (heard of a smartphone that takes 100+Mpx pictures; no wonder we need 5G).
The example pictures given on the site of the LSST (Vera Rubin Telescope) are, unfortunately, ridiculous: when zooming in the image quickly becomes unsharp. The actual (future) sky pictures, and the experience of zooming from several square degrees down to arc-second scale will be something else.

 

[_T_]

I'm actually very impressed by this and in no way seek to diminish the accomplishment. I've been on a quest for higher resolution lately, moving up from a 24MP digital camera to 35mm film then on to 6x4.5 film and now I'm looking at large format.

The trouble I find is that when making large high resolution prints even the highest resolution DSLR or mirrorless doesn't go very far. I need to completely cover large walls so something like 1.5x1m at 300dpi isn't going to cut it.

Anyway that's why I've been using the specification sheets for various 4x5 film to calculate their practical resolution and god it's staggering what that stuff is capable of. Something like 740 MP. I don't know why anyone would ever need to shoot 8x10 that's just insane to me. That stuff is like 3,000 MP. Just no idea why you would need that much resolution in a regular degular camera.

But still this is the first I've ever heard of a digitally captured image being able to truly rival or even surpass the resolution of the furthest limits of film photography. It's truly a major accomplishment. A wonder of the times.

 

[George Mann]

But still this is the first I've ever heard of a digitally captured image being able to truly rival or even surpass the resolution of the furthest limits of film photography. It's truly a major accomplishment. A wonder of the times.

It's much easier to provide claims than it is to provide proof. The digital crowd will pitch numbers and hype all day long as if it proves everything.

Never believe anything until it has been proven first hand!

 

[reddesert]

Read the article. This isn't about a camera designed for terrestrial photography or something you can carry around. There is no need to feel challenged by it, it has nothing to do with digital vs analog forum arguments. It is about the imaging detector for the next generation large astronomical survey telescope.

There is a bit of a vocabulary issue: astronomers and optical designers often use "camera" to refer to either the focal plane assembly with the detectors, the optical assembly that forms the image, or the combination of the two. In this case, the focal plane has been assembled and integrated, but the optics aren't ready yet (neither the lenses nor the telescope). To make the sample images in the lab, they had to use a pinhole mask. That is one reason the sample images don't look sharp if you zoom in far enough. They are for testing the detectors, the optics will come later.

 

[_T_]

A mechanism which measures and records light in the form of an image is a camera full stop. That's why they refer to it as a camera. Just the definition of the word camera.

This is the highest resolution digitally produced image I'm aware of. It just happens to be from a telescope. First time any digital camera has surpassed the resolution possible with commercially available film. It's a big step. We're beginning to move into a world where film is no longer the top banana.

 

[George Mann]

We're beginning to move into a world where film is no longer the top banana.

Film and digital currently differs too much for there to be only one qualifier in determining which is best.

 

[_T_]

My bad. I thought it was clear that I was speaking only in terms of resolution.

 

[George Mann]

My bad. I thought it was clear that I was speaking only in terms of resolution.

Have you ever viewed an 8×10 transparency?

 

[_T_]

I never have. I'm only now getting ready to start investing in 4x5. I don't really want to shoot large format but I need higher resolutions. I prefer to shoot digital for everything but the projects that require film. I don't think I need the resolution of 8x10 and I always try to use the smallest easiest camera I can get away with.

All of the information I have about large format film resolution is coming from basic calculations made from the MTF curves on the manufacturer spec sheets of various types of film. Which is only corroborated by extrapolation from my experience shooting 35mm and 6x4.5 which I scan in a negative scanner which isn't quite capable of resolving the finest grain I can get out of Velvia 100 at it's highest useful nominal setting of 5000dpi when and where the film is in perfect focus. Negative film grain on the other hand has always been resolved nicely by my scanner.

I feel like my files are a pretty good barometer for the resolution that the types of film I use are actually practically capable of in the real world, and in good conditions it seems that they're generally not too different from what the manufacturers claim in their spec sheets. I haven't done statistical analysis or anything though. I just shoot, process and digitize.

 

[rick shaw]

Megapickles bragging rights...

Well, I hate to brag but when it comes to megapickles, my sweet baby gherkins are definitely in the running.

Relish the dill. Savor the sweet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That is good for remote sensing from space, but it is of very little use since I cannot carry it around.

 

[jvo]

That is good for remote sensing from space, but it is of very little use since I cannot carry it around.

i was jus' gonna note - there ain't no strap - what use is it!