Will peak photographic perfection be achieved in the next 20yrs?

[Sean]

It seems to me at the current rate a perfect 1 to 1 image capture of reality is near. At its peak, this would mean there is a perfection of scene capture to a level beyond the human eye and mind to find fault. Any further improvements in image quality from then on are pointless. I see this mainly happening in a convergence of 3 things: Sensors, Optics, Software(AI). On the sensor side, we will hit a sensor size/performance level that makes it pointless to 'upgrade'. At some point, you can not obtain any additional information from upgrading the sensor. On the optics side, we will see metalenses take over from traditional glass lenses (metalenses are flat surfaces that use nanostructures to focus light) that could provide a perfect capture. And the Software/AI side will be able to, through machine learning, etc, make any further corrections for a 100% perfect reproduction of reality or it can apply your style preferences (full analog look as well). Some will say, "I am not after a pure reproduction of reality, I am after an artistic abstract interpretation of my reality". However, the baseline of pure capture will be available to all, then you can do what you like in post-processing. I suppose at this point the only thing remaining in the camera manufacturing industry will come down to price, camera design and brand -if they can even survive? How would review sites and gear communities have anything to discuss if a $25 digital super camera makes perfect images and fits in the palm of your hand or in your cellphone? Imagine the $25 super camera producing images that would surpass a theoretical 100 inch Kodachrome slide.

Just pondering the not too distant future of imaging...

 

[David Brown]

May I still be around. And may it actually be $25!

However, I fear the camera would be part of a $3000 phone ...

 

[jtk]

Cameras are just tools. like hammers or phones.

 

[guangong]

Cameras are just tools. like hammers.

Ditto! And just like hammers they come in all kinds of shapes, sizes and materials. No universal hammer; no universal camera.

 

[Jim Jones]

Even if we can record something perfectly, someone will see an opportunity for improvement and improve upon that perfection. It's human nature. The painter Paul Delaoche exclaimed, 'From today, painting is dead', when he saw early Daguerreotypes. However, such improvements such as stereo viewers, color photography, cinema, and digital photography were still ahead.

 

[Sean]

Even if we can record something perfectly, someone will see an opportunity for improvement and improve upon that perfection. It's human nature. The painter Paul Delaoche exclaimed, 'From today, painting is dead', when he saw early Daguerreotypes. However, such improvements such as stereo viewers, color photography, cinema, and digital photography were still ahead.

I guess that's when we get into virtual reality and such and eventually plug into 'The Matrix'

 

[removed account4]

i can't wait, because as "syndrome" said, "when everyone is super, no one will be "

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...a level beyond the human eye and mind to find fault...

You're an optimist, Sean. The human eye might not be physically capable of finding fault, but the human mind will not respect any limitation like "perfect" reality capture. You need only read what's posted here on PHOTRIO to understand that there will always be members who complain about perfection lacking that certain je ne sais quoi available only via gelatin silver film and paper via a darkroom.

 

[MattKing]

I think I would be careful about describing anything as "perfect" right now - it is just a bit controversial at the moment.
And to be "perfect", a visual representation would really need to be four dimensional.

 

[Cholentpot]

Rumors of a Canon 24-100 2.8 are abound. To me that's almost lens perfection. Too bad it's for a mirrorless.

 

[mshchem]

I just dropped a chunk of money on a Fuji X Pro 3 and 4 little primes (lenses are all used). It's, it's, absolute imperfections(quirkyness?) that make me love it. I still have the D5 to capture my cats at 12 fps.

I love film more than digital.
It makes no sense at all.
Passion is what the Uber cell phone cameras lack. I'm not sure if I am expressing myself clearly. But it's the imperfect that makes the world have "flavor"

 

[iandvaag]

Sean, I'm not following what you mean by perfection. Arguably, by your definition (capturing a scene beyond the level of the human eye), perfection has already been achieved, no? At least in terms of resolution. If I stand far enough away from a resolution test chart such that I can no longer discern separate line pairs, and then I take a photo with a "normal" focal length lens, it is easy to make out the individual line pairs in the enlarged captured photo (whether digital or film), even though they were impossible to see when looking at the actual scene from the distance of the camera.

It's really hard to do an "apples to apples" comparison between imaging and eyesight.

I think the major technical limitation of digital is the presentation medium. What is the point in a gigapixel camera, when a 4k monitor only displays 8.3 megapixels? And I would argue that we've pretty much reached the limit of consumer desire for display quality -- most people would say that anything beyond 4k is pointless.

And to be "perfect", a visual representation would really need to be four dimensional.

I'm really curious what you mean by this.

 

[Sean]

Sean, I'm not following what you mean by perfection. Arguably, by your definition (capturing a scene beyond the level of the human eye), perfection has already been achieved, no? At least in terms of resolution. If I stand far enough away from a resolution test chart such that I can no longer discern separate line pairs, and then I take a photo with a "normal" focal length lens, it is easy to make out the individual line pairs in the enlarged captured photo (whether digital or film), even though they were impossible to see when looking at the actual scene from the distance of the camera.

It's really hard to do an "apples to apples" comparison between imaging and eyesight.

I think the major technical limitation of digital is the presentation medium. What is the point in a gigapixel camera, when a 4k monitor only displays 8.3 megapixels? And I would argue that we've pretty much reached the limit of consumer desire for display quality -- most people would say that anything beyond 4k is pointless.


I'm really curious what you mean by this.

I guess it's more of a thought experiment on where things can go. When I say "perfect" I mean as close to a 1 to 1 reflective capture of reality that surpasses our biology to discern any difference. I suppose this might require 1 image per eye, and when viewing these images you can't tell what is reality and what is not. So maybe when I look at a large scene in real life, I have heard that level of spatial resolution in humans is around 600 megapixels. Lenses no matter how good can often give away flaws, but metalenses are flat and will be mated directly to sensors, this could make optics nearly perfect if not perfect. So then, you have this means, then there is no point going further and price drops until it's basically free.

 

[Sean]

Also, I would imagine e-ink papers in the future will be as cheap as inkjet papers are now, and digitally display gigapixels of information per sheet.

 

[Sean]

Maybe some early signs of what I mentioned:

iPhone 11 pro vs. a $20,000 digital Leica kit. Surprisingly the iPhone does not have a problem hanging with the Leica (in some circumstances), but I can see this going in two directions in the future 1) quality of the cellphone snaps getting much better and cheaper year on year. 2) quality of the high end pro kits becoming more and more irrelevant year on year. I'm not saying it will apply to everyone in all situations, but the dedicated camera makers should be concerned that in a few years, the masses will have 3-5x the current quality of the iphone 11 pro in their pocket, and at that point, who needs more than that?

 

[138S]

When I say "perfect" I mean as close to a 1 to 1 reflective capture of reality that surpasses our biology to discern any difference.

My view is that limitation comes from presentation, and not much from capture. Perhaps limiltation is in the monitors, and not in the cameras.

In fact 135 years ago captured images were largely surpassing resolving power of human eye yet: A 1885 wet plate of 11x13cm size is beyond 100MPix effective ( http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2016/03/resolution-of-historical-photographs-in.html)

Human eye can see around 8Mpix if not moving eyes or head, mostly it's concentrated in the fovea, but as we explore our field of view with saccades (not moving head) then we perceive around 60MPix.

Still we don't need 60MPix in the monitor for a flawless presentation, as the monitor does not usually cover all our possible field of vision, so current generation of 8k TVs deliver a flawless 32MB image.


Regarding DR, a today's good TV offers 4000 cd/m2 in OLED, meaning that static contrast is crazy good. (SAMSUNG QE55Q950RBTXXC 55" and 65" throw 3000 cd/m2, 75" y 82" throw 4000). Wich is a quite nice...

There is a problem with standards, as available content is designed to be displayed in lower DR/brightness devices, so an HDR TV has it's own AI to modify the image enhancing on the fly, buy anyway generally available content is not rich enough to shine, both in resolving power and in DR.


The flame of a candle throws around 10,000 to 20,000 cd/m2, so today's top notch TVs is still 1 or 2 stops far to depict a flame with its natural brightness...

 

[eddie]

If our tools attain perfection, we'll have only ourselves to blame for our failures. That could be traumatic for a lot of people.

 

[blockend]

You could argue such perfection has been available for years with ultra-large format chromes.

Most technical innovation is based on size, ergonomics, convenience, focus speed, exposure latitude and sensor definition. For most people this means a smart phone, which is a pocket computer that takes really sharp pictures as one of its many useful features. Photographers have more than enough capability for anything they might require, as long as the output remains screen based. Photobooks have made serial printing more convenient and less expensive. Large, high quality prints that do justice to modern camera output remain prohibitively expensive, relative to the cost of the technology.

A large, mounted gallery print by a professional lab can easily cost the price of the camera that took the shot.

 

[mark]

Sounds like a flea circus. At the point you are talking about the consumer will have to just believe it is true. Manufacturers will always come up with "bigger, faster, stronger, better" merchandise, and someone will buy it. I am happy with what I have. At this point buying something different would mean something broke.

 

[138S]

You could argue such perfection has been available for years with ultra-large format chromes.

Or MF chromes... a 6x7cm provia has around 150 MPix efective, we may view two provia slides in a stereo scope, with a 5000:1 static contrast and "unlimited" brightness. Once we scan we are limited by the monitor, beyond what the scanner does.

A 4x5" Provia was rated at 387Mp under microscope (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/), wich is a total overkill.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Even given perfect technology, there will always be people who do not know how to take a good photograph/image.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The limitation would be in the presentation as the human eye can perceive about 20 stops of dynamic range when it moves over a scene slowly enough.
Even if 20 stop presentation of a photograph might become possible , people would not want to look at it because of glare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

 

[Wallendo]

The human eye is actually much inferior to modern cameras in many ways. If the human eye and retina were evaluated by camera standards, reviewers would point out the absolutely horrible drop-off in sharpness on the periphery, inability to adjust depth of field, and complete loss of color at low light levels.

I personally feel that modern photographic technology is well up the diminishing return curve and that future improvements will be minimal. In many ways, we are more limited by the display technology (monitors, inkjets, lasers, and photographic papers than by the capture devices.

 

[Paul Howell]

I can see the benefit for scientific work but not for art, perception and interpretation are in the mind of the beholder.

 

[jim10219]

Dit que le mieux est l'enemi du bien.
-Voltaire

Or as we English speakers know it, "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (not an exact translation, btw). Basically, perfection is beyond the goal. Look at what's going on with photography right now, for an example. Digital photography is waning. Film photography is booming. The reason? Because it's not perfect. It's being celebrated for it's flaws. More and more people are eschewing lenses with extreme sharpness and contrast in favor of lenses with more personality. Aberrations (such as spherical) that were once abhorrent are now pleasant or even desirable. You see people looking for ways to induce light leaks and promote grain these days. Creative photography was never about capturing reality as we know it. If that were the case, then 3D video would be the only medium in use. Instead of fidelity, we seek the meaning in imagery. We expect good photography to transport us, not to another place or time in our world, but to another perspective or feeling. We don't want to experience another's life, we want to experience our own lives more fully.

No doubt these advancements in technology will have their place in certain kinds of photography, especially in the scientific communities. But for those of us in the creative pursuits, it's a slick distraction from Truth.