Comments on: Don’t Waste Your Money http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166 Physics, tech and humor. Because science and learning are cool, and life's too short not to laugh. Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:36:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: swansont http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166/comment-page-1#comment-840 swansont Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:16:03 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166#comment-840 You have to improve all of the limiting factors to get a better picture, but the pixel count isn't currently the limiting factor. And I don't think the comparison to sharp pictures from noisy footage is apt if you are referring to analog images, especially in film. If you have more than one image, you have more information from which to draw to improve the noise. But a single digital photo does not represent the same situation — AFAIK the current methods rely on interpolation, but this relies on good data in adjacent pixels, and you start losing information when you add more noise. And if the information isn't there, it isn't there. And no, I don't think that will change in ten years. Having said that, you do have the option of taking multiple images, and have more information (similar to that used by some astronomers , the so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging" rel="nofollow">lucky imaging</a> method) You have to improve all of the limiting factors to get a better picture, but the pixel count isn’t currently the limiting factor. And I don’t think the comparison to sharp pictures from noisy footage is apt if you are referring to analog images, especially in film. If you have more than one image, you have more information from which to draw to improve the noise. But a single digital photo does not represent the same situation — AFAIK the current methods rely on interpolation, but this relies on good data in adjacent pixels, and you start losing information when you add more noise. And if the information isn’t there, it isn’t there. And no, I don’t think that will change in ten years.

Having said that, you do have the option of taking multiple images, and have more information (similar to that used by some astronomers , the so-called lucky imaging method)

]]> By: Jordin Kare http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166/comment-page-1#comment-833 Jordin Kare Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:53:51 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166#comment-833 Claiming 576 Mpixels for the eye is ridiculous. The eye achieves high resolution in a very limited field (center of the foeva), and does not efficiently form a panoramic image due to eye motion. You can argue that if you want to replace, say, the entire scene visible thru a picture window with a photograph, and ensure that someone can focus on any part of the image with no discernable loss of resolution due to pixelation, you need that many pixels -- but the way you do that photographically is with a panoramic camera or scanner taking multiple frames. There are a few applications (like astronomical sky surveys and aereal photogrammetry) where >100 Mpixel focal planes are useful; otherwise even the highest performance imaging systems make do with a few tens of Mpixels. Claiming 576 Mpixels for the eye is ridiculous. The eye achieves high resolution in a very limited field (center of the foeva), and does not efficiently form a panoramic image due to eye motion. You can argue that if you want to replace, say, the entire scene visible thru a picture window with a photograph, and ensure that someone can focus on any part of the image with no discernable loss of resolution due to pixelation, you need that many pixels — but the way you do that photographically is with a panoramic camera or scanner taking multiple frames. There are a few applications (like astronomical sky surveys and aereal photogrammetry) where >100 Mpixel focal planes are useful; otherwise even the highest performance imaging systems make do with a few tens of Mpixels.

]]> By: Sunny Kalara http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166/comment-page-1#comment-831 Sunny Kalara Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:56:02 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166#comment-831 Let's not confuse what is available now with what one wants to see! Also the argument about the sensor size needs a little caveat too; you either need a large sensor or you need a fast bus; you can have a one pixel camera and a fast bus and make in to an effective giga pixel camera. And I don't like having a narrow field of vision for my camera either; why should I be forced to choose the part of the scene I want to capture because of the limitation of the technology? Casio just came out with 500fps camera last week and a point and shoot camera with 60fps has been available for a while. Multi lenses cameras have been around for a long time and of course higher resolution camera with better light couplers and sharp optics are plentiful. There is no physics to be worked out here; its all engineering. Not the next Christmas but in a couple of years from now, I fully expect to see my wish fulfilled. These arguments about more pixel means more noise are spurious; all they are saying is that CURRENTLY they do not know how to remove the noise. Do you think it will stay that way in 10 years? I have seen sharp pictures coming out of really noisy old footage. As I said, I don't take pictures for current offerings; I want to take pictures for future technology. Every 6MP advocate talks about compromises between pixel size, lens size and the potential use. I want them to overcome technological hurdles so we don't have to compromise. My requirements are modest; I want my camera to capture as much as my eyes do. Don't waster your money if you are happy with your JPG image, 2D world and with the field of vision of 40 degrees, but if you want FULL view with the potential to convert your image data in to a JPG-HD and 3D scenes, push the Sonys and Canons of the world to give you a better engineered image capture devices. Let’s not confuse what is available now with what one wants to see! Also the argument about the sensor size needs a little caveat too; you either need a large sensor or you need a fast bus; you can have a one pixel camera and a fast bus and make in to an effective giga pixel camera. And I don’t like having a narrow field of vision for my camera either; why should I be forced to choose the part of the scene I want to capture because of the limitation of the technology? Casio just came out with 500fps camera last week and a point and shoot camera with 60fps has been available for a while. Multi lenses cameras have been around for a long time and of course higher resolution camera with better light couplers and sharp optics are plentiful. There is no physics to be worked out here; its all engineering. Not the next Christmas but in a couple of years from now, I fully expect to see my wish fulfilled.
These arguments about more pixel means more noise are spurious; all they are saying is that CURRENTLY they do not know how to remove the noise. Do you think it will stay that way in 10 years? I have seen sharp pictures coming out of really noisy old footage. As I said, I don’t take pictures for current offerings; I want to take pictures for future technology. Every 6MP advocate talks about compromises between pixel size, lens size and the potential use. I want them to overcome technological hurdles so we don’t have to compromise. My requirements are modest; I want my camera to capture as much as my eyes do.
Don’t waster your money if you are happy with your JPG image, 2D world and with the field of vision of 40 degrees, but if you want FULL view with the potential to convert your image data in to a JPG-HD and 3D scenes, push the Sonys and Canons of the world to give you a better engineered image capture devices.

]]> By: IRA and 401k » Don’t Waste Your Money http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166/comment-page-1#comment-825 IRA and 401k » Don’t Waste Your Money Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:31:26 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166#comment-825 [...] Roger wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSunny Kalara at “Talk Like a Physicist” wants a 576 MegaPixel camera, and while the post talks the physicist talk, it doesn’t walk the physicist walk (if there is such a thing). And the gauntlet has been thrown down — … [...] [...] Roger wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSunny Kalara at “Talk Like a Physicist” wants a 576 MegaPixel camera, and while the post talks the physicist talk, it doesn’t walk the physicist walk (if there is such a thing). And the gauntlet has been thrown down — … [...]

]]> By: How much money do I need » Blog Archive » Don’t Waste Your Money http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166/comment-page-1#comment-786 How much money do I need » Blog Archive » Don’t Waste Your Money Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:50:20 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/166#comment-786 [...] mhblatt wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSunny Kalara at “Talk Like a Physicist” wants a 576 MegaPixel camera, and while the post talks the physicist talk, it doesn’t walk the physicist walk (if there is such a thing). And the gauntlet has been thrown down — … [...] [...] mhblatt wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSunny Kalara at “Talk Like a Physicist” wants a 576 MegaPixel camera, and while the post talks the physicist talk, it doesn’t walk the physicist walk (if there is such a thing). And the gauntlet has been thrown down — … [...]

]]>