PanoTools NG:
Re: Re: Sony announce 25Mp 35mm sensor
mrjimbo 2008-Feb-01 18:21:06
Keith,
I'm not a rocket scientist but did learn that the delay for the introduction of teh Betterlight new 10k scan back was all about that no lenses resolved what it would do properly.. Some how they did get to a compromise and did release the back.. In my converstaions with them at that time they spoke of the issues related to that level of resolving using optics.. Further we must realize that today optics are multi part.. So it's probably not just a matter of saying make another one that does it.. In the smaller sensors they have been packing more and more pixels.. but as spoken in these posts that has been at a price.. So it makes sense to make larger sensors..so the info that is captured isn't shrunk as much. The optics are actually doing a conversion...making a big image fit on a small sensor.. It appears that what we are experiencing is degradiation when we get to a certain threhshold at out current optical technology. The present answer is larger cameras it seems.. So tommorrows Nikon may look like my Pentax 6x7 with a face lift and a Nikon logo on it ( hopefully a little lighter too)....or a new version of a Sinar 8x10 with a fixed sensor in the back of it.with large pixel sizes... Whooo Hooo.
jimbo
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Martin
To: #removed#
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:41 AM
Subject: RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Sony announce 25Mp 35mm sensor
Sometime around 1/2/08 (at 01:42 -0800) Paul D. DeRocco said:
> > From: Erik Krause
>>
>> ...then 10MP on a crop factor 1.6 sensor is beyond the resolution of
>> any fisheye, too. 25MP on a full frame sensor has the same absolute
>> resolution (pixel density) like a 10MP sensor at crop faktor 1.6
>
>Probably. Even on my 6Mp 10D, which is a 1.6x crop sensor, I can see a lot
>of CA near the edges, so it's obvious that I wouldn't be getting any more
>sharpness if I stuck it on my 10Mp 40D. And a 25MP FF sensor would probably
>be even worse, because it reaches into the worst part of the lens.
But then, a full-frame sensor camera does mean working with different
lenses to get the equivalent effect. So a rough equivalent of the
10.5mm would be 16mm, wouldn't it? Something like the old 16mm
fisheye that I used briefly on my old Canon A1. Assuming the
manufacturing and glass quality was similar, that would give
approximately the same view but reduced chromatic abberation.
(Slightly reduced depth of field too, but that's physics for ya!)
I don't think it is really a matter of being beyond the resolution of
a fisheye, as that's just analog-world optics. The Sigma 8mm and
Nikon 10.5mm fisheyes are designed to produce acceptable images on a
cropped-area sensor, and trying to capture an image using a broader
part of the image means going beyond the design intentions. So...
isn't the important thing simply using a lens that is actually meant
to cover a full-frame sensor?
(I think that's what you meant in your first post, but I wasn't sure...)
k
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--
<*> Wiki: http://wiki.panotools.org
<*> User Guidelines: http://wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines
<*> Nabble (Web) http://www.nabble.com/PanoToolsNG-f15658.html
<*> NG Member Map http://www.panomaps.com/ng
<*> Moderators/List Admins: #removed#
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:#removed#
mailto:#removed#
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
#removed#
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/