The megapixel race continues, and now even mobile phones by their number can bypass very expensive SLR cameras.
36 MP for Nikon D800 and Sony 7R already surprise no one, even ‘bloated’ 41 MP for the Nokia Lumia 1020 cameraphone is something common and everyday. Imagine if matrices with pixels of the same dimensions as mobile devices were used on full-format cameras.
Take the same Lumia 1020, in which the sensor is about the size of a nail – 1 / 1.5 ″ (the same 2/3 ″) with physical dimensions of 8.8 mm X 6.6 mm. In fact, the Lumia 1020 does not create 41 MP images, and in normal mode only the largest photographs 7136 X 5360 can be obtained from it, which is approximately 38.3MP.
If the full-size matrix (sensor) of a modern full-frame camera is filled with pixels of the same size as that of the Lumia 1020, then we would get a camera with 570MP !. It is easy to calculate: (36 * 24) / (8.8 * 6.6) * 38.3 = 569, 752 (MP). Such a TIFF file with a 16-bit color depth would occupy about 3GB. And if you go further, and nashtampovat such pixels on the matrix from some Phase One IQ180 (with a sensor size of 40.4 X 53.7 mm), you get 1430.631 MP – about 1.5GP (pixel gig!) Imagine the joy of future pixel marketers?
In fact, the Lumia 1020 does not use the smallest pixels yet, and I did the calculations only to show the possible gigapixel future that photographers can expect 🙂
Even if you do not take into account mobile devices, then based on the fact that the pixel sizes of Nikon D5100, Nikon D7000, Pentax K-30, Pentax K-50, Pentax K-500, Fuji X-Pro1, Pentax K-5 II, Pentax K-01, Pentax K-5, Sony a580, Sony A55, Sony A57, Sony NEX-5N (Sony probably arranged the sale of its sensors :)) exactly like the Nikon D800, D800E, we can assume that the sensors are full-format ‘ monsters’ printed on the same technology with the same pixel size. And if you take the Nikon D7100, D5200, D5300, Sony A65, A77 sensor and make a full-size matrix with the same pixel size, then in the future some Nikon D900 or Sony a8 with a sensor having 51 megapixels awaits us in the future. board. True, all these pixels are not quite real.
If you look at the practical side of increasing the number of MPs, then in addition to the improvements and degradations associated with reducing the physical size of the photosensitive element described in the Battle of Megapixels section, there are several important aspects that are very rarely affected by pixel scientists ’. The main one is resize (‘resize’ – resizing the original image).
In order not to be so boring to read, take a photo of a cat (everyone loves cats, especially Instagram users).
Spherical cat resize
The photo of the cat was taken using a Nikon D700 camera, which has 12MP (12,052,992 pixels). You see this photo in a reduced version up to 720 X 479 pixels, which equals 0.34488MP. It turns out that now we see a completely different photo, which was produced using the camera sensor, but only 1/35 (about 3%) of its original size and quality in the original image.
Of course, no one makes resize their photos to 720 X 479, but this happens indirectly when viewing photos. For example, I look at the photos on my monitor, which creates images of 1920 x 1200 pixels, which equals 2,304,000 pixels (2.3MP). On my monitor, I see only 19% of the original image. 81% of the source file is not available to me. If I even enlarge the picture so that one pixel in the photo corresponds to one pixel of my monitor, then in the end I will be able to view only the same 19% of the original image at a time.
As another example, let’s take a monitor with a maximum resolution for personal computers, for example, a 30-inch NEC, which can simultaneously display 4MP images (2560 X 1600). Even on such a powerful monitor only 1/3 of the information from the original image will be placed. Even if we take the old 5 megapixel camera, then its picture will not fit on this monitor.
To fully view the entire 12MP snapshot with the Nikon D700, you will have to use a 4K TV with the ability to display 4096 X 3112, only I haven’t met such TVs for sale yet :). When I wrote this article, only UHD TVs could be found on sale, which can create 3840 X 2160 images and cost about 10-15.000 cu. At the same time, such a TV can display only 69% of our 12MP image.
UPDATE: after a couple of years, not only TVs appeared, but also monitors with a slightly higher resolution – 3840 x 2160 (for example – BenQ SW320) and 5120 x 2880 (for example – Iiyama ProLite).
If an ordinary amateur photographer doesn’t have the chance to see his entire picture 1: 1 in its original quality using a monitor, projector or TV, then perhaps printed images will come to the rescue?