End of the Mega-Pixel race?

what's the betting field testing begins on 1st April?

BTW, I liked how the light readings were 'off the scale' with no discernible increase in illumination.
 
Last edited:
If the box gathers light from all sides, what on earth is the pinhole (or any proposed shutter)doing there?

:D

I don't know where to begin with other issues... low ISO=high resolution?
 
does that mean that the paper is engineered so that each mm is individually angled towards the lens? and if it is such specific angles then when with them open to any light source you shall get lines everywhere... I like the idea but, nah



after thought..
if they could deliver those sorts of resolutions then there is nothing to convert them (digitally) so you would have to carry your prints in to show to people or post them around the world. i'll keep to my fuji mini 7
 
Last edited:
Even if the film were made to only react to light from a certain direction, light in the real world reflects from all sorts of things so some light would be pretty much certail to come at the right direction to fog the film.
Don't hold your breath waiting for it.
 
Musicman said:
low ISO=high resolution?
Click to expand...

For film, that is a good rule of thumb. FP4 and HP5 have a noticeable difference in grain normally ascribed to one being ISO125 and t'other being ISO400. I was told it's to do with the crystal sensitivity - the larger the crystals in the emulsion the more sensitive they are and as a result resolution drops as speed increases.

C
 
cjay said:
For film, that is a good rule of thumb. FP4 and HP5 have a noticeable difference in grain normally ascribed to one being ISO125 and t'other being ISO400. I was told it's to do with the crystal sensitivity - the larger the crystals in the emulsion the more sensitive they are and as a result resolution drops as speed increases.

C
Click to expand...

Yes but even with 2415 tech pan film at 12 asa you still got grain at big enlargments, a highly specialised polarised film is going to be, A expensive and B going to have to have some sort of lens? type coating so that light from directions other than exactly the lens axis doesn't fog it, the lens coating is going to limit the resolution in the same way pixels do.
The bigger question is why bother to go to so much trouble just to make a clear camera? if they can make a film so super fine why not just make it a normal 35mm or 6x6? the clear camera is just a gimic, the real selling point is the quality.
 
Yes, but very early film chemistry was also exceptionally low ISO and did not automatically result in super-high resolution images, as they imply (except that they were using very large plates).

Perhaps I should have been more accurate in my comment... Low ISO == high resolution?

How big are the crystals anyway?

Furthermore, capturing terabytes of information on a 6x7" flat, flexible surface would be something the data storage industry would be interested in, and they'd have far more cash to put behind it.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Yes, but very early film chemistry was also exceptionally low ISO and did not automatically result in super-high resolution images, as they imply (except that they were using very large plates).
Click to expand...
I was making an implicit 'with constant process' - I wouldn't expect a film process of 100 years ago to compete in grain with one of 10 years ago.

Musicman said:
Perhaps I should have been more accurate in my comment... Low ISO == high resolution?

How big are the crystals anyway?
Click to expand...

It depends very heavily on the dilution of the developer, but for general purpose colour neg film (ISO200), you would expect grain of the order of .50 micrometres assuming optimal exposure & development.

C
 
Last edited:
I guess what bugs me is that the arguments are presented the wrong way round.

i.e."

ISO 1/500 => super fine grain

"Wow! we can make and incredibly slow film. Oh, and by the way it's resolution is amazing"​

rather than

super fine grain => ISO 1/500

"Wow! we can make an incredibly high definition film, but you won't believe how long you have to leave the shutter open"​
 
cjay said:
It depends very heavily on the dilution of the developer, but for general purpose colour neg film (ISO200), you would expect grain of the order of .50 micrometres assuming optimal exposure & development.
Click to expand...

I meant to capture a 'terapixel image' :)
 
swanseamale47 said:
Yes but even with 2415 tech pan film at 12 asa you still got grain at big enlargments, a highly specialised polarised film is going to be, A expensive and B going to have to have some sort of lens? type coating so that light from directions other than exactly the lens axis doesn't fog it, the lens coating is going to limit the resolution in the same way pixels do.
The bigger question is why bother to go to so much trouble just to make a clear camera? if they can make a film so super fine why not just make it a normal 35mm or 6x6? the clear camera is just a gimic, the real selling point is the quality.
Click to expand...

All good/great reasons why this in all probability is some sort of hoax/astroturfing exercise.

The clear camera - well, the video made a hand-wavy statement that the ambient light let in somehow amplified the signal/image density. Do I believe it? - Nah.

Chris

P.S. 2415 - we shall mourn its passing - a great astrophotography film.
 
Musicman said:
I meant to capture a 'terapixel image' :)
Click to expand...


Ahhhhhh - good question. A terapixel is 10^12 pixels so assuming a 4"x5" piece of sheet film - that's ~900,000 * ~1,100,000 pixels. Translates to just over 10000 pixels per mm. This means a grain will have to be *at least* 0.1 microns or about 5 times better than current low ISO grain.

The above is a very optimistic reading, since resolution is in lines/mm and that is coarser than the grain size - so you probably need grain 10 times smaller than 10000 lines/mm - or 0.01 microns - or 10nm.

You will definitely have to be using holographic film stock which is silly expensive (for general snaps) as the grain size is below 50nm (and typically hits 8nm). In addition I can't remember the ISO rating but I remember 30s+ exposures with direct 10mW laser illumination.

All rather rambly - but yes - it is possible for expensive stock and you will only be shooting B&W and I shudder to think of the scanner that can scan that film.

C
 
Last edited:
dan-marsh said:
If you designed a new revolutionary camera, would you send out prototypes to random people around the world?

I don't think so! :D
Click to expand...
I requested a prototype and when it arrived the package was empty, as if the camera inside was invisible or something...
 
alexw9 said:
I requested a prototype and when it arrived the package was empty, as if the camera inside was invisible or something...
Click to expand...

Are you sure you ordered the camera? it wasn't an action man deserter?? :) thats what I got my son for Christmas.
 
Whilst I'm not a physicist I'm pretty sure there are enough inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the video to indicate that thy are using big words to baffle as it is all a total hoax.

I'm still at a loss between polarising light using electromagnets polarising light and the polarising "glass" used for the camera. If electromagnets polarise and and amplify light I pretty sure the Laser community would already be exploiting it.

BTW - HAVE YOU HEARD NIKON ARE RELEASING A LEFT HANDED VERSION OF THE D7000. This to preempt a judgement against them for discrimination against left handed people. Expect other manufactures to follow suit with left handed versions of everything. Reports from American suggest that Vic Firth will be selling left-handed drum sticks by the middle of this year ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top