Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings...

On 2007-03-10 04:26:35 -0800, Skinner1 DeleteThis @hotmail.com said:

> I was at one of my more favored camera shop haunts yesterday talking
> about the digital backs I saw for medium format cameras and the
> unbelievable costs associated with them (as high as $36,000 just for
> the back).
>
> Lloyd was telling me about a new offering from Nikon and one from Fuji
> that are supposed to be released in fall of this year. Each had over
> 20+ megapixels in a 35mm full frame DSLR format. He is a Fuji and
> Nikon dealer but knows that I use a Canon. He also said he had heard
> that Camon has a 20+ megapixel camera due out soon.
>
> I am fishing for more information. Anybody heard anything or have any
> links to press releases? I have no idea where to start searching.

He is just repeating the usual Internet rumors. The dealers are the
last to learn anything, especially from Nikon. Nikon is very secretive.

However, 20+ megapixels is not unreasonable. The rumored D3, which I
thought would be introduced at PMA (looks like I am going to be wrong
again, but I am used to it) is said to be a "full-frame" or "nearly
full-frame." Maybe this summer. It probably would have 20+ megapixels.
So would any new top of the line Canon. Either one of these cameras
will be north of $7,000. Fuji, well -- we shall see whether 20+
megapixels is real pixels or interpolated pixels.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

<Skinner1.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8m85v2t5j1cs6ccbpn2pfl6pac543vf23h@4ax.com...
>I was at one of my more favored camera shop haunts yesterday talking
> about the digital backs I saw for medium format cameras and the
> unbelievable costs associated with them (as high as $36,000 just for
> the back).
>
> Lloyd was telling me about a new offering from Nikon and one from Fuji
> that are supposed to be released in fall of this year. Each had over
> 20+ megapixels in a 35mm full frame DSLR format. He is a Fuji and
> Nikon dealer but knows that I use a Canon. He also said he had heard
> that Camon has a 20+ megapixel camera due out soon.
>
> I am fishing for more information. Anybody heard anything or have any
> links to press releases? I have no idea where to start searching.
>
I wouldn't be surprised at any of it. But Fuji has a tendency to use
Sigma's method of pixel counting, so the current 6mp Fuji bodies count as
12, because of the undersized supplemental photosites that provide better
DR, one full sized pixel, one little on. So, by going to 10mp, like
everybody else, they would produce a 20mp camera, by their reckoning.
The next Canon 1Ds type camera (1Ds mkIII?) will most likely be 20-22 mp,
and Nikon dealers feel that Nikon needs to keep up. But the feasibility of
squeezing 20+ mp onto a 1.5x sensor could be an engineering challenge of the
first order.
Of course, none of these have progressed past the stage of rumor, no
official word in any form. There will be no press release, or anything like
that, until days before the mfrs. actually put the camera on display.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

In article <esua1c$kbn$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne.RemoveThis@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> Skinner1.RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I was at one of my more favored camera shop haunts yesterday talking
> > about the digital backs I saw for medium format cameras and the
> > unbelievable costs associated with them (as high as $36,000 just for
> > the back).
> >
> > Lloyd was telling me about a new offering from Nikon and one from Fuji
> > that are supposed to be released in fall of this year. Each had over
> > 20+ megapixels in a 35mm full frame DSLR format. He is a Fuji and
> > Nikon dealer but knows that I use a Canon. He also said he had heard
> > that Camon has a 20+ megapixel camera due out soon.
> >
> > I am fishing for more information. Anybody heard anything or have any
> > links to press releases? I have no idea where to start searching.
>
> Canon breached 16 Mpix with the 1Ds II in Sep 2004. It remains a very
> expensive camera in the $6620 - $7700 range.
>
> So a 20 Mpix plus is not at all out of the question. The question is:

Especally as the 1D Mark III just went up about 25% in megapixels from
the Mark II while maintaining the same photosite size (merely reducing
the distance between them on the sensor, due to better technology),
which would, if they go implemment the same changes, make a 1DS Mark
III's 16.7 megapixel FF sensor go up to about 22 megapixels without
decreasing the photosite size.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:19:59 -0800, "Skip" <shadowcatcher.RemoveThis@cox.net>
wrote:
> But the feasibility of squeezing 20+ mp onto a 1.5x sensor
> could be an engineering challenge of the first order.

I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under
the impression that since a lens is round, the image that it produces
on the sensor (or film) would be round... Since most people want to
take some sort of rectangular photo, this basically gets cropped by
being placed on a rectangular sensor (or piece of film with a mask)...
As such, if you designed a 'full frame' circular sensor, it could
record all the image that was being received from your lens... One
advantage of this might be that you might no longer had to worry about
perfectly orienting the camera with respect to the horizon to ensure
that thing aren't slanted in your images... In fact, since you would
have a round image in the viewfinder, there would be no need to orient
the camera for landscape vs portrait since they would both be the
same... After you put the photo on your computer, you could crop it
for a landscape or portrait view... Perhaps a new way of orienting
pixels might be necessary so that lossless rotation of any angle could
be accomplished... I'm thinking something like a center pixel and
concentric circles of other pixels around it perhaps... Hmmm... Come
to think of it, you wouldn't get lossless rotation in that type of
pixel orientation unless you were rotating it the same number of
degrees as there are between pixels in the inner circle of pixels and
the other circles are multiples of that... Of course, one could argue
that by doing it this way, we would just be recording information that
is not useful since it is going to be cropped anyway...
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2007-03-10 04:26:35 -0800, Skinner1.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com said:
>
>> I was at one of my more favored camera shop haunts yesterday talking
>> about the digital backs I saw for medium format cameras and the
>> unbelievable costs associated with them (as high as $36,000 just for
>> the back).
>>
>> Lloyd was telling me about a new offering from Nikon and one from Fuji
>> that are supposed to be released in fall of this year. Each had over
>> 20+ megapixels in a 35mm full frame DSLR format. He is a Fuji and
>> Nikon dealer but knows that I use a Canon. He also said he had heard
>> that Camon has a 20+ megapixel camera due out soon.
>>
>> I am fishing for more information. Anybody heard anything or have any
>> links to press releases? I have no idea where to start searching.
>
>He is just repeating the usual Internet rumors. The dealers are the
>last to learn anything, especially from Nikon. Nikon is very secretive.
>

Well.... "usual Internet Rumors" or not I heard it from a friend and a
dealer and I valued MOST of the commentary here enough to ask here
first. I'm sorry I can't be as perceptive as some and weed out the
rumor from the fact so I too can hold my nose higher than most!

>However, 20+ megapixels is not unreasonable. The rumored D3, which I
>thought would be introduced at PMA (looks like I am going to be wrong
>again, but I am used to it) is said to be a "full-frame" or "nearly
>full-frame." Maybe this summer. It probably would have 20+ megapixels.
>So would any new top of the line Canon. Either one of these cameras
>will be north of $7,000. Fuji, well -- we shall see whether 20+
>megapixels is real pixels or interpolated pixels.

No, it's not unreasonable as the technology already exists. It's just
an engineering problem and then a cost associated manufacturing
problem. Other "rumors" I had heard is that the failure rate for the
chips is tremendous now. Adding complexity would only make that worse.

The price I was hearing kicke3d around was more like $9k.
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

Alan Browne wrote:
> Skinner1.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I was at one of my more favored camera shop haunts yesterday talking
>> about the digital backs I saw for medium format cameras and the
>> unbelievable costs associated with them (as high as $36,000 just for
>> the back).
>>
>> Lloyd was telling me about a new offering from Nikon and one from
>> Fuji that are supposed to be released in fall of this year. Each had
>> over 20+ megapixels in a 35mm full frame DSLR format. He is a Fuji
>> and Nikon dealer but knows that I use a Canon. He also said he had
>> heard that Camon has a 20+ megapixel camera due out soon.
>>
>> I am fishing for more information. Anybody heard anything or have any
>> links to press releases? I have no idea where to start searching.
>
> Canon breached 16 Mpix with the 1Ds II in Sep 2004. It remains a very
> expensive camera in the $6620 - $7700 range.
>
> So a 20 Mpix plus is not at all out of the question. The question is:
>
> "Who is the fab"?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

This is old news. It is a widely held expectation that the 1Ds Mark III
will sport about 22MP. Likely in the fall.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:19:59 -0800, "Skip" <shadowcatcher.TakeThisOut@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> But the feasibility of squeezing 20+ mp onto a 1.5x sensor
>> could be an engineering challenge of the first order.
>
> I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under
> the impression that since a lens is round, the image that it produces
> on the sensor (or film) would be round... Since most people want to
> take some sort of rectangular photo, this basically gets cropped by
> being placed on a rectangular sensor (or piece of film with a mask)...
> As such, if you designed a 'full frame' circular sensor, it could
> record all the image that was being received from your lens... One
> advantage of this might be that you might no longer had to worry about
> perfectly orienting the camera with respect to the horizon to ensure
> that thing aren't slanted in your images... In fact, since you would
> have a round image in the viewfinder, there would be no need to orient
> the camera for landscape vs portrait since they would both be the
> same... After you put the photo on your computer, you could crop it
> for a landscape or portrait view... Perhaps a new way of orienting
> pixels might be necessary so that lossless rotation of any angle could
> be accomplished... I'm thinking something like a center pixel and
> concentric circles of other pixels around it perhaps... Hmmm... Come
> to think of it, you wouldn't get lossless rotation in that type of
> pixel orientation unless you were rotating it the same number of
> degrees as there are between pixels in the inner circle of pixels and
> the other circles are multiples of that... Of course, one could argue
> that by doing it this way, we would just be recording information that
> is not useful since it is going to be cropped anyway...

It also means you'd have to manually crop and align EVERY SINGLE IMAGE you
shoot in a photo editor.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

On Mar 10, 7:58 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro....DeleteThis@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> Skinn....DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I was at one of my more favored camera shop haunts yesterday talking
> > about the digital backs I saw for medium format cameras and the
> > unbelievable costs associated with them (as high as $36,000 just for
> > the back).
>
> > Lloyd was telling me about a new offering from Nikon and one from Fuji
> > that are supposed to be released in fall of this year. Each had over
> > 20+ megapixels in a 35mm full frame DSLR format. He is a Fuji and
> > Nikon dealer but knows that I use a Canon. He also said he had heard
> > that Camon has a 20+ megapixel camera due out soon.
>
> > I am fishing for more information. Anybody heard anything or have any
> > links to press releases? I have no idea where to start searching.
>
> Canon breached 16 Mpix with the 1Ds II in Sep 2004. It remains a very
> expensive camera in the $6620 - $7700 range.
>
> So a 20 Mpix plus is not at all out of the question. The question is:
>
> "Who is the fab"?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

If the sensor is the same size, why should the megapixel count alter
the price so much? The electronics needed to support it? I doubt it.
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:31:04 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> It also means you'd have to manually crop and align EVERY SINGLE IMAGE you
> shoot in a photo editor.

Correct... If images were taken this way, I suspect that someone would
very quickly come up with a utility for doing a standard crop for
portrait or landscape... Being a UNIX person, I would prefer this
utility to be command line based whereby you just pipe it in a list of
filenames to process... Something like:

ls -1 *.png | cropit -orientation center -width 1024 -height 768
-outputDir xxxx

When you get back to your computer after a day of shooting, copy all
the files from your memory card to a directory like you would normally
do and run the program while you go get a beer / cup of coffee /
whatever... I do something similar to rename my photos after a day's
worth of shooting... I didn't like the fact that all my photos were
names sequentially with no indication in their names what they were
about or where they were taken... I also didn't like having to
manually go through all the photos one at a time and rename them...
So, I wrote a small command line based utility that allows the
renaming / renumbering of files based on the following format:

[PREFIX][SEPERATOR][SEQUENCE_NUM][SEPERATOR][SUFFIX].[EXTENSION]

Command line args to it are:
-help
-prefix [String to prepend to resulting file name]
-suffix [String to append to resulting file name]
-extension [String to use for file extension]
-seperator [String to use between each filename field]
-start [Starting number for resulting renumbered files
-digits [Minimum number of digits to use for renumbering
-noRename | -rename
-noPrefix
-noSuffix
-noExtension

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/renum.exe

For example, let's say that you just got back from Yellowstone and had
a day's worth of JPEGs... You copy them to a directory from your flash
memory card and do the following:

dir /b *.jpg | sort | renum -prefix yellowstone -suffix orig
-seperator - -start 100 -digits 4

This will result in all the files looking like:

yellowstone-####-orig.jpg

Where #### starts at "0100" and increments by one for each file jpg
file that you have in the directory...

The utility was *very* trivial to write and I suspect that someone who
was familiar with image manipulation routines would be able to do
something similar with minimal effort... Quite often, we really do not
need GUI type applications -- command line ones perform the tasks well
enough and the source code is more portable across different
platforms...
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

On 2007-03-10 10:49:04 -0800, Skinner1 RemoveThis @hotmail.com said:

>>
>> He is just repeating the usual Internet rumors. The dealers are the
>> last to learn anything, especially from Nikon. Nikon is very secretive.
>>
>
> Well.... "usual Internet Rumors" or not I heard it from a friend and a
> dealer and I valued MOST of the commentary here enough to ask here
> first. I'm sorry I can't be as perceptive as some and weed out the
> rumor from the fact so I too can hold my nose higher than most!
>

I am very sorry. I did not intend to offend you in any way or give the
impression that I was 'better' or 'more perceptive.'

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

On 2007-03-10 15:30:09 -0800, Grumman-581
<grumman581.TakeThisOut@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> said:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:31:04 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> It also means you'd have to manually crop and align EVERY SINGLE IMAGE
>> you shoot in a photo editor.
>
> Correct... If images were taken this way, I suspect that someone would
> very quickly come up with a utility for doing a standard crop for
> portrait or landscape... Being a UNIX person, I would prefer this
> utility to be command line based whereby you just pipe it in a list of
> filenames to process... Something like:
>
> ls -1 *.png | cropit -orientation center -width 1024 -height 768
> -outputDir xxxx
>
> When you get back to your computer after a day of shooting, copy all
> the files from your memory card to a directory like you would normally
> do and run the program while you go get a beer / cup of coffee /
> whatever... I do something similar to rename my photos after a day's
> worth of shooting... I didn't like the fact that all my photos were
> names sequentially with no indication in their names what they were
> about or where they were taken... I also didn't like having to
> manually go through all the photos one at a time and rename them...
> So, I wrote a small command line based utility that allows the
> renaming / renumbering of files based on the following format:
>
> [PREFIX][SEPERATOR][SEQUENCE_NUM][SEPERATOR][SUFFIX].[EXTENSION]
>
> Command line args to it are:
> -help
> -prefix [String to prepend to resulting file name]
> -suffix [String to append to resulting file name]
> -extension [String to use for file extension]
> -seperator [String to use between each filename field]
> -start [Starting number for resulting renumbered files
> -digits [Minimum number of digits to use for renumbering
> -noRename | -rename
> -noPrefix
> -noSuffix
> -noExtension
>
> http://grumman581.googlepages.com/renum.exe
>
> For example, let's say that you just got back from Yellowstone and had
> a day's worth of JPEGs... You copy them to a directory from your flash
> memory card and do the following:
>
> dir /b *.jpg | sort | renum -prefix yellowstone -suffix orig
> -seperator - -start 100 -digits 4
>
> This will result in all the files looking like:
>
> yellowstone-####-orig.jpg
>
> Where #### starts at "0100" and increments by one for each file jpg
> file that you have in the directory...
>
> The utility was *very* trivial to write and I suspect that someone who
> was familiar with image manipulation routines would be able to do
> something similar with minimal effort... Quite often, we really do not
> need GUI type applications -- command line ones perform the tasks well
> enough and the source code is more portable across different
> platforms...

Hmmm. Could do something almost identical using Terminal in OS X (which
is UNIX anyway).

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

In article <2007031018181250073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>, C J
Campbell <christophercampbell DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2007-03-10 15:30:09 -0800, Grumman-581
> <grumman581 DeleteThis @DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:31:04 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> >> It also means you'd have to manually crop and align EVERY SINGLE IMAGE
> >> you shoot in a photo editor.
> >
> > Correct... If images were taken this way, I suspect that someone would
> > very quickly come up with a utility for doing a standard crop for
> > portrait or landscape... Being a UNIX person, I would prefer this
> > utility to be command line based whereby you just pipe it in a list of
> > filenames to process... Something like:
> >
> > ls -1 *.png | cropit -orientation center -width 1024 -height 768
> > -outputDir xxxx
> >
> > When you get back to your computer after a day of shooting, copy all
> > the files from your memory card to a directory like you would normally
> > do and run the program while you go get a beer / cup of coffee /
> > whatever... I do something similar to rename my photos after a day's
> > worth of shooting... I didn't like the fact that all my photos were
> > names sequentially with no indication in their names what they were
> > about or where they were taken... I also didn't like having to
> > manually go through all the photos one at a time and rename them...
> > So, I wrote a small command line based utility that allows the
> > renaming / renumbering of files based on the following format:
> >
> > [PREFIX][SEPERATOR][SEQUENCE_NUM][SEPERATOR][SUFFIX].[EXTENSION]
> >
> > Command line args to it are:
> > -help
> > -prefix [String to prepend to resulting file name]
> > -suffix [String to append to resulting file name]
> > -extension [String to use for file extension]
> > -seperator [String to use between each filename field]
> > -start [Starting number for resulting renumbered files
> > -digits [Minimum number of digits to use for renumbering
> > -noRename | -rename
> > -noPrefix
> > -noSuffix
> > -noExtension
> >
> > http://grumman581.googlepages.com/renum.exe
> >
> > For example, let's say that you just got back from Yellowstone and had
> > a day's worth of JPEGs... You copy them to a directory from your flash
> > memory card and do the following:
> >
> > dir /b *.jpg | sort | renum -prefix yellowstone -suffix orig
> > -seperator - -start 100 -digits 4
> >
> > This will result in all the files looking like:
> >
> > yellowstone-####-orig.jpg
> >
> > Where #### starts at "0100" and increments by one for each file jpg
> > file that you have in the directory...
> >
> > The utility was *very* trivial to write and I suspect that someone who
> > was familiar with image manipulation routines would be able to do
> > something similar with minimal effort... Quite often, we really do not
> > need GUI type applications -- command line ones perform the tasks well
> > enough and the source code is more portable across different
> > platforms...
>
> Hmmm. Could do something almost identical using Terminal in OS X (which
> is UNIX anyway).

Or even easier - use "A Better Finder Rename" utility from
http://www.publicspace.net/ABetterFinderRename/

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings... 

C J Campbell <christophercampbell DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2007-03-10 04:26:35 -0800, Skinner1 DeleteThis @hotmail.com said:
>
>> I was at one of my more favored camera shop haunts yesterday talking
>> about the digital backs I saw for medium format cameras and the
>> unbelievable costs associated with them (as high as $36,000 just for
>> the back).
>>
>> Lloyd was telling me about a new offering from Nikon and one from Fuji
>> that are supposed to be released in fall of this year. Each had over
>> 20+ megapixels in a 35mm full frame DSLR format. He is a Fuji and
>> Nikon dealer but knows that I use a Canon. He also said he had heard
>> that Camon has a 20+ megapixel camera due out soon.
>>
>> I am fishing for more information. Anybody heard anything or have any
>> links to press releases? I have no idea where to start searching.
>
>He is just repeating the usual Internet rumors. The dealers are the
>last to learn anything, especially from Nikon. Nikon is very secretive.
>
>However, 20+ megapixels is not unreasonable. The rumored D3, which I
>thought would be introduced at PMA (looks like I am going to be wrong
>again, but I am used to it) is said to be a "full-frame" or "nearly
>full-frame." Maybe this summer. It probably would have 20+ megapixels.
>So would any new top of the line Canon. Either one of these cameras
>will be north of $7,000. Fuji, well -- we shall see whether 20+
>megapixels is real pixels or interpolated pixels.


The Nikon D3 will have less than 20MP. The Canon EOS 1Ds Mk III will
have more than 20 MP.
 >> Stay informed about: Rumblings about huge megapixel offerings...