Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 2, 2003, 3:57 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I think we just went past it in the current crop of compact digicams using smaller, denser sensors.

I see lots of articles on it. Lenses are measured in multiple ways (lines/mm; line pairs/mm, etc.). Newer MTF tests also incorporate contrast into the equation.

However, lens quality is continuing to evolve, as newer manufacturing techniques, lens coatings, etc., are being developed.

So, I think we'll continue to see some improvement.

I guess a lot depends on what you mean by compact, too.

I've read articles showing that the Canon 1DS shows lens deficiencies much more than the lower resolution EOS-10D.

Luminous Landscape has a lot of interesting articles on the subject. Here is one:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ding-mtf.shtml
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 4:12 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Thanks jimc..... what I'm really getting round to, is it costs money to manufacture expensive glass - and less for mass produced electronics and firmware. So, given the enormous advantage of a compacts physical size over say a film slr, Can we see manufacturers meeting a market need for more zoom (with IS) which there is bound to be from P&S merchants?

Will we get to a point where a hand held compact can out perform a film slr with the best telephoto on a tripod? That's a quantum leap in digicam benefit over a film cam isn't it? VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 4:19 PM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Well -- it's my understanding that the most expensive component in a Digital Camera is the CCD; not the lens (at least in the current crop of consumer cameras).

However, we may see a reversal of that in the future, as sensor manufacturing costs decline. Then, in order to get the quality needed for higher resolution sensors, more of the cost will need to go towards the optics.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 4:24 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Look at how computers have evolved.

I can remember spending a lot of money for my first 5MB Hard Disk drive (a Full Height Seagate, which I still have in a closet). I couldn't imagine ever needing more storage than 5MB at the time.

Now, you can get "postage stamp" size Secure Digital Cards with 100 times as much memory, with no moving parts.

Technology will continue to evolve, in ways we probably can't even imagine today.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 5:37 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Look at how computers have evolved...........Yes and vacuum display tube technology was de-facto even with digital technology.

Now new technology brings us low profile flat panel lcd with the bigger potential for mass production and when they've recovered the R&D costs, may be rolled out by the feet to hang on our walls! VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 7:17 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxmagna
... But let's assume the future is infinite megapixel resolution - that's cheap electronics and digital processing. What is the resolution limit of an affordable high quality compact camera 'standard' lens? There has to be a reasonable point (for a compact camera) where increase in Mpix will give no further gain due to optical limitations. VOX
The ultimate limit is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You cannot know exactly both the time a photon hits a detector and its energy (wavelength). When you work your way through that, roughly it means you cannot locate a photon to much better than its wavelength. Imperfections in the optics likely will always be larger than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxmagna
Will we get to a point where a hand held compact can out perform a film slr with the best telephoto on a tripod?
That would need a really good image stabilzation system :-)
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2003, 1:11 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
UrbanPhotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 382
Default Re: digital zoom and megapixels

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shraga18
get the same quality as a close-up of 2 or 3 mp?
I have a 5 megapixel camera with 5x optical zoom and 2x digital zoom. The digital zoom is worthless. What it does is take a 1280x960 section at the center of the image and blow it up to 2560x1920. If I take this image and then resize it back to 1280x960, it looks worse than if I simply crop a 1280x960 section out of a full-size photo that was taken without digital zoom.
UrbanPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2003, 7:45 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 394
Default Oh Hum

Here we go again. I have a 717 and I "at times" make use of the digital zoom, like metering and spot focus on the head of a small object such as the head of a bird. ( if the head is out of focus,the shot will be lost ) Sony has claimed that its digital zoom is better and uses a different processing method than many others?

What all of us are not getting from manufactures is good comparative data? Like if the digital zoom indicator only stops at the halfway postion what is the reduction in quality? Does the processing of the photo take place before recording or is it a crop after the recording and then re-processed?
normc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2003, 9:55 AM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default Re: Oh Hum

Quote:
Originally Posted by normc
Here we go again. I have a 717 and I "at times" make use of the digital zoom, like metering and spot focus on the head of a small object such as the head of a bird. ( if the head is out of focus,the shot will be lost ) Sony has claimed that its digital zoom is better and uses a different processing method than many others?

What all of us are not getting from manufactures is good comparative data? Like if the digital zoom indicator only stops at the halfway postion what is the reduction in quality? Does the processing of the photo take place before recording or is it a crop after the recording and then re-processed?
Some of the new Sony models have a "Smart Digital Zoom".

Basically, it just crops the photo, without interpolating it (resulting in a lower resolution final image, provided you don't zoom too much). Of course, this still means that you won't be able to print photos at sizes greater than the cropped image size.

Most cameras probably crop from the larger image size, then resize/interpolate the image, to match the chosen resolution size. This will significantly degrade quality.

In any event, you can use either technique with software later, to accomplish the same thing.

There are very few advantages to using Digital Zoom in a camera (I have it disabled in mine). Some like it because it does sometimes allow for more accurate framing and metering (zooming in on a subject with Digital Zoom, half pressing the shutter button, then zooming back out again before pressing the shutter down the rest of the way to take the photo).

Personally, I never use it.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2003, 2:30 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 394
Default Sure

and all of this has been well worked over on this site and others many times over, but to say it is worthless is off the beam.
normc is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:46 AM.