160 Megapixel Digital

doobs · Jan 24, 2008

http://www.gadgettastic.com/2008/01/17/160-megapixel-camera/

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

Wow.

My friend (non-photographer) is telling me how he won a debate we had a while back that film is still a better choice for capturing the best image possible. Not sure of the quality of this camera as compared to the characteristics of film, but I'm still stunned.

ScottS · Jan 24, 2008

Welcome to the future.

Now to get it to look as good as film....

shorty6049 · Jan 24, 2008

i dont know if i'd consider this
"the future" (partly because i saw this camera somewhere online about a year ago) as far as i know, you could make a camera have as many megapixels as you'd want, it'll just be bigger and cost more, but who needs it if it takes 10 seconds to take a picture in the middle of the day? still looks cool though

Alpha · Jan 24, 2008

That about matches the resolution of a 6x17 negative @ around 3000dpi. However, most estimates put the resolution of high resolution emulsions closer to 4000dpi, and in the case of the best slide films, closer to 5000dpi.

So if you're shooting a 617 with, say, Velvia or RSX 50, or perhaps 64T, you're looking at a resolution of about 394mp.

A good 8x10 chrome weighs in at an astonishing 2000 megapixels. I know what you're thinking. I had to do the math twice because I didn't believe it the first time.

By the way this camera you've linked to is simply a 617 with a scanning back. Check out BetterLight...they more or less invented the current scan-back technology. Though BetterLight's advertising is totally phony. They list their top scan back at 416mp, though at highest resolution its output is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels, which only works out to 138mp. A good chrome from my 4x5 works out to 500mp.

Garbz · Jan 25, 2008

Yeah but does your film camera run Windows XP? I think this arguement is settled :lmao:

Alpha · Jan 25, 2008

Garbz said:
Yeah but does your film camera run Windows XP? I think this arguement is settled :lmao:

Once I edited a 13gb photo on the quad g5. Man that was a glorious day.

adolan20 · Jan 25, 2008

I just bought it because it looks so cool.....j/k it's hideous.

Kentanner11 · Jan 25, 2008

not exactly pocket size.... I wonder what it weighs!

Alpha · Jan 25, 2008

They're beasts. Look up Fuji's gx617 for dimensions.

doobs · Jan 25, 2008

MaxBloom said:
By the way this camera you've linked to is simply a 617 with a scanning back. Check out BetterLight...they more or less invented the current scan-back technology. Though BetterLight's advertising is totally phony. They list their top scan back at 416mp, though at highest resolution its output is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels, which only works out to 138mp. A good chrome from my 4x5 works out to 500mp.

Yeah, I was aware that it's not fully digital, if you will, however, it still is an astonishing advancement in the world of digital photography. The price of this camera is far too high to even consider this as a purchase for most people.

usayit · Jan 26, 2008

When comparing film to digital there is a lot more to consider than just sheer megapixels...

I'm more impressed by these guys.. not because of the final out come of the projct... but mainly because of what they accomplished as a project team:

http://www.gigapxl.org/

Alpha · Jan 27, 2008

usayit said:
When comparing film to digital there is a lot more to consider than just sheer megapixels...

Well...yes and no. As far as I'm concerned there will be a lot more to consider once they're on numerically level playing fields. By that I mean capable of equal resolution and field of view at the same focal length. Right now, digital is sorely behind in anything larger than 645.

Antithesis · Jan 27, 2008

I'm amazed that more people haven't mentioned the 11 stops of dynamic range. Isn't a normal CCD closer to about 5? Correct me if I'm wrong...

It's kinda cool to see stuff like this becuase it gives us a glimpse of the technology we'll have in the next few generations of dSLR's.

Alpha · Jan 27, 2008

Antithesis said:
I'm amazed that more people haven't mentioned the 11 stops of dynamic range. Isn't a normal CCD closer to about 5? Correct me if I'm wrong...

It's kinda cool to see stuff like this becuase it gives us a glimpse of the technology we'll have in the next few generations of dSLR's.

I was going to edit my post to add dynamic range but got lazy.

As for future dSLR's I don't think this tells us much of anything. Formats this large will always be specialty items, and scan backs will most likely never be incorporated into any camera smaller than 6x9, if that.