Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-22-2010, 07:24 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,829
Arguably the worlds best sensor, and it's way smaller than full frame. 500+ MP

Region-Adaptable ISO, HDR, more than 500 mega pixels. This sensor is out of this world, and it's smaller than full frame, even smaller than APS-C.

And what is it you say? The human eyebulb!

This is a pair of what I found to be quite interesting articles on human optics: How Our Eyes See and Clarkvision Photography - Resolution of the Human Eye

It changed my perspective on the raging debate between APS-C and Full Frame sensors.

Maybe smaller is better?

I've been super excited to see if Pentax will make a FF sensor for better low light shooting and higher resolution, but after reading through those articles, It makes me wonder if we need the technology to advance rather than trying to make a bigger sensor.

Maybe their engineers have reached a similar conclusion, and that's why their commitment to APS-C has been both vocal and clear?

07-22-2010, 07:45 AM   #2
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
I just love when people quote random sites for proving their point.

Thruth is, the human eye is a relatively poor sensor, with a hole just in the center, a high resolution very limited region (the macula) and a periphecal region with much much lower resolution and color sensitivity.

The human is doing a fantastic job at stiching all the data the eye gather and making of it a consistent mental image (with no hole in it)

If we had the science of created a true electric eye protesis (with perfect interface, the prototypes that are experimented right now are only wiring about 100 dots), sensor/lens from a basic P&S would already provide more information that the brain can handle.
07-22-2010, 08:05 AM   #3
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
Moved here because this is neither Pentax News nor Pentax Rumor. It does mention photography though so at least it avoided being moved to General Talk...

Mike
PF Moderation Team
07-22-2010, 08:19 AM   #4
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteQuote:
Maybe smaller is better?
The right tool for the job is better.

07-22-2010, 09:56 AM   #5
Veteran Member
mysticcowboy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: port townsend, wa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 968
From reading the articles (and others on dynamic range), it seems that it's not that the human eye is a better sensor, but that the human brain is a better processor as it stitches a series of low resolution and low dynamic range images together into a real-time super-res image.
07-22-2010, 05:06 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 227
QuoteOriginally posted by mysticcowboy Quote
it's not that the human eye is a better sensor, but that the human brain is a better processor
FTW!

When people say things to me like "hey, I hear some of the high end cameras have resolution almost as good as the human eye" I like to find a newspaper ad. Tell them to hold it at reading length (1.5-2 feet) and look very carefully and only at a particular image (say the chicken breast for $1.99 /lb) Now instructing them very carefully not to move their eyes from the chicken, ask them to tell you what item is on sale 4 inches in any direction from the chicken. Even with 1"+ tall picture of (grapes, seedless) they won't be able to tell you without cheating.
07-22-2010, 05:31 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Deep Forest
Posts: 630
Hawk eye has MUCH resolution than Human eye

Also eye lens project onto semi-spherical surface, has no need for distortion corrections.
07-22-2010, 06:18 PM   #8
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
+1 for chicken breast for $1.99 /lb

07-22-2010, 07:01 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,829
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
It does mention photography though so at least it avoided being moved to General Talk...
Thanks for that. If it was in general talk, I'm not sure I would have ever seen my own post again.
07-22-2010, 07:02 PM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,829
Original Poster
So is what we need not better sensors but better processing of weak sensors?
07-22-2010, 07:09 PM   #11
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
That's exactly it. I was shooting a wedding in some brutal sun the other day and was wondering when a new processor will come that can evauate the scene off the sensor. So it would look at say a bright sky with a dark foreground and adjust the pixels to get the correct exposure of the dark parts as well as the bright. Our brains do that now to a degree. It adjusts the dark regions brighter and the bright regions darker quite a bit in the same scene.
07-22-2010, 07:17 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,829
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ghelary Quote
I just love when people quote random sites for proving their point.
The message here feels somewhat inflammatory. I didn't pick these sites out of a hat without reading the articles. I read both in depth. Both site sources. They aren't exactly what I'd call academic original research, but seemed to sum up this information nicely.

I was hoping to start a conversation that bigger may not be better. Don't get me wrong though, if a FF sensor shows up in a Pentax body in December, I'll be buying one.

Am I out to prove a point? Maybe that a FF sensor isn't necessarily better. The 645D only shoots at 800 ISO.

QuoteOriginally posted by ghelary Quote
Thruth is, the human eye is a relatively poor sensor, with a hole just in the center, a high resolution very limited region (the macula) and a periphecal region with much much lower resolution and color sensitivity.

The human is doing a fantastic job at stiching all the data the eye gather and making of it a consistent mental image (with no hole in it)
Do we just need better processing of the sensor data in the body? I certainly think so.

QuoteOriginally posted by ghelary Quote
sensor/lens from a basic P&S would already provide more information that the brain can handle.
The material I've read would seem to mark this as false, but I haven't really researched it in depth. I've just got the two sites above to source for my information. <shrug>
02-22-2011, 08:37 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 316
Processing the sensor data in camera is already here, the Panasonic G1 embeds op-codes into the Raw file to correct lens faults, distortion, CA fringeing, low contrast and poor 'flat field' is all there if you open the files in software that doesn't apply the op-codes (Raw Therapee for instnce). So much for their very expensive Leica lenses !!!

Theres nothing that can be done with dynamic range though, once a pixel is burnt out to white there's no data in it for software to work on.

Chris
02-22-2011, 02:25 PM   #14
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
I strongly disagree about the human eye being the worlds best sensor but nature does have science beat by a long shot.

Mantis shrimp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
02-22-2011, 06:42 PM   #15
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
So is what we need not better sensors but better processing of weak sensors?
What we need are better eyeballs. Human eyes petty much suck, compared to others that have evolved. And mine are delaminating. I'll take Geordie LaForge's visor, thanks.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, articles, camera, frame, photography, resolution, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame sensor for DSLRs aheritage Ask B&H Photo! 1 06-01-2010 07:15 AM
Worlds 1st Full Frame Medium Format Sensor, 60mp !!! Samsungian Pentax News and Rumors 3 05-15-2009 06:25 AM
Your Full Frame is Here!!! Das Boot Pentax News and Rumors 15 04-05-2009 09:02 AM
DA lenses on full frame sensor ZigDaPig Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 01-05-2008 11:22 AM
Full-Frame Image Sensor Holy Grail - Why? stewart_photo Pentax DSLR Discussion 82 10-10-2007 03:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top