In going to 100mp

PhilRich · 03-14-2021, 02:43 PM

What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor? This is a curiosity question. I have always thought that a larger pixel sensor has an advantage but am not really educated on the subject. As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any.

eles · 03-14-2021, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by PhilRich

What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor? This is a curiosity question. I have always thought that a larger pixel sensor has an advantage but am not really educated on the subject. As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any.

Originally posted by PhilRich

As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any.

I have this same question. Often comments are made about the fine/nice/wonderful tonal rendering of sensors with fewer megapixels. But I don't think I've ever seen any examples illustrating the difference (in the same scene) between "same size sensor/more vs fewer megapixels".

**Ed Hurst** · 03-14-2021, 03:44 PM - **3 Likes**

At any given stage of technological development, it's tended to be true that smaller pixels produce more noise. So, assuming we keep sensor size constant, higher resolution can come at the risk of increased noise and decreased light-capturing ability (so reduced sensitivity, DR, etc.). Obviously, the situation is more complex than this because some manufacturers achieve better results than others, processing can manage noise to some extent, and - of course - sensor size is not a constant (so getting a larger sensor means the pixels don't end up as small). However, overall, it's been fair to say that making the pixels too small by packing too many of them in brings these downsides - there's generally a sweet spot between resolution and these factors.

However, the key thing above is "at any given stage of technological development". With each generation of development, it has proven possible to achieve higher resolution or lower noise (or some combination of both) than earlier generations. So this needs to be considered. The 645Z and its sensor is now about 7+ years old; that's an age in digital terms and it speaks volumes for its quality that it still stands up so well. But if you're comparing it to current 100MP sensors, those are newer. I would therefore expect that they will deliver higher resolution without any reductions in quality as a result of noise/DR; that may be so at a pixel level, but certainly will be so at the final viewing size. I say this on the basis of others' experiences, data/samples I have seen and logical conjecture, as I don't have a 100MP camera at this point. It certainly fits with what I have seen in earlier developmental stages of the technology...

Hope this helps!

Ed

jgnfld · 03-14-2021, 04:06 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by PhilRich

What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor? This is a curiosity question. I have always thought that a larger pixel sensor has an advantage but am not really educated on the subject. As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any.

More to the point, what might be gained?

What is the angular resolution of your lensing system? NOTHING is gained by having a system where the rest of the system won't project photons on to single sensor pixels when at its angular resolution limit.

Hubble optimizes for this. There are a number of sensors but the Wide Field camera sensor (actually 2 half-size sensors side by side) is 4000x4000 or 16 megapixels. But those pixels are matched as perfectly as possible to the angular resolution limit of the Hubble mirror.

If light were particles this wouldn't be an issue. You'd be able to image just about anything in the visible universe at any level of detail you wanted with a long enough exposure and a sufficiently good mount. Unfortunately, light is not exactly a particle.

**Ed Hurst** · 03-14-2021, 04:32 PM

Yes, all this talk of improvements (or otherwise) to sensors assumes having lenses in front of them that can deliver what the sensors require. I am convinced that the best of the Pentax lenses outresolve the 50MP sensor, but doubt that they all do... And by how much, I also cannot say.

If a good 100MP option comes available and at the right price (which, for me, means similar to the price of the GFX100S), I'll certainly be going for it to find out. As long as test results indicate it performs well at high ISOs and can continuously shoot at least as well as the 645Z.

stevebrot · 03-14-2021, 05:26 PM - **5 Likes**

More pixels?

How big is your hard drive?
How vast is your RAM?
How fast is your processor?
How excellent are your lenses?
How big are your walls?

How deep is your wallet?

Steve

**dms** · 03-14-2021, 06:27 PM

I think it is roughly a "wash." if you down sample by factor of four it is like having twice the diameter as the individual pixel sensor. Whether it is a wash upscaling likely depends on the image and the importance of fine detail.

Last edited by dms; 03-14-2021 at 07:19 PM.

**dadipentak** · 03-14-2021, 06:37 PM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by PhilRich

What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor?

My off-hand answer would be "money."

**AstroDave** · 03-14-2021, 07:11 PM

Well, if your lenses are up to it, more pixels will give you more detail in your image - until diffraction takes over (Mother Nature/Physics can be a bitch - you can't beat Mother Nature).

However, let's take a look, too, at signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Your lens/camera combination will let a certain amount of light through to the detector. All that light (photons - a countable quantity) will be spread out over the detector chip - the same amount per square micron or whatever as a function of the brightness across the image, no matter what the pixel count is. Let's compare a 100 MP chip to a 25 MP chip, covering the same area (full frame, or APS-C). Neglecting any space between the pixels (small, but non-zero), the 25 MP pixels will be twice as wide (up/down AND left/right) as the 100 MP pixels, and therefore have 4 times the area. Hence, they will get 4 times as many photons per same length exposure. Let's call that N photons = the "Signal" (= brightness of our image in that area).

The statistical noise in N photons is the square root of N (again, Mother Nature at work - this is how these devices work), so the SNR in a pixel is N photons/sqrt(N). So, the SNR per pixel (and your image overall) improves as the square root of N. Thus, if the physics of the detector chip (i.e. output signal as a function of input photons, plus what ever electronic noise the chip has) is the same for the two detectors, the SNR will be better for the bigger (more area) pixels.

As it happens, the performance of CCD/CMOS detectors with regard to intrinsic noise (effects above and beyond the square root of N) per pixel has improved as time goes by, so many of the newer, more Megapixel chips do have improved performance, but at some point Mother Nature will step in again. And, the typical sensor is already operating at a quantum efficiency (the conversion of photons to charge accumulated in a pixel) of 50% or more across most of the optical spectrum (i.e. there is NO room for improvement here!).

So, yes - in some situations (probably more dependent on the quality of your lenses, as well as f-stop choice - at somewhere between f/11 and f/16 the K-1 is diffraction limited at 36 MP) more MP will give you higher resolution, but probably with more noise as well.

**pentaxus** · 03-14-2021, 09:52 PM

A friend recently got a new EOS 5D IV and was complaining about how noisy the shadows are compared to his EOS 5D III. More pixels, more noise.

**Ed Hurst** · 03-14-2021, 10:32 PM

Comparing 5Diii to 5Div is within the same general stage of tech, I think - thus more pixels, more noise. But 5Diii compared to 5D is more pixels without more noise. So the key thing is significant shifts in generations of sensor technology. And Canon isn't at the forefront of sensor tech, methinks. There is a relationship between pixel size (and hence resolution) and noise, but it's not a fixed relationship when compared across generations. We keep thinking that, at some point, we're reaching diminishing returns with these improvements in tech, and they keep proving us wrong, but I guess at some point that must happen.

**TDvN57** · 03-15-2021, 02:56 AM - **1 Like**

I think the diminishing returns will be when the pixels are smaller than the wavelength of the light to be captured. Although the smartphones with 100mpx sensors use pixel binning, which opens a whole different set of opportunities.

Perhaps AI, or more correctly I guess machine learning will enable manufacturers to push the limits further. To what end exactly I don't know, because beyond human vision and super large prints there is not much purpose in pushing the pixel race indefinitely.

Methinks, as you say....

On a side note, I see some people doubt whether the older Pentax lenses will be able to resolve enough detail for a 100 or 150mpx sensor. I was thinking that if the 645 lenses can resolve enough detail on the KP and the K3 models then it should be able to resolve sufficient detail for the 100 and 150mpx sensors. They all have similar pixels pitch. Thoughts on this?

Would be interesting to see some of the Pentax lens resolution performance on the Fuji 100.

**Ed Hurst** · 03-15-2021, 03:40 AM - **3 Likes**

I agree with you, Theuns - the resolution that some 645 lenses are delivering on smaller formats, which of course have the sort of pixel density that a 100MP or 150MP medium format sensor would require, suggests that those lenses (at least in the centre of the frame) would do well on such medium format sensors. To pick a few examples, I am quite sure that the 28-45 DA, the 90mm DFA, the 6x7 75mm f2.8AL, the 6x7 300 mm EDIF (and some others) would do just fine on a 100MP sensor. I can't prove it just now, but maybe one day I will be able to!

On your other point, I am reminded of something that an old friend of mine used to say. "Only stop when the camera is resolving more detail than the real world! Unless each pixel is smaller than a quark, it's not enough resolution! But make sure you keep massive depth of field as well!" (he was actually talking about film grain rather than pixels, but the point still stands)

And before anyone asks, yes, I did make my friend up. It was actually me who used to say that :-)

jgnfld · 03-15-2021, 05:26 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Ed Hurst

...

On your other point, I am reminded of something that an old friend of mine used to say. "Only stop when the camera is resolving more detail than the real world! Unless each pixel is smaller than a quark, it's not enough resolution! But make sure you keep massive depth of field as well!" (he was actually talking about film grain rather than pixels, but the point still stands)

And before anyone asks, yes, I did make my friend up. It was actually me who used to say that :-)

Only problem with this is I don't think it will really be economic for each viewer to have to employ a supercollider sensor to "see" my prints! (Well should preons exist, you might need to increase your resolution still higher.

I think the fine art photographers who have contributed should be listened to. I love looking at truly high resolution photographs of art, but truth to tell the deeper levels of detail are completely hidden from sight unless zoomed in on. That means you are looking at what really is a different image at that point, NOT a "better" version of the full size view.

texandrews · 03-15-2021, 07:18 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by jgnfld

I think the fine art photographers who have contributed should be listened to. I love looking at truly high resolution photographs of art, but truth to tell the deeper levels of detail are completely hidden from sight unless zoomed in on. That means you are looking at what really is a different image at that point, NOT a "better" version of the full size view.

Fine art photographers as in artists(who are vastly different in their spectrum), or fine arts repro photographers? If the former, it all depends on what they are up to with respect to image size. Some of the Dusseldorf School's artists work huge, like Candida Hofer, as does the Canadian Jeff Wall. They used film mostly, but if one was doing something like this today then the highest mp cameras would be an asset. For me in my artwork the upper size limit has mostly to do with the practical limits of a floated, framed work of another way to present an image I'll keep to myself at this point---but in these cases the short side limitation for the frame would be around 60-70 inches/150-180cm, with a longest length of just past 200 inches/500cm. The cost and weight of such a floated work becomes the defining factor for me. It's such a burden that I haven't attempted any yet, but hope to do some in the next 5 years. My Z files need stitching or uprezzing to get to these sizes on the short axis as it is. I'd be happier to not need to do that so much with a higher mp camera.

For the latter purpose in my museum work, there's no real size limit, as more mp means the ability to photograph an entire work and be able to crop any part of it for curatorial or conservation purposes w/o having to go to the extra expense and time of taking macro shots of or the entire surface. It's just much easier. These are born digital files that can stay digital for research purposes.

Are these niche purposes? Yes.

03-14-2021, 02:43 PM	#1
PhilRich Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Western Washington Posts: 204	In going to 100mp What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor? This is a curiosity question. I have always thought that a larger pixel sensor has an advantage but am not really educated on the subject. As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any.

03-14-2021, 05:26 PM - 5 Likes	#6
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	More pixels? How big is your hard drive? How vast is your RAM? How fast is your processor? How excellent are your lenses? How big are your walls? How deep is your wallet? Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 03-14-2021 at 07:51 PM.

03-14-2021, 07:11 PM	#9
AstroDave Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Flagstaff, Arizona Posts: 1,637	Well, if your lenses are up to it, more pixels will give you more detail in your image - until diffraction takes over (Mother Nature/Physics can be a bitch - you can't beat Mother Nature). However, let's take a look, too, at signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Your lens/camera combination will let a certain amount of light through to the detector. All that light (photons - a countable quantity) will be spread out over the detector chip - the same amount per square micron or whatever as a function of the brightness across the image, no matter what the pixel count is. Let's compare a 100 MP chip to a 25 MP chip, covering the same area (full frame, or APS-C). Neglecting any space between the pixels (small, but non-zero), the 25 MP pixels will be twice as wide (up/down AND left/right) as the 100 MP pixels, and therefore have 4 times the area. Hence, they will get 4 times as many photons per same length exposure. Let's call that N photons = the "Signal" (= brightness of our image in that area). The statistical noise in N photons is the square root of N (again, Mother Nature at work - this is how these devices work), so the SNR in a pixel is N photons/sqrt(N). So, the SNR per pixel (and your image overall) improves as the square root of N. Thus, if the physics of the detector chip (i.e. output signal as a function of input photons, plus what ever electronic noise the chip has) is the same for the two detectors, the SNR will be better for the bigger (more area) pixels. As it happens, the performance of CCD/CMOS detectors with regard to intrinsic noise (effects above and beyond the square root of N) per pixel has improved as time goes by, so many of the newer, more Megapixel chips do have improved performance, but at some point Mother Nature will step in again. And, the typical sensor is already operating at a quantum efficiency (the conversion of photons to charge accumulated in a pixel) of 50% or more across most of the optical spectrum (i.e. there is NO room for improvement here!). So, yes - in some situations (probably more dependent on the quality of your lenses, as well as f-stop choice - at somewhere between f/11 and f/16 the K-1 is diffraction limited at 36 MP) more MP will give you higher resolution, but probably with more noise as well. Last edited by AstroDave; 03-14-2021 at 08:08 PM. Reason: change "smaller pixels to bigger pixels!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The "compact" mediumFormat Fuji.100mp.	surfar	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	04-24-2021 03:12 AM
Fuji GFX100s - 100MP Cropped Medium Format for under $6,000??	Winder	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	171	03-21-2021 11:28 AM
GFX 100mp overview.	surfar	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	75	10-10-2019 11:48 AM
100MP Sensor released	2351HD	Pentax Medium Format	26	05-24-2019 05:38 AM
Nature Going, Going, Going, Gone	Kerrowdown	Post Your Photos!	10	07-25-2018 01:32 PM

03-14-2021, 03:03 PM	#2
eles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2021 Posts: 51	Originally posted by PhilRich What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor? This is a curiosity question. I have always thought that a larger pixel sensor has an advantage but am not really educated on the subject. As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any. Originally posted by PhilRich As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any. I have this same question. Often comments are made about the fine/nice/wonderful tonal rendering of sensors with fewer megapixels. But I don't think I've ever seen any examples illustrating the difference (in the same scene) between "same size sensor/more vs fewer megapixels".

03-14-2021, 03:44 PM - 3 Likes	#3
Ed Hurst Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,657	At any given stage of technological development, it's tended to be true that smaller pixels produce more noise. So, assuming we keep sensor size constant, higher resolution can come at the risk of increased noise and decreased light-capturing ability (so reduced sensitivity, DR, etc.). Obviously, the situation is more complex than this because some manufacturers achieve better results than others, processing can manage noise to some extent, and - of course - sensor size is not a constant (so getting a larger sensor means the pixels don't end up as small). However, overall, it's been fair to say that making the pixels too small by packing too many of them in brings these downsides - there's generally a sweet spot between resolution and these factors. However, the key thing above is "at any given stage of technological development". With each generation of development, it has proven possible to achieve higher resolution or lower noise (or some combination of both) than earlier generations. So this needs to be considered. The 645Z and its sensor is now about 7+ years old; that's an age in digital terms and it speaks volumes for its quality that it still stands up so well. But if you're comparing it to current 100MP sensors, those are newer. I would therefore expect that they will deliver higher resolution without any reductions in quality as a result of noise/DR; that may be so at a pixel level, but certainly will be so at the final viewing size. I say this on the basis of others' experiences, data/samples I have seen and logical conjecture, as I don't have a 100MP camera at this point. It certainly fits with what I have seen in earlier developmental stages of the technology... Hope this helps! Ed

03-14-2021, 04:06 PM - 2 Likes	#4
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,789	Originally posted by PhilRich What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor? This is a curiosity question. I have always thought that a larger pixel sensor has an advantage but am not really educated on the subject. As more pixels are located in the same size sensor what qualities are lost such as loss of shadow detail, etc. Or, if any. More to the point, what might be gained? What is the angular resolution of your lensing system? NOTHING is gained by having a system where the rest of the system won't project photons on to single sensor pixels when at its angular resolution limit. Hubble optimizes for this. There are a number of sensors but the Wide Field camera sensor (actually 2 half-size sensors side by side) is 4000x4000 or 16 megapixels. But those pixels are matched as perfectly as possible to the angular resolution limit of the Hubble mirror. If light were particles this wouldn't be an issue. You'd be able to image just about anything in the visible universe at any level of detail you wanted with a long enough exposure and a sufficiently good mount. Unfortunately, light is not exactly a particle.

03-14-2021, 04:32 PM	#5
Ed Hurst Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,657	Yes, all this talk of improvements (or otherwise) to sensors assumes having lenses in front of them that can deliver what the sensors require. I am convinced that the best of the Pentax lenses outresolve the 50MP sensor, but doubt that they all do... And by how much, I also cannot say. If a good 100MP option comes available and at the right price (which, for me, means similar to the price of the GFX100S), I'll certainly be going for it to find out. As long as test results indicate it performs well at high ISOs and can continuously shoot at least as well as the 645Z.

03-14-2021, 06:27 PM	#7
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	I think it is roughly a "wash." if you down sample by factor of four it is like having twice the diameter as the individual pixel sensor. Whether it is a wash upscaling likely depends on the image and the importance of fine detail. Last edited by dms; 03-14-2021 at 07:19 PM.

03-14-2021, 06:37 PM - 4 Likes	#8
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by PhilRich What is lost by going from a 50mp to a 100mp sensor? My off-hand answer would be "money."

03-14-2021, 09:52 PM	#10
pentaxus Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central Coast, CA Posts: 1,314	A friend recently got a new EOS 5D IV and was complaining about how noisy the shadows are compared to his EOS 5D III. More pixels, more noise.

03-14-2021, 10:32 PM	#11
Ed Hurst Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,657	Comparing 5Diii to 5Div is within the same general stage of tech, I think - thus more pixels, more noise. But 5Diii compared to 5D is more pixels without more noise. So the key thing is significant shifts in generations of sensor technology. And Canon isn't at the forefront of sensor tech, methinks. There is a relationship between pixel size (and hence resolution) and noise, but it's not a fixed relationship when compared across generations. We keep thinking that, at some point, we're reaching diminishing returns with these improvements in tech, and they keep proving us wrong, but I guess at some point that must happen.

03-15-2021, 02:56 AM - 1 Like	#12
TDvN57 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Berlin Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,149	I think the diminishing returns will be when the pixels are smaller than the wavelength of the light to be captured. Although the smartphones with 100mpx sensors use pixel binning, which opens a whole different set of opportunities. Perhaps AI, or more correctly I guess machine learning will enable manufacturers to push the limits further. To what end exactly I don't know, because beyond human vision and super large prints there is not much purpose in pushing the pixel race indefinitely. Methinks, as you say.... On a side note, I see some people doubt whether the older Pentax lenses will be able to resolve enough detail for a 100 or 150mpx sensor. I was thinking that if the 645 lenses can resolve enough detail on the KP and the K3 models then it should be able to resolve sufficient detail for the 100 and 150mpx sensors. They all have similar pixels pitch. Thoughts on this? Would be interesting to see some of the Pentax lens resolution performance on the Fuji 100.

03-15-2021, 03:40 AM - 3 Likes	#13
Ed Hurst Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,657	I agree with you, Theuns - the resolution that some 645 lenses are delivering on smaller formats, which of course have the sort of pixel density that a 100MP or 150MP medium format sensor would require, suggests that those lenses (at least in the centre of the frame) would do well on such medium format sensors. To pick a few examples, I am quite sure that the 28-45 DA, the 90mm DFA, the 6x7 75mm f2.8AL, the 6x7 300 mm EDIF (and some others) would do just fine on a 100MP sensor. I can't prove it just now, but maybe one day I will be able to! On your other point, I am reminded of something that an old friend of mine used to say. "Only stop when the camera is resolving more detail than the real world! Unless each pixel is smaller than a quark, it's not enough resolution! But make sure you keep massive depth of field as well!" (he was actually talking about film grain rather than pixels, but the point still stands) And before anyone asks, yes, I did make my friend up. It was actually me who used to say that :-)

03-15-2021, 05:26 AM - 1 Like	#14
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,789	Originally posted by Ed Hurst ... On your other point, I am reminded of something that an old friend of mine used to say. "Only stop when the camera is resolving more detail than the real world! Unless each pixel is smaller than a quark, it's not enough resolution! But make sure you keep massive depth of field as well!" (he was actually talking about film grain rather than pixels, but the point still stands) And before anyone asks, yes, I did make my friend up. It was actually me who used to say that :-) Only problem with this is I don't think it will really be economic for each viewer to have to employ a supercollider sensor to "see" my prints! (Well should preons exist, you might need to increase your resolution still higher. I think the fine art photographers who have contributed should be listened to. I love looking at truly high resolution photographs of art, but truth to tell the deeper levels of detail are completely hidden from sight unless zoomed in on. That means you are looking at what really is a different image at that point, NOT a "better" version of the full size view.

03-15-2021, 07:18 AM - 2 Likes	#15
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,393	Originally posted by jgnfld I think the fine art photographers who have contributed should be listened to. I love looking at truly high resolution photographs of art, but truth to tell the deeper levels of detail are completely hidden from sight unless zoomed in on. That means you are looking at what really is a different image at that point, NOT a "better" version of the full size view. Fine art photographers as in artists(who are vastly different in their spectrum), or fine arts repro photographers? If the former, it all depends on what they are up to with respect to image size. Some of the Dusseldorf School's artists work huge, like Candida Hofer, as does the Canadian Jeff Wall. They used film mostly, but if one was doing something like this today then the highest mp cameras would be an asset. For me in my artwork the upper size limit has mostly to do with the practical limits of a floated, framed work of another way to present an image I'll keep to myself at this point---but in these cases the short side limitation for the frame would be around 60-70 inches/150-180cm, with a longest length of just past 200 inches/500cm. The cost and weight of such a floated work becomes the defining factor for me. It's such a burden that I haven't attempted any yet, but hope to do some in the next 5 years. My Z files need stitching or uprezzing to get to these sizes on the short axis as it is. I'd be happier to not need to do that so much with a higher mp camera. For the latter purpose in my museum work, there's no real size limit, as more mp means the ability to photograph an entire work and be able to crop any part of it for curatorial or conservation purposes w/o having to go to the extra expense and time of taking macro shots of or the entire surface. It's just much easier. These are born digital files that can stay digital for research purposes. Are these niche purposes? Yes.