# 1DXR Speculation



## Meatcurry (Aug 5, 2016)

Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC? If so are my maths correct if the 24mp is scaled up it will be 62mp? 

I'm just speculating on the sensor the 1DXR will have. Also wondering what FPS it could achieve?


----------



## FEBS (Aug 5, 2016)

I don't know where you got that rumor, but I do not expect 1DX high resolution body. Why would it need those dimensions? Why a high fps? The high resolution body is already there, it's the 5Ds(R).


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 5, 2016)

FEBS said:


> I don't know where you got that rumor, but I do not expect 1DX high resolution body. Why would it need those dimensions? Why a high fps? The high resolution body is already there, it's the 5Ds(R).



Well that would be from here:- https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5301008561/cp-2015-canon-interview-every-day-im-saying-speed-up
were Mr Maeda states that a High MP 1D body is under consideration.

I'm just speculating on what the high MP sensor in a 1D body will be. I think you might be surprised how many people would be into a 1D that could shoot 50MP @ 8-10FPS


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 5, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where you got that rumor, but I do not expect 1DX high resolution body. Why would it need those dimensions? Why a high fps? The high resolution body is already there, it's the 5Ds(R).
> ...



He says it is 'under consideration' which is a world away from seriously developing it. 
For the iDx, the key is how to increase sensor detail without compromising accuracy of focus and shutter speed and Canon take great care to prioritise the different factors to meet what they see as the prime factors of the target market for a particular use. More detail means more data and if you look at the 1Dx2 and the 7D2 together, 12-14 fps with 20MP seems about the maximum they can have to achieve both of those aims. 

IMO the 1DxII is such an awesome machine that there is no huge rush to release a high-res version by which time all the technologies (sensor, processor, battery) will have changed so much it is pointless speculating.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 5, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> it is pointless speculating.



Shut Canon Rumors now!!!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 5, 2016)

rcarca said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > it is pointless speculating.
> ...



;D


----------



## AlanF (Aug 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC? If so are my maths correct if the 24mp is scaled up it will be 62mp?
> ...



Dilbert?


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC? If so are my maths correct if the 24mp is scaled up it will be 62mp?
> ...



Yeah, you don't seem to understand, this is not a replacement for the 1DX, it's a separate model aimed at high end studio/landscape and possibly sports/wildlife at 8-10 FPS


----------



## brianftpc (Aug 5, 2016)

There is absolutely no reason for Canon to create more competition for itself. I own the 1dx mk2 and the 5DsR. I need better low light high ISO...PERIOD!!!! The next high MP camera must have better low light. It can even stay 50MP as long as it has DPAF and a clean 1080P hdmi out.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 5, 2016)

I found a need for such a body last year in blizzard followed by melting snow conditions while shooting wildlife. I found my 5DsR to be inadequate.

But the thought of downloading card after card of huge files shot at 10 fps isn't very appealing.

I doubt a 1DxR will happen any time soon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Yet another baseless generalisation.

I'd happily take 8-10 fps and high resolution, as a generalist I can use it all!

If you are going to bracket for landscape then high fps can help with subject movement a lot. If I can get and carry one camera instead of two I'm happy, even if the combined price is more than the two separate options.

I'd be very happy to have a 1DXs with 50MP and 8-10 fps, my printing is getting bigger and bigger, customers expectations are getting bigger too. Just watch a GoPro reel on a 65" 4k TV to see what people expect nowadays.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC? If so are my maths correct if the 24mp is scaled up it will be 62mp?
> ...



+1


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC?...



Not quite. 7DII and 70D are dual pixel sensors. 5Ds is not.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC? If so are my maths correct if the 24mp is scaled up it will be 62mp?
> ...



It isn't as if they'd always be forced to mash on burst most. It would be there if needed.

That being said, if there is a true successor to the 1Ds lineup, I don't suspect it will be super high framerate.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 5, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> Yeah, you don't seem to understand, this is not a replacement for the 1DX, it's a separate model aimed at high end studio/landscape and possibly sports/wildlife at 8-10 FPS



What advantage would such a camera have over the 5D or 5DS/R for landscape/studio?
Which leaves us with sports/wildlife - the 5D gives 6fps and the 1DX2 gives 14 fps. Is 8FPS really much different? which means it would effectively be a replacement for the 1DX2.

I can understand the rationale of having two parallel 5D models (OK, 3) in that the 5D3 as I understand it was original intended as 1Dx-lite and replaced the APS-H models - it was for photographers with a wider range of subjects and so wildlife/sports is less high-priority which meant they did not need the supreme performance or the rugged build that the 1Dx gives you. In those terms a high-resolution sensor that compromises frame rate is less important than an all-action camera and there was a distinct market for it.

Given the target market for 1Dx I can see less rationale for a paralell model which is why they phased out the APS-H cameras. So a high-res 1Dx would be intended to replace the 1Dx2


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 5, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> There is absolutely no reason for Canon to create more competition for itself. I own the 1dx mk2 and the 5DsR. I need better low light high ISO...PERIOD!!!! The next high MP camera must have better low light. It can even stay 50MP as long as it has DPAF and a clean 1080P hdmi out.



I think it is going to be a while before you see a 50MP+ camera with DPAF, in essence it would of course be a 100MP sensor, dual pixel and all.



dilbert said:


> High end studio/landscape don't need/want 8-10 FPS, in fact many would be happy with less than 3 (just look at how many FPS things like PhaseOne MFDBs do.)



Every time I see 3FPS and then head off to my 7D and bracket 3 shots, I'm like, holly crap, 1 second of elapse time over the bracket. Wow, stuff can move a lot in that second.

I don't give a rats butt if the buffer is 5 images long, if I am shooting landscape I want to be able to bracket quickly.


----------



## pvalpha (Aug 6, 2016)

Seems to me that the op is actually describing a 1Ds mark V. A high resolution studio camera built to the specifications of a 1 series but with the capabilities of the 5Ds/r. Its one thing to take a 5d and its siblings out with you on a nice sunny day... but quite another when you're going somewhere that you know the sky might open up with a wall of water or ice at any moment. Something they won't be afraid to take with them on any random day without checking the forecast first. And the extra size to squeeze in a bit more processing power and battery so that they can get a few more FPS out of it. Target audience would be those who consider their studio to be the side of a mountain, the edge of the ocean on the rocks, or a 4 week trip through the Amazon. Where as the 1Dx is targeting those who like to get up close and personal with linebackers and strikers, snap off images in combat zones, and rapidly get that shot of some hostile superstar in those moments between licking cupcakes and their body guard hitting you with a fist the size of a holiday ham.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2016)

I don't understand why everyone flips out when someone argues the 1D line could use a high MP sensor. Consider:

[list type=decimal]
[*]
*People might want to get over the notion that high FPS is 'why you buy a 1D rig':*

High fps does not define the 1D line, it's just the eye-popping spec everyone dwells on. 1D bodies have a TON of exclusive stuff that has nothing to do with speed and landscape / studio folks would give their left nut for it.

And I personally find the 'backing out the bandwidth math' as missing the point. 20 MP X 16 fps = 50 MP X 6.5 fps is not the point. People want a top of the line rig (on a host of fronts other than fps) that gathers more detail than the 1DX2. I'd bet folks would be just fine with a 3 fps high detail monster if it did everything else at a 1D-level of performance -- I mean it.


[*]*Recognize that some folks need high resolution and don't want to settle for a (wince as I say it) 2nd class rig to get it. *

If you've been using a 1Ds rig for years and now have the choice to upgrade to a 1D feature set (1DX2) OR get high resolution (5DS), that's like a choice of having a dream car OR having a right hand to shift gears. Some folks need both, have the money for both, and are SOL right now (in the EF mount world).

[/list]

So the need is there. The question is how big is that need and would Canon make any money on such a rig? Perhaps enough of the landscapers and studio folks are (a) happy enough with the 5DS line or (b) gave up on EF in favor of medium format to discourage Canon from offering a 1Ds Mk IV sort of rig.

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 6, 2016)

I'm not lucky enough to be able to afford, or need a 1dx let alone a 1dxii currently. But one thing I think about is the completely different layouts of the 1dx line vs the 5d line. If the option was there, given I was in the position to purchase either, I would like to have two of the same bodies one performing high fps and one with high Mp. Those who own a 1dx/1dx2 and a 5dsr/5d3 as a back up of some sorts, would you prefer the same button lay out, or does the smaller size trump that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 6, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC? If so are my maths correct if the 24mp is scaled up it will be 62mp?
> 
> I'm just speculating on the sensor the 1DXR will have. Also wondering what FPS it could achieve?



No, its not a upscaled sensor. You do not merely add more pixels and keep the design the same otherwise. Obviously, engineers do reuse as much as possible, but its very difficult to design a sensor, more readout channels are needed for large sensors and the onboard NR amplifiers are customized, it becomes something almost entirely new before it finally works. Having 50 MP worth of photosites, versus getting a sensor that actually produces a 50 mp image is a huge step. That's why we see sensors being recycled from model to model, development is extremely costly. The cost of the actual production can be fairly low, but you must recover years worth of R&D, testing, and tooling, so you want high production rates, or a high priced camera.

I could see a 1D model using the existing 50mp sensor with a few tweaks to overcome some of its current limitations, but any major changes and its going to be expensive. Canon has said that their dual pixel sensor is expensive to manufacture, which is why we haven't yet seen it in low cost cameras. Once the production costs drop as they learn how to churn them out in larger quantities, they will be in all the cameras.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I don't understand why everyone flips out when someone argues the 1D line could use a high MP sensor...
> 
> ...*Recognize that some folks need high resolution and don't want to settle for a (wince as I say it) 2nd class rig to get it. *...
> 
> ...So the need is there. The question is how big is that need and would Canon make any money on such a rig?



I don't think "everyone flips out" but I do think that most of the people who argue for high megapixel sensors seldom articulate a "need" that goes beyond, "I want one."

Generally, I think that the people who object are users who don't want to accept the compromises that a high megapixel sensor brings with it. Many also doubt that the market does exist.

You can count me among the skeptics.

I would like to see someone articulate a genuine need and link that need to a large market. It isn't needed for billboard size printing, it isn't needed for printing on the side of buses and it isn't even need for banners that hang down the side of a building. (My 5D files have been used for all three.)

It isn't needed for print or web. 

I could see some interest among artists. I've seen the video of Martin Parr using the 5Ds to make life sized prints of subjects and I expect that Andreas Gursky might find the large files interesting, but how big of a market is that? Maybe a couple dozen across the world – at most.

Possibly some technical applications. Surveillance cameras or microscope photography, but I expect that those are not off-the-shelf models, so it's irrelevant to this discussion. And, again, not huge market.

So, when you say "the need is there" I'd love to hear what that need is. And, for extra credit, I'd love to see a reasonable estimate of the market.


----------



## eml58 (Aug 7, 2016)

It's an interesting discussion, at least I think so.

My recent rip to Sthe Africa, Kenya & Botswana I had 2 x 1Dx II Bodies (My Son was with me & used 1 of them), plus the H6D 50c and 5 Hasselblad Lenses 28, 55, 210 & 300.

The 1Dx II was either being used on single shot, or 14fps, depending.

The H6D was always used at it's maximum frame rate, 1.5 fps.

On a number of occasions I was on the ground with the H6D shooting Elephants walking by at approximately 5 to 8 metre distance, using the 28 or 55, I would have loved, just loved to have had this Camera shooting 8 to 10fps. I could have used the 1Dx II, But there were clouds in the background & I simply wanted that huge file to play with and all the benefits that come from Medium Format.

So, 1DxR 50MP @ 14fps ?? and improved low light performance, I'll take 2.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2016)

As a long time owner and user of the 1DS MkIII, since back when 21MP was huge, I'd happily take a higher resolution 1DXS. 

Not fussed about the 50MP, or the 14fps, I'd happily compromise on the two, but I'd compromise on the fps first.

For me personally I am a generalist and want one camera to deliver everything I need. I shoot a bit of sports, a few weddings, product, studio, landscapes, travel, etc. and I am finding my clients want bigger prints as well as low resolution web images and newsprint.

Ideally I'd personally like 16 bit RAW files with 16 bits of information, deeper dynamic range, better color handling, 35-40MP, 10fps and no AA filter. 

As I can't have that I know there must be a development 1DX hybrid with a 5DSR sensor in it somewhere in the Canon R&D vaults, give me that! Pretty please.


----------



## Perio (Aug 7, 2016)

eml58 said:


> It's an interesting discussion, at least I think so.
> 
> My recent rip to Sthe Africa, Kenya & Botswana I had 2 x 1Dx II Bodies (My Son was with me & used 1 of them), plus the H6D 50c and 5 Hasselblad Lenses 28, 55, 210 & 300.
> 
> ...



Could you please comment on weather sealing of your Hassy?


----------



## eml58 (Aug 7, 2016)

Perio said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an interesting discussion, at least I think so.
> ...



Yes, the H6D is fully weather sealed, as are the Lenses.

I have put that to the test on the recent trip to Africa in some very dusty conditions, after 5 weeks of using the H6D not a single dust spot on the Sensor, and unlike the 1Dx II where I put the 200-400 on one body and the 100-400 on the other and left them for the duration, the H6D I frequently changed Lenses.

That's Dust, so I expect under reasonable weather conditions the Hassy is as well sealed as the 1Series Bodies from Canon.

I'll know more after this December/January when I'll be testing the H6D 100c on the Snow Monkeys, in Snow (I hope) in Nagano Japan.

I must admit prior to the trip to Africa I was quietly concerned regards Dust and the Sensor, made sure I had plenty of Sensor cleaning gear from Zeiss for the H6D, simply didn't need to use any of it, impressed for a MF Camera.


----------



## Perio (Aug 7, 2016)

eml58 said:


> Perio said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## retroreflection (Aug 7, 2016)

All this talk of frame rate, but that is not the critical improvement one could expect from the 1DxII - FOCUS people!
5DSR arrived and everyone freaked about resolution capability of lenses, shutter induced shake (cool cams were introduced to reduce this shake), tripod stability (internal reinforcements were introduced), and human frailties. Not so much about the autofocus capabilities. That's probably because the 5DIII had a reasonable system for the market at the time. Now, 1DXII has a significantly better AF system.

It is entirely reasonable for Canon's resolution monster to have the best AF system that they can deliver so that all resolution degrading factors are optimized. In a studio, the various generations of AF systems would not show a difference, but we know that some 5DSRs are used on wildlife and sports. In those arenas, the best AF system is warranted.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2016)

AF is the overwhelming reason I got 1DS MkIII's over 5D MkII's. It would be the main reason I got a 1DX MkII over a 5DSR.


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 7, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right to think that the 50mp sensor is a scaled up 20mp APSC?...
> ...



Would that be a limitation of the production techniques, or just that it was not required on the 5DS?


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Meatcurry said:
> ...



No but I reckon they could manage 7-8 FPS, and allow it to run faster in crop mode


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 7, 2016)

For the outdoor photographers: 
Full frame 50MP @ 10fps (40 CR2, >200 JPEG)
12fps in APS-H crop mode (90 CR2, >200 JPEG)
12fps in APS-C crop mode (135 CR2, >200 JPEG)
Reworked 50MP sensor with improved DR, and including DPAF in the APS-C portion of the sensor. 
Much better silent shutter.
8GB buffer. Dual Cfast 2.0
Maybe lighter-weight body, maybe more AF points
Some insane high quality slow-mo for just a few seconds. (e.g. 10bit-UHD at 96fps for 2 seconds)

For the studio photographers:
1Ds-R - 120MP @ 5fps (native ISO 64-3200)
A non-DPAF sensor instead focusing on detail, color and dynamic range. Canon is already working on a 120MP full frame sensor so using 4x4 superpixel interpolation that would give full color at 30MP. Built-in RT transmitter. Dual CFast 2.0.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> For the outdoor photographers:
> Full frame 50MP @ 10fps (40 CR2, >200 JPEG)
> 12fps in APS-H crop mode (90 CR2, >200 JPEG)
> 12fps in APS-C crop mode (135 CR2, >200 JPEG)
> ...



Thanks, I needed a good laugh with my morning coffee!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Meatcurry said:
> ...



It means that the the person who originally posted made a wrong assumption. It also means there is no free lunch. Canon did not put DPAF in the 5Ds for a reason. No one here knows the reason, but a reasonable speculation is that DPAF requires some trade offs. Since the 5Ds is a landscape camera and DPAF is ideally suited for landscape photography, it is reasonable to assume that Canon would have put DPAF into the 5Ds if they could have done so without making other compromises. What those compromises are, I don't know. But, compromised ISO performance might be one of them.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > For the outdoor photographers:
> ...



+1. Will those cameras be delivered by forest fairies riding rainbow unicorns?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 7, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


Are these specs are scientifically impossible?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Are these specs are scientifically impossible?



Probably not. Why does that matter?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Are these specs are scientifically impossible?
> ...


I'm trying to understand why you were laughing.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Was your post a wish list, or like the thread subject, was it speculation?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Yes and yes. 

"I want it all! I want it all! I want it all! I want it all and I want it now!" - Queen


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Because the likelihood of Canon releasing a pair of 1-series bodies with those specs is...laughable. Perhaps they _could_...just as they could decide to sell the 600/4 II for less than the 50/1.8. The latter is only slightly less likely than your spec list wish list pipe dream. I found it quite amusing!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2016)

dilbert said:


> He's an Internet bully and his laughing is a form of bullying by making fun of you.



You appear ignorant of basic facts and are reprehensibly unwilling to make even feeble attempts to verify your information before posting it. If you sound like an idiot (e.g., "The 1D C isn't a dSLR,"), don't be surprised when someone characterizes your statements as idiotic. But...because I call you on your constant gaffes and point out your _repeated_ failures, you feel justified in labeling me inappropriately? Well, it's no surprise – you've thoroughly established your complete lack of credibility.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



If its a wishlist why stop at 50MP at 10 fps? 
If it is supposed to be a stab at what is technically feasible the killer question is 'so why have they not done it'?

I am sure Canon would love to do it and would have done it if it was (a) feasible and (b) marketable.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > He's an Internet bully and his laughing is a form of bullying by making fun of you.
> ...



I'm sure he thoroughly researched the topic before he claimed that The C-Fast card glitch had to be Canon's fault since he couldn't find anything on the internet about C-Fast cards failing in Nikons. That is, until I pointed out that anyone putting a C-Fast card in a Nikon would be guaranteed a failure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2016)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure he thoroughly researched the topic before he claimed that The C-Fast card glitch had to be Canon's fault since he couldn't find anything on the internet about C-Fast cards failing in Nikons. That is, until I pointed out that anyone putting a C-Fast card in a Nikon would be guaranteed a failure.
> ...



One thing I do know, no Canon camera has ever had an issue with XQD cards, and Nikon cameras have a 100% failure rate with CFast cards.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 8, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


This is in good spirit! Now all we need is Sabaki to throw in some Chuck Norris jokes and we can call it a day.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 8, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


My wishlist is compatible with my planned computer hardware upgrades.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 8, 2016)

2.2. Spatial Resolution and System MTF versus Pixel Size
For a fixed sensor die size, decreasing pixel size increases pixel count. This results in higher spatial sampling
and a potential improvement in the system's modulation transfer function (MTF) provided the resolution
is not limited by the imaging optics. For an image sensor, the Nyquist frequency is simply one half of the
reciprocal of the center-to-center pixel spacing. Image frequency components above the Nyquist frequency
cannot be reproduced accurately by the sensor and result in aliasing. The system MTF measures how well
the system reproduces the spatial structure of the input scene below the Nyquist frequency and is defined to
be the ratio of the output modulation to the input modulation as a function of input spatial frequency.7'8
Under certain simplifying assumptions, the system MTF can be expressed as the product of the optical
MTF, geometric MTF, and diffusion MTF.7 Each component causes low pass filtering, which degrades the
response at higher frequencies. In our study, we only account for the optical and geometric MTF. Figure 2(b)
plots system MTF as a function of the input spatial frequency for different pixel sizes. The results are again
for the O.35i process mentioned before. Note that as we decrease pixel size the Nyquist frequency increases
and MTF improves. The reason for the MTF improvement is that reducing pixel size reduces the low pass
filtering due to geometric MTF.
In summary, a small pixel size is desirable because it results in higher spatial resolution and better MTF.
A large pixel size is desirable because it results in better DR and SNR. Therefore, there must exist a pixel size that is "optimum". 

This is taken from a Stanford paper. If Canon goes ahead with a 120MP Full Frame camera how many of your existing lenses will benefit from those smaller pixels? How much of that spatial resolution will you achieve? and what will the system MTF be? 
Clearly Canon are upgrading their lens line-up and know what they are working on for the future. The EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM, the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS ISM II, the EF 35mm f1.4L II are all examples of lenses with optical improvement. But always remember dramatically changing pixel size changes system MTF and therefor the "system" needs to reflect that change.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 8, 2016)

LOL 1DXR...I had a good chuckle when I read that ;D


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 8, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> 2.2. Spatial Resolution and System MTF versus Pixel Size
> For a fixed sensor die size, decreasing pixel size increases pixel count. This results in higher spatial sampling
> and a potential improvement in the system's modulation transfer function (MTF) provided the resolution
> is not limited by the imaging optics. For an image sensor, the Nyquist frequency is simply one half of the
> ...


All of my lenses will benefit from more resolution. But that is not to say that given a 120MP camera that I would use the camera as 120MP for every image. I see myself using the captured data for a superpixel interpolation resulting in a higher-bit-depth 30MP file.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> All of my lenses will benefit from more resolution. But that is not to say that given a 120MP camera that I would use the camera as 120MP for every image. I see myself using the captured data for a superpixel interpolation resulting in a higher-bit-depth 30MP file.



I have no idea if this technique is used already, but and (for example) a 120MP sensor would it be feasible to have 2 sets of circuitry - one to carry data pixel-by-pixel to the processor, each pixel with its own noise level giving 120MP resolution; and one circuit that combines the signal from 4 pixels in a way that would swamp noise and give a 30MP resolution. You choose the circuitry to suit the occasion.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 8, 2016)

So would it be feasible to combine two shots in camera to get the best of both worlds? Dumb question?

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> So would it be feasible to combine two shots in camera to get the best of both worlds? Dumb question?
> 
> Jack



That is what NASA's latest HDR video camera is doing. http://gameon.nasa.gov/2016/08/06/revolutionary-camera-recording-propulsion-data-completes-groundbreaking-test/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > So would it be feasible to combine two shots in camera to get the best of both worlds? Dumb question?
> ...



Thanks! Is there a good consumer level text description of the process, that you've read?

Jack


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 8, 2016)

Maybe a long while before we see a consumer version!


----------

