# Canon's 120mp APS-H Sensor



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 24, 2010)

```
<p><strong>So you thought the megapixel race was over?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">This will probably be in the 1D Mark IX</span></strong></p>
<p><strong>TOKYO, August 24, 2010</strong>Ã¢â‚¬â€Canon Inc. announced today that it has successfully developed an APS-H-size*1 CMOS image sensor that delivers an image resolution of approximately 120 megapixels (13,280 x 9,184 pixels), the world’s highest level*2 of resolution for its size.<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/p2010aug24a.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-4794" title="APS-H 120mp CMOS" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/p2010aug24a.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></a></p>
<p>Compared with Canon’s highest-resolution commercial CMOS sensor of the same size, comprising approximately 16.1 million pixels, the newly developed sensor features a pixel count that, at approximately 120 million pixels, is nearly 7.5 times larger and offers a 2.4-fold improvement in resolution.*3</p>
<p>With CMOS sensors, while high-speed readout for high pixel counts is achieved through parallel processing, an increase in parallel-processing signal counts can result in such problems as signal delays and minor deviations in timing. By modifying the method employed to control the readout circuit timing, Canon successfully achieved the high-speed readout of sensor signals. As a result, the new CMOS sensor makes possible a maximum output speed of approximately 9.5 frames per second, supporting the continuous shooting of ultra-high-resolution images.</p>
<p>Canon’s newly developed CMOS sensor also incorporates a Full HD (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) video output capability. The sensor can output Full HD video from any approximately one-sixtieth-sized section of its total surface area.</p>
<p>Images captured with Canon’s newly developed approximately 120-megapixel CMOS image sensor, even when cropped or digitally magnified, maintain higher levels of definition and clarity than ever before. Additionally, the sensor enables image confirmation across a wide image area, with Full HD video viewing of a select portion of the overall frame.</p>
<p>Through the further development of CMOS image sensors, Canon will break new ground in the world of image expression, targeting new still images that largely surpass those made possible with film, and video movies that capitalize on the unique merits of SLR cameras, namely their high mobility and the expressive power offered through interchangeable lenses.</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">

</span></strong></p>
<p class="facebook"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/canons-120mp-aps-h-sensor/" target="_blank" title="Share on Facebook">Share on Facebook</a></p>
```


----------



## kufucius (Aug 24, 2010)

C'mon Canon,

Please just give us (or me at least) a SMALLER Pixel count FULL FRAME "1" body (Much like Nikon D3, D3s), I just DON'T flippin need that much pixels... BUT I want FULL FRAME!!! sigh...


----------



## kubelik (Aug 24, 2010)

I know I'm not nearly good enough with the physics to know this for sure, but wouldn't a 120 MP APS-H have a ridiculously low bar for lens diffraction? I mean, given that diffraction is setting in now for 17 MP APS-C sensors at about f/5.6, what would it be for this? f/1.4 before diffraction? is there some way around the diffraction problem?


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 24, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> Canonâ€™s newly developed CMOS sensor also incorporates a Full HD (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) video output capability. The sensor can output Full HD video from any approximately one-sixtieth-sized section of its total surface area.



Interesting that Canon points this out explicitly. Software/Crop-based shift and IS on the way?



Canon Rumors said:


> Images captured with Canonâ€™s newly developed approximately 120-megapixel CMOS image sensor, even when cropped or digitally magnified, maintain higher levels of definition and clarity than ever before.



Yeah, right. :
I wonder how bad the noise is on this baby, even in low sensitivity modes... 


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## ELK (Aug 24, 2010)

There must be good reasons why Canon made this announcement.

Firstly is that Canon 1D mark IV is behind Nikon D3s in almost every aspect (except maybe... availability . As a result the pros who for instance need better highISO pictures may switch to Nikon.

Secondly there are always rumors that Canon will leave APS-H sensors, which is another potential reason for people to avoid buying 1Ds.

Can we interpret that message from Canon in following way: "Folks, don't give up! Stay with us! There is something more exciting yet to come! You want better high-ISO performance? We give you more Megapixels. You want better dynamic range? We give you more Megapixels. You want lower megapixels and better processing mechanism for better sensor readout, no banding and aliasing? We give you more Megapixels. You want better ergonomics? We give you more Megapixels AND Direct Print Button".

Canon, please fire your whole Marketing Department - they definitely are paid by Nikon too. Please also fire every your employee who pronounces the "Megapixel" word in vain!

Off topic: Canon says that this 120Mpix sensor can give 9.5 frames per second, for which one would need approximately 10 Digic IV processors, am I right?


----------



## Cyrax (Aug 24, 2010)

Logic would dictate that a sensor with an MP of this density would be on about the same playing field as the 5200mm f/14 lens (remember that thing?). I'm sure I'll be proven wrong in 10 years time, but I don't see any logical use for this outside of what NASA or scientific institutes might need it for.

Until then, we've got our 400mm f/2.8's and a Gigapan. ;-)


----------



## gkreis (Aug 24, 2010)

Well, who can fathom this? At first I thought it was an April Fool's joked delivered early. You have that many places where you can pull a 1:1 HD image? As someone said, would that be how you would apply software IS to video?

Concerning still imagines, imagine the computer resources to deal with such images! What about the memory card storage? Now what if they actually gave you the option for several different resolutions, and when using reduced ones, they applied software IS as well for images? If not, perhaps binning of the pixels?

Surely at this resolution, we could see the benefit of back illumination, right? This thing has got to rely on lots of what Canon has learned in P&S sensors. The immediate reaction is what happens to dynamic range at this point? The P&S sensors are NOTORIOUS for poor DR.

Here is an idea. What if you could selectively make pixels more or less sensitive? Then you could bin pixels of differing sensitivity to cover a greater DR, at a reduced resolution.

As Ricky would say, someone has some splainin to do.... ;-)


----------



## kufucius (Aug 24, 2010)

ELK said:


> There must be good reasons why Canon made this announcement.
> 
> Firstly is that Canon 1D mark IV is behind Nikon D3s in almost every aspect (except maybe... availability . As a result the pros who for instance need better highISO pictures may switch to Nikon.
> 
> ...



Ha ha that's so funny 
amen to all the above ^O^


----------



## arakawa (Aug 24, 2010)

Or they could make a Plenoptic Camera with a decent resolution.


----------



## Waleed Essam (Aug 24, 2010)

ELK said:


> There must be good reasons why Canon made this announcement.
> 
> Firstly is that Canon 1D mark IV is behind Nikon D3s in almost every aspect (except maybe... availability . As a result the pros who for instance need better highISO pictures may switch to Nikon.



Yeah right, that's why in every major sports event -Worldcup for example- you still can see 80% white lenses. D3s only bests the 1DIV in high ISO (6400+) IQ, which for most photographers who make any sense is only used MAX 10% of the time.


----------



## unruled (Aug 24, 2010)

Waleed Essam said:


> ELK said:
> 
> 
> > There must be good reasons why Canon made this announcement.
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree. The internet (ie. message boards) put the D3s and 1d mk iv against each other as direct competitors -- which really, they are not. Yes the Nikon is better at high ISO. The Canon is better at sports photography. They are different camera's for different purposes!

Nough said.


----------



## ELK (Aug 24, 2010)

Maybe it's because white lenses are easier to count than the black ones? Especially in low light conditions.


----------



## pierlux (Aug 24, 2010)

Canon probably succeded in developing a backlit 120 MP sensor which can perform an in-sensor pre-processing of the photosites' output, i.e. more or less what happens in the eye's retina which sends to the optical nerve an already processed signal (neuroanatomist, chime in and tell us something more ). A 2x2 binning could yield a 30 MP output which could be easily processed by the next generation of DIGIC V-based chipset. A 4x4 binning could yield a 7.5 MP image having, at iso 12800, the image quality of today's sensors at iso 100. And, who knows, maybe Canon developed some workaround for getting around the DLA problem... This would indeed sound to me as a really amazing revolution! But I might be completely wrong, although the matter is that this sensor is not a rumor, but an official announcement, hence a fact: it exists. But, why APS-H? Well, probably because APS-H is the largest sensors that can be imaged in one pass using cutting edge semiconductor manufacturing technology with today's steppers. Anybody whith a degree in physics or electronics that can comment on this?


----------



## ELK (Aug 24, 2010)

Sorry, where is made the decision from that 1D mark IV is good for sports and D3s isn't? Canon's 10 fps vs. Nikon's 9? Canon's 45 AF sensors vs. Nikon 51?
Excerpts from DPReview are self-explanatory: 
"The increased buffer of the D3S compared to the D3 means that not only can images be taken in lower light, more pictures can be taken in a burst. This will be good news for sports and action photographers"
"A lot has already been said about the 1D Mark IV, both by people who have tested it and those who have tried to weigh it up against the D3S and that kind of nit-picking makes it easy to overlook what an astonishing camera it is. And looked at from a neutral perspective,* both it and the Nikon are unmistakably the best sports cameras* that modern technology allows."
My point is that both cameras excel at sports, but D3s excels at something else too.


----------



## KitH (Aug 24, 2010)

Let's just speculate for a moment what Canon is up to here... 

(Following Sebastian's line of thought), Canon think it's important that a Full HD frame fits on a one-sixtieth sized section of the sensor - 63 in an array 7 wide by 9 high (with a tiny bit of overlap). What's it for then? 

This link points to NHK's Super High Vision demonstration coming up at IBC 2010 next month in Amsterdam. 
http://www.ibc.org/page.cfm/EMSLinkClick=450_148_140_2839486_192058_1197 
 It's sixteen Full HD joined up in a 4x4 array to give 4320p. I've seen this before and it's astonishingly lovely. Perhaps the new Canon sensor is announced now to stake their claim at the table in the "What's Beyond HD?" debate, which is kicking off around now. 

I like "Pierlux's" comment about using the extra pixels for pre-processing like a retina does. David Marr's work on the neuroanatomy of vision explains this in detail, but I can't help thinking Canon engineers know that stuff too and there's a lot of it going on already in today's sensors.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 24, 2010)

Wow...that is crazy. I also thought this was a joke at first. Some interesting speculation from everyone here...kinda fun to read. I was going to complain, but this is so over the top, and my understanding of physics and computers is so small that I think I'm just going to sit back and watch for a bit before making my decision. I'm sure Canon engineers are smarter than me, and they are obviously up to something. Fun times!


----------



## scalesusa (Aug 24, 2010)

I'd buy one, but we aren't likely to see it in production for years if ever.

There are always those who long for the good old 1mp sensors. They are still around, and they are almost free.

There are also those who think a sensor affects lens diffraction. I assume they got their education from some other poster who is equally uninformed. Diffraction is fixed by the lens (aperture). The sensor does not change it. - not ever. Lenses have diffraction at all apertures, it doesn't start at some magic number. 

Now, it is true that a higher resolution sensor can see the diffraction better, just as it provides better resolution of the subject, but a sensor does not affect diffraction. 

A 120mp APS-H sensor has about the same pixel density as the 12 mp G11 / S90. The lenses seem to work fine on it, and are not as wide a aperture as are available on DSLR's.


120mp/5.19 cm square = 23.1 mp/square cm, approximately the same as the 12mp G11.


----------



## ELK (Aug 24, 2010)

that1guy said:


> Wow...that is crazy. I also thought this was a joke at first. Some interesting speculation from everyone here...kinda fun to read. I was going to complain, but this is so over the top, and my understanding of physics and computers is so small that I think I'm just going to sit back and watch for a bit before making my decision. I'm sure Canon engineers are smarter than me, and they are obviously up to something. Fun times!



+1


----------



## zaph (Aug 24, 2010)

Hi all.

Looking forward though, doesnâ€™t this have the potential to solve some of the physics involved in making smaller zoom lenses, or actually eliminating them all together in some cases? If you can have a sensor that is 4-6 times bigger than is actually needed for the final output image (lets say 12MP for example) then you could have a single prime and just isolate a 12MP section of the sensor to â€œzoomâ€ in on that area. So rather than shipping with an 18-55 zoom kit, it would just ship with 18mm, and the rest would be done on the sensor. (I know thatâ€™s oversimplifying it, but hey)


(And that is an actual question rather than a comment - could it be used that way?)


----------



## pierlux (Aug 24, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p><strong>So you thought the megapixel race was over?
> 
> 
> <span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">This will probably be in the 1D Mark IX</span></strong></p>





scalesusa said:


> I'd buy one, but we aren't likely to see it in production for years if ever.
> 
> There are always those who long for the good old 1mp sensors. They are still around, and they are almost free.
> 
> There are also those who think a sensor affects lens diffraction. I assume they got their education from some other poster who is equally uninformed. Diffraction is fixed by the lens (aperture). The sensor does not change it. - not ever. Lenses have diffraction at all apertures, it doesn't start at some magic number.



I respectfully disagree. Such a sensor will possibly, if not probably, be implemented in the 1D Mark V. Canon is not revealing which technology is being introduced in this sensor, but advances in this regard are constantly in progress. Every now and then a revolution is introduced in sensor manifacturing technology, and we don't know what's behind this 120 MP monster. We know it has that number of photosites, but we don't know yet how the information is processed.
I don't know if anyone really exists who long for the good old 1MP sensors, but sure there's someone who long for 3MP sensors ...Ehm... KR... mhm... Well, not me, even if I would have preferred a 12-14MP sensor in the 60D with the current technology, but please let's drop this argument before an endless and useless discussion begins again, and, after all, we don't know its specs yet.
DLA... Scalesusa, I'm not sure if you're referring to my post above since I have mentioned DLA, if so please notice that in any way did I say that sensor affects lens diffraction. I'm perfectly aware of what diffraction is and how and by what this physical phenomenon is generated. I simply stated that it may be possible, sooner or later, to overcome this phenomenon by 'interpreting', or 'differentially reading' (sorry if I'm not able to express myself in a proper English), the diffraction pattern projected by the lens on the sensor and extrapolate and correct it to reconstruct the missing information. After all, in the past most authoritative experts had claimed that it would not have been possible to photolithograph stuctures smaller than the wavelenght of the UV light used in steppers; well, 32nm transistors are currently available and 22nm is the next step, we use a... workaround. Others claimed that we would had never been able to 'see', not to mention to manipulate, single atoms, for both their nature of quantum objects and the fact that they're smaller of the shortest usable wavelenght to probe a surface. But, 20 years ago, the tunnel effect microscope became a reality and today we can actually see, and manipulate, literally doing a 'drag and drop', single atoms: we use a workaround. I'm sure that sooner than expected, we will get rid of DLA effects not by eliminating diffraction, but by reconstructing the missing information.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 24, 2010)

pierlux, I think scalesusa was referring to my question about DLA; like I said, I don't fully understand it and would not be averse to some schooling in light physics.

I like where you're taking this train of thought with the pixel binning down to a 30 MP sensor, and I think chrome_dude has some interesting thoughts in terms of pixels with different ranges of sensitivity even in the same color channel. it makes this bit of news seems a lot less like canon losing its marbles and more like an earnest scientific (and economic) endeavor.

I am amazed that they're calculating 9.5 fps with that number of pixels; is the pixel binning occurring on-sensor to allow this kind of throughput?


----------



## rugged (Aug 24, 2010)

Some articles about this sensor say we won't see it in our lifetime. If that's true, why would they bother making it? Or perhaps they are implying that the cost and storage media is the bottleneck?


----------



## Grendel (Aug 24, 2010)

I doubt we will see it anytime soon -- one of the foot notes in the original news release says:



> In 2007, the company successfully developed an APS-H-size sensor with approximately 50 million pixels.



Haven't seen that one anywhere yet..


----------



## unfocused (Aug 24, 2010)

I guess I better get a bigger memory card... and a bigger hard drive. 

Seriously though, as some others have suggested this could be a real game-changer if it gets implemented. Think of what it would mean for sports and wildlife shooters. Use a 200mm f2.8 lens and then crop the image for the equivalent of an 800mm (or longer).

I'm wondering what the Canon lens division thinks of this. Would the "Big White Lenses" become obsolete?

Would sports shooters need to tether an auxiliary memory drive to their cameras, comparable to the bulk film magazines they used to use with motor drives? 

Imagine the fits this would give professional sports teams if any fan could shoot high quality action shots from the stands. 

No doubt there are a lot of obstacles standing in the way of implementation. Complementary technologies (memory, lenses, etc. etc.) need to catch up. So, we probably won't see this for several years. But, clearly the march to ever-increasing resolution is accelerating.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2010)

kubelik said:


> I know I'm not nearly good enough with the physics to know this for sure, but wouldn't a 120 MP APS-H have a ridiculously low bar for lens diffraction?



Adding pixels to the same sensor size and lens combination can never, ever make diffraction worse. In fact, it makes it better.

There are certainly diminishing returns to adding pixels as diffraction takes its bite out of your resolution, but in my own tests of where the point of no further visual benefit of more pixels is located, the 7D's sensor is capable of extracting all the detail visually available in an f/20 lens. That means pixels could get a heck of a lot smaller than even those tiny 7D pixels before you'd be sucking the life out of an f/2.8 supertele. This is consistent with astrophotography experience where people routinely use extremely slow f-numbers to extract all the detail they can get from planetary images. I was surprised (shocked, really) at how much more detail I could get at 3800mm and f/30 compared with 1900mm and f/15 even with 40D-sized pixels. Have a look for yourself: http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Jupiter%20f30%20versus%20f15%20comparison.jpg

That's f/30 on the left. While you might have thought 40D-sized pixels were already diffraction-limited at f/15, obviously going to f/30 still extracted a lot more detail. That switch is the same as making the pixels half as big.


----------



## Inst (Aug 25, 2010)

It's probably just a technology demonstrator sensor demonstrating that their techs can scale up the S10/S11 technology to APS-H levels. Actually mass-producing such a device would most likely be outlandishly expensive with current fabrication processes; I wouldn't be surprised to see $500 or above per sensor. Also, can you imagine the MTF needed on lenses for this system? You'd be lens-limited until Canon could hire Carl Zeiss off Sony to produce $10,000 lenses. And how about post-processing the damn thing? You will be dealing with 120 MP raw files. You're probably already shelling out 4 digits for EIZO LCDs, are you looking forward to buying dual GTX480 ($500 or $600 a pop) GPUs to fuel CUDA-based Photoshop CS5, along with a $1000 CPU and probably 16 gigs of ram?

I think the only way to bring this to market would be to market it as a ridiculous sensor toy in an MF-like modular camera; you'd get upgradeable DIGIC processors starting at 1 fps, and then later on as processing improves you'd move up to 8 or 10 fps. Your lenses would be completely inadequate, but if you own a very high-end outfit I suppose you could wow clientele with your $100,000 wanna-be medium format. 

Dynamic range does have an inverse correlation to pixel size, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be; 120 MP would have more than 6.6 times the signal to noise ratio than the 7D based on megapixel increases while ignoring the effects of the smaller sensor size.

Ehhh...

Looking at the G11's dxomark data, it would have a 3rd of a stop less full-picture performance or identical performance at ISO 3200 than the existing 1D4, depending on how you treat manufacturer ISOs and between one stop and five thirds of a stop less full-picture performance than the D3s, depending on whether you consider the fact that the D3s's manufacturer ISO 3200 is somewhat below the G11's. In Dynamic Range, using SnR comparisons, which is typically valid for "usable dynamic range", but not total dynamic range, the 120 MP super G11 would scale to about 14 EV, which is above the D3x, I believe.

DLA for the 120mp APS-H should kick in around f/4, I believe, so everyone would be advised to use f/2.8 lenses, further adding to the cost.

Everything considered, I would be willing to buy a 120mp APS-H provided that I had the million dollars needed to pay for the camera, the lens, the computer, and nothing better to spend it on. Even if I were severely lens-limited, compared to the existing cameras, think of the ISO 50 resolution on this baby! It would be able to resolve at least twice the MTF detail over existing devices, and when sensors do catch up you'd be able to do micro-biology with macro lenses.


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 25, 2010)

Lee Jay said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > I know I'm not nearly good enough with the physics to know this for sure, but wouldn't a 120 MP APS-H have a ridiculously low bar for lens diffraction?
> ...



No. Diffraction is a property solely of the lens (and the aperture therein). Period.

On the other hand, the sensor's pixel pitch only affects the circle of confusion. (No, that's not what some guys here seem to be in. )

Of course, a smaller pixel pitch leads to a smaller circle of confusion, thus demanding a higher quality of the lens to get what appears to be a "sharp" image.


HTH,

Sebastian


----------



## Grendel (Aug 25, 2010)

Here's a good read for backgropund info on diffraction. Bottom of the page has a link to part 2.


----------



## Peerke (Aug 25, 2010)

> DLA for the 120mp APS-H should kick in around f/4, I believe, so everyone would be advised to use f/2.8 lenses, further adding to the cost.



If you pixel peep that is, but who want to view a 120 MP picture at 100% on his monitor?


----------



## 328somewhere (Aug 25, 2010)

Here is a small theory. 
What about the use in medium format applications. Wasn't it just rumored that canon was looking for a medium format company to purchase? I am no camera guru but wouldn't there be enough room in a medium format body to use this sensor to it's potential? Call it some kind of crossover body. With an ef mount on a medium format body they could take over the world. Maybe this is just a hint but you don't make an announcement like this without a reason. 
Opinions?


----------



## pierlux (Aug 25, 2010)

328somewhere said:


> Here is a small theory.
> What about the use in medium format applications. Wasn't it just rumored that canon was looking for a medium format company to purchase? I am no camera guru but wouldn't there be enough room in a medium format body to use this sensor to it's potential? Call it some kind of crossover body. With an ef mount on a medium format body they could take over the world. Maybe this is just a hint but you don't make an announcement like this without a reason.
> Opinions?


Format, with respect to photography, is relative to sensor (or film) size, not the body. This is an APS-H sized sensor, you can put it in whatever sized camera, but the format will always be APS-H. Medium format refers to cameras which produce 45x60mm, 60x60mm or 60x90mm images in the case of film, or larger than 24x36mm in the case of digital cameras.


----------



## pierlux (Aug 25, 2010)

ELK said:


> There must be good reasons why Canon made this announcement.





Inst said:


> It's probably just a technology demonstrator sensor demonstrating that their techs can scale up the S10/S11 technology to APS-H levels.





rugged said:


> why would they bother making it?



Maybe this announcement was made because of this:
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/08/20/nikon-now-producing-their-own-sensors.aspx#more-13210

Probably Canon is just stating: "Whatever you do, we are always one million lightyears ahead of you in sensor technology!" And if this is true, I have to reconsider all I have said in my previous post... :-[

BTW (and off topic), I've been always wondeing why Nikon, being the world's No. 2 stepper maker ( http://www.nikonprecision.com/ ), does not produce its own sensors instead of buying them from Sony. Marketing misteries...


----------



## gkreis (Aug 25, 2010)

scalesusa said:


> Now, it is true that a higher resolution sensor can see the diffraction better, just as it provides better resolution of the subject, but a sensor does not affect diffraction.
> 
> A 120mp APS-H sensor has about the same pixel density as the 12 mp G11 / S90. The lenses seem to work fine on it, and are not as wide a aperture as are available on DSLR's.
> 
> ...



Of course the sensor doesn't cause diffraction, it just records it.

Why doesn't a G11 have f stops larger than f8?


----------



## gkreis (Aug 25, 2010)

unfocused said:


> Seriously though, as some others have suggested this could be a real game-changer if it gets implemented. Think of what it would mean for sports and wildlife shooters. Use a 200mm f2.8 lens and then crop the image for the equivalent of an 800mm (or longer).



I think the biggest problem is micro blur. If seem to recall reading a paper from Canon that addressed the issue of 7D type density having issues with micro blur as a source of softness. Anyone remember it?

Basically, the idea is that if there are more pixels in the same area, they are better able to register movement during taking of the image. So if you crop way down, you might be get a blurrier image than you expect unless you had an extremely fast shutter speed. So hopes of heavily cropping these super dense sensors might be dashed in real-life, when those minor focus issues are 'blown up'.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 25, 2010)

Sebastian said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



Even if you are diffraction-limited, adding pixels will lead to a sharper image with more detail. This is because the blur caused by diffraction and the blur caused by the sampling add together (geometrically). That's why I said what I said. I didn't really mean to say the diffraction itself would improve, just that the total blur would be reduced.

Likewise, your last sentence is just wrong. More pixels means a more detailed image from the same lens at the same final viewing size. Now, if you meant at 100%, that's just not a realistic way to compare when you're changing the amount of enlargement between the two image, which is what you are doing by looking at two images with different pixel sizes both at 100%.

I can prove this with image samples, if you'd like.


----------



## NormanBates (Aug 31, 2010)

Lee Jay said:


> I can prove this with image samples, if you'd like.



with something similar to this, I guess:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/mpix/mpix.html

in any case, I can think of a lot of reasons Canon has to manufacture a limited number of these sensors, for example:
* to research data collection and data manipulation processes associated with a high-mpix-count chip
* to research the effects of increased pixel density in DSLR sensors (how does it affect noise and DR? how can we process the data so that they improve with megapixel-density? how dense can we get before diffraction precludes any further detail improvements?)
* to research novel image processing methods, like those proposed by some forum members here in terms of diffraction-control, in-sensor-IS, etc

it's a research chip, just like intel's 48-core microprocessor


----------



## kufucius (Sep 1, 2010)

NormanBates said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I can prove this with image samples, if you'd like.
> ...



In that case, I wonder why they don't do it APS-C or Full frame? Weird


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 1, 2010)

surely there's a reason, but we can only speculate

someone said here it could be because making a bigger chip would require special tools, but, to my understanding, they already went over that line with APS-H: many standard CMOS-chip-making tools can only be used for making chips under 24mm in their biggest dimension, which, here, means APS-C


----------

