# Does a 39.3mp Sensor Exist? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/does-a-39-3mp-sensor-exist-cr/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/does-a-39-3mp-sensor-exist-cr/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Big megapixel


</strong>We’ve heard previously about a 46mp image sensor that exists and is in testing. We’re now told that multiple large megapixel sensors exist, and one that is sure to reach market is a 39.3mp sensor.</p>
<p>There is also a suggestion that we will see DIGIC VI processors before the larger megapixel camera(s) reach the market in late 2013 or early 2014.</p>
<p>This comes from a new source, so take it with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>I’ve also heard from two different people that the earthquake that happened in Japan is still affecting manufacturing and development of new products at Canon, though Canon would never officially admit to such a thing.</p>
<p>As far as new stuff goes, we should see the APS-C segment and lenses addressed before a large megapixel camera arrives on the scene.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## SPL (Dec 30, 2012)

I like that interesting lens on the EOS 3D......


----------



## candyman (Dec 30, 2012)

Yes, a 40mm f/1.2L next to a 50mm f/1.2L?
40 seems to become a new standard? - next to 40mm f/2.8


And what will that do to 35mm f/1.4L?


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

As an absolute non-tech person compared to members like neuro and many others: what do these rumored faster digic versions and higher mp mean in relation to a newer and more improved sensor tech, which was discussed quite a few times this past year? Or does the post tsunami effect contribute to the fact, that Canon were not able to improve their sensor tech as much as some folk were hoping for? 

Neuro..are you out there somewhere to explain it in a plain and simple way to folk like me? 
Thanks and cheers, Pedro


----------



## matukas (Dec 30, 2012)

What about that Canon multilayer sensor patent some time ago?
Could it be this, what materializes into big Mpixel?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 30, 2012)

I'd be suprised if Canon has not built many prototype sensors of various mp ratings. They are said to be actively pursuing the rear lit technology too, so those will exist.

However, I expect that they are prototypes, you don't go into production on multiple sensors unless you are committed to using them, since production startup costs are very high.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 30, 2012)

As some here probably already realize, 39.3 megapixels is kind of a magic number, since its resolution is probably 7680 (i.e.,1920 X 4 and 3840 X 2) horizontal by 5160 vertical. If you want a C300-style 2 x 2 binning sensor, except capable of being cropped to 3840 X 2160, that is the resolution you would want.


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd be suprised if Canon has not built many prototype sensors of various mp ratings. They are said to be actively pursuing the rear lit technology too, so those will exist.
> 
> However, I expect that they are prototypes, you don't go into production on multiple sensors unless you are committed to using them, since production startup costs are very high.



@Mt Spokane: Talking rear lit sensors, I guess within three to four years time (1Dx, 5D3 life cycle) we might probably see some (r)evolutionary improvements then. Or will the first outing of such a kind of sensor be presented in a Rebel? The high MP count body might offer an attractive platform as well. So, if I am not totally wrong, high ISO IQ could improve more until 2015. Not higher ISOs, but maybe 51k ISOs equivalent to 25 or 12k ISOs. What do you think?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 30, 2012)

pedro said:


> As an absolute non-tech person compared to members like neuro and many others: what do these rumored faster digic versions and higher mp mean in relation to a newer and more improved sensor tech, which was discussed quite a few times this past year? Or does the post tsunami effect contribute to the fact, that Canon were not able to improve their sensor tech as much as some folk were hoping for?
> 
> Neuro..are you out there somewhere to explain it in a plain and simple way to folk like me?
> Thanks and cheers, Pedro



A new DIGIC will almost certainly be faster, probably have more capabilities and designed around capturing higher megapixel sensors, and also probably built on a smaller process node which can helps reduce power requirements and increase processing power. My bet is that they need a chip with more readout lines, and more computing power to handle a really high megapixel sensor, and be more than a few frames per second.


----------



## pedro (Dec 30, 2012)

Thanks Drizzt321. So I just hope, that Canon keep the MP count at about the same level in the next 5D body, as a faster DIGIC contributes to better high ISO IQ, if I got it right. My 5D3 does great so far. As a "non flash purist" I am all for high ISOs, the darker the room the better.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2012)

pedro said:


> As an absolute non-tech person compared to members like neuro and many others: what do these rumored faster digic versions and higher mp mean in relation to a newer and more improved sensor tech, which was discussed quite a few times this past year? Or does the post tsunami effect contribute to the fact, that Canon were not able to improve their sensor tech as much as some folk were hoping for?



It's not enough to just come out with a new sensor, a camera is a system and to do things like doubling the amount of pixels you affect a lot of components. You push the shutter and the processor reads 235Mbytes from the sensor, processes it, and stores it as a compressed raw file... 4 frames per second and you are looking at a gigabyte per second into the chip, 8 frames per second and you are looking at 2 gigabytes per second read speed.... that's just gotta need a new processor, and I would be suprised if a digic 6 did not come out soon, after all, the digic 5 is now in point/shoots and rebels.

There is a lot of image processing involved in taking a picture, particularly with noise at high iso's.. bigger files and the quest for better noise levels means greater demands for computing power... and that can mean more heat and battery drain unless newer technologies are introduced.

Then there is storage....faster cards, more buffer memory, or some combination would be needed for the higher data rates for storing larger files...

And don't forget focusing.... lots of work being done there and lots more to come..... what's the good of a higher megapixel blurry photo....

So Yes, I would say that a 39.3Mp sensor exists, and I would bet that a digic 6 exists...but until the bugs are worked out and a system that brings everything together is developed it will remain R+D.... As soon as it works you will see anouncements and as soon as the production lines are rolling you will see it released.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 30, 2012)

pedro said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be suprised if Canon has not built many prototype sensors of various mp ratings. They are said to be actively pursuing the rear lit technology too, so those will exist.
> ...


The patent claims it benefits sensors APS-C and larger, so we should might see it in FF first.
Basically, it will reduce noise, particularly at low ISO, if I understand it correctly.

If its going to happen, it will be soon. In a few years, other processes will be developed.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 30, 2012)

pedro said:


> ...
> what do these rumored faster digic versions and higher mp mean in relation to a newer and more improved sensor tech, which was discussed quite a few times this past year?
> ...



Compared to the 5d Miii and the 1 DX you have twice the pixels so you need (at least) to double the computing power if you want to get the results of your image as fast as with the current cameras. Just if you do not have a high frame rate it is interesting to get your image preview on the screen and do some 1:1 scaling to check focus etc. (This means the calculation of 39 000 000 full color pixels with roughly 120 000 000 byte rgb data from ~ 10 000 000 red, 10 000 000 blue and 20 000 000 green pixels (resulting in 80 000 000 byte raw data for a 16bit analog-to-digital-converter), if the sensor is a bayer sensor).

If sensors have higher dynamic range you have to calculate with (lets hope) 14 bit instead of 12 bit data -- another 20 % increase in computing needs.

Better algorithms might help to reduce artifacts and noise but need more computing power.

CPUs for cameras use "hard wired" algorithms which are "printed into the sensor design" which makes things much faster than software programmed algorithms. So if new algorithms are implemented for a new sensor, you pair a "matched" CPU with that sensor.

A really improved sensor in fact can reduce computing power: less noise, perhaps a three layer RGB sensor without the need for bayer demosaic procedure! But I am shure that we have to wait a long time for real improvements.
As far as I know the quantum efficiency of current CMOS sensors is near 30 percent and more or less a stable limit. The only thing which can be improved is to omit the RGB filter arrays resulting in a factor 3 in sensitivity (theoretically).

My 2 ct. - Michael


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 30, 2012)

Now that Canon is in Medium Format territory, will they also make this a *Four-Shot* camera ??? Just think how awsome 157.2 megapixel moiré free images would look 

Here's the link to the Hasselblad HD4-50MS *four-shot* http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h4d-50ms.aspx


----------



## spam (Dec 30, 2012)

Lot of confusion here, some comments:
Digic V (+) first appeared in the 1D X spec, but was first available in compacts (not that Digic V or any other Digic is exactly the same in all cameras). So the use of Digic V in compacts don't mean they are ready with a new version for the high end.

Digic V is only slightly over a year old while Digic IV lasted much longer. Canon don't seem to increase the number of the Digic-processor every time they make some slight improvements, some other companies do however. Anyway, Canon could easily improve Digic V (and do) without changing the name. 

1D X already have 14 bit ADCs and manage 12 fps with 18MP, they could easily make a 39MP model and manage 6 fps even with the current version of Digic V+ used in the 1D X. Processing speed always increase over time within the same processor generation so by the time a 39MP model is out they'll probably be able to handle even more than 6 fps.

These comments don't mean that there wont be a new Digic, only that the current one is fairly new by Canon's numbering standard and they dont have to introduce a new design to improve speed.

Readout lines and speed are a property of the sensor, not Digic, but the Digic processor must of course be able to handle the data rates from the sensor.

One of the possibilities a new fabrication technology give is to move ADCs onto the sensor like Sony do in their sensors. This is essential for Canon if they want to (or feel they have to) catch up to Sony on DR at low ISO.

There might be several reasons that Canon use fairly old technolgy for their sensor fabrication. One possibility is that it's costly to switch too often, but I suspect that Canon is fairly happy with their current cameras as they still has the highest dSLR market share.

If I had any influence on Canon's decision I'd say that fixing the AF-speed on Eos M would be the highest priority. Then a D800 competitor, on both price and pixel count. I'd also put 1080p60 high on the list, opreferably on all cameras.


----------



## gravy (Dec 30, 2012)

candyman said:


> Yes, a 40mm f/1.2L next to a 50mm f/1.2L?
> 40 seems to become a new standard? - next to 40mm f/2.8
> 
> 
> And what will that do to 35mm f/1.4L?



I think that NL has had that 40mm lens image on the rumors area for a while as a joke


----------



## candyman (Dec 30, 2012)

gravy said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, a 40mm f/1.2L next to a 50mm f/1.2L?
> ...




That would make more sense


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2012)

That 39MP sounds interesting! Could be talking 4k video with C100-type 2x2 read sets and utterly superb 1920x1080 video. And it might help it get fps up and deliver 6fps for sure. If they have a new process with column ADC and all and they pack it in a 5D-sized body and keep the 5D3/1DX AF.... wow. Sounds gooood. 

lots of ifs though


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Dec 31, 2012)

Another rumor was 16-bit A/D which would also increase processing demands a pretty big chunk. But remember the 1DX has DUAL DIGIC-5+ processors. From what I know, there is still horsepower left over.. So I would think it might be able to handle 39.9mp AND 16-bit A/D.. Maybe, maybe at 6fps.. But that would be pushing it I would think.


----------



## rs (Dec 31, 2012)

Yes, 39.3 MP is a perfect 2x2 upscale of 4k video or a perfect 4x4 upscale of 1080p - which matches what they've done with the 5D III and its 3x3 upscale of 1080p.

If it has identical processing power as the 1D X and 14 bit readout, it will theoretically be capable of 5.5fps. If it has a 16 bit read out, the frame rate will theoretically drop to 4.8fps.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 31, 2012)

There are a few different big megapixel cameras (sensors) are out for testing.

No big megapixel prototype sensor is in an 5D Mark III style body.


----------



## Vossie (Dec 31, 2012)

Bob Howland said:


> As some here probably already realize, 39.3 megapixels is kind of a magic number, since its resolution is probably 7680 (i.e.,1920 X 4 and 3840 X 2) horizontal by 5160 vertical. If you want a C300-style 2 x 2 binning sensor, except capable of being cropped to 3840 X 2160, that is the resolution you would want.



Good observation. A 4x4 HD 3:2 sensor has 39.3 MP; a 5x5 has 61.4 MP


----------



## Ivar (Dec 31, 2012)

I wonder what that might mean. Looks to me video specifics is for video product line rather than for still cameras - the 5D3 didn't push much on the video side and a lot of cinema stuff was introduced instead. Even the 1-series still didn't get any better video. 
What concerns 39.3MP for-whatever-amazing-price-figure in an unknown future doesn't sound like a challenge for current 36MP offering available right now and being rather cheap. 



Bob Howland said:


> As some here probably already realize, 39.3 megapixels is kind of a magic number, since its resolution is probably 7680 (i.e.,1920 X 4 and 3840 X 2) horizontal by 5160 vertical. If you want a C300-style 2 x 2 binning sensor, except capable of being cropped to 3840 X 2160, that is the resolution you would want.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 31, 2012)

just a possible small fly in the ointment, which I wanted opinions on please...

http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/Depth_of_Field,_Diffraction_and_the_Nikon_D800___D800E.html

The article indicates that with the large MP of the D800, your CoC is now closer 10 microns which means diffraction starts being noticeable sooner - at around F/8. So for the more knowledgeable on the forum please

[list type=decimal]
[*]Is this correct?
[*]Is the inference that the 7D being of a similar pixel size has the same limits?
[*]Are we therefore assuming that for landscape photographers, any high MP body requires the use of focus stacking if you want to maximise perceived DOF?
[/list]

ps I do use one of the iPhone Apps - OptimumCS, but have no affiliation to the author. Hope I have not infringed any posting guidelines, apols if I have...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 31, 2012)

M.ST said:


> There are a few different big megapixel cameras (sensors) are out for testing.
> 
> No big megapixel prototype sensor is in an 5D Mark III style body.



Hopefully just because it's easiest to house things in a 1 series body with the big battery for testing for now.
A great many hate the giant bricks.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 31, 2012)

As a humble user of the 5D mk1 and mk2, one who produces pictures for clients up to 2.5m x 1m, can some of those who are excited about the 39.3MP "FF" size sensor explain to me just what you're going to use it for ? ???


----------



## rlaverty (Dec 31, 2012)

probably to take pics at a higher resolution. Which will result in higher resolution 2.5m x 1m prints for clients. To assume your 5DII will produce better images than a proposed 40mp 1DS (or whatever) with all the latest tech is borderline delusional. Let people be excited about it, it is obvious why they, me included, are excited about it. trying to talk yourself into not being excited is fine, but being a wet blanket just for the sake of it is not really appreciated. :-X


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2012)

Sporgon said:


> As a humble user of the 5D mk1 and mk2, one who produces pictures for clients up to 2.5m x 1m, can some of those who are excited about the 39.3MP "FF" size sensor explain to me just what you're going to use it for ? ???



Take those same pics you take now, and add a ton of IQ.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 1, 2013)

Vossie said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > As some here probably already realize, 39.3 megapixels is kind of a magic number, since its resolution is probably 7680 (i.e.,1920 X 4 and 3840 X 2) horizontal by 5160 vertical. If you want a C300-style 2 x 2 binning sensor, except capable of being cropped to 3840 X 2160, that is the resolution you would want.
> ...



I don't think that 5x5 would work. The bayer sensor uses a 2x2 block of two green, one blue and one red pixels. Using odd numbers would require taking pixels from an adjacent block. I don't think the 5D3 uses 3x3 binning, although the horizontal resolution is 5760 or 3 x 1920.


----------



## rs (Jan 1, 2013)

There are meant to be various resolutions out there, all moving us somewhere closer to an upper limit which isn't worth going beyond for a 35mm sensor. For most purposes, a 20 odd MP sensor is already good enough, but for those that want maximum resolution, where will it end up?

Even lenses which are razor sharp with current sensors between f2.8 and f11 are likely to start showing their flaws when the MP goes up. The current 20 odd MP sensors start to suffer from DLA (diffraction limited aperture, or softness due to the small aperture) at around f11 with any lens. If the sensor can has a higher MP count, that smallest aperture with full res drops down - the D800 has a limit of approx. f7.8 - and most lenses are at their sharpest at around f8 - so it takes a really good lens to get the best out of a sensor that dense. Canon are releasing some very good lenses just recently which appear to out resolve the current Canon sensors at f2.8, and will possibly out resolve 36MP at f2.8 - but you've still got a reduced useful operational window there.

Its a exponential curve, so according to my calculations a sensor which is past its optimal range at f5.6 has 70MP - f4 is 138MP, and f2.8 is 282MP. Even at 70MP, f5.6, its unlikely any lens will give 100% pixel sharpness at f2.8, and to even appear perfect at f5.6 will take some great glass. So to get the best out of that sensor you're probably limited to one or two lenses, at one aperture setting. Select any other aperture, and even if everything else is perfect (tripod mounted photo of a stationary subject), you're not getting full resolution. And the narrow DoF at f5.6 at those magnifications (why else do you want such a high res, other than to print massive and study it up close) largely renders the extra resolution useless. This is possibly taking it too far for any practical uses.

Any sensor intended to work well for video will ideally be a nice round upscale of the intended HD resolution. At 1x 1080p, filled out to a 3:2 frame, its 2.5MP. 2x, its 9.8MP. 3x, 22.1MP. 4x, 39.3MP. 5x at 61.4MP will not allow for a useful upscale of 4k, so such a high res is really only suitable for 1080p, and will likely be no better than 39.3MP. And 6x is 88.5MP - while it will downscale for video OK, it's too much for stills at its native resolution by my reckoning.

So is 39.3MP the ultimate resolution for a 36x24mm sensor designed with HD video in mind?

And is it as far as we need to go for stills, or will demand make some manufacturer take it higher still? Diffraction sets in at f7.5 at 39.3MP - not inconceivable for landscape and studio work, but would some users want more, considering the limitations it brings? If you need much more resolution to print at massive sizes and still look good when studying it with a magnifying glass, you're hitting the limits of the size of the sensor.


----------



## rs (Jan 1, 2013)

Yes, diffraction is happening in the lens regardless of the sensor, but the advantage of the higher MP sensor is lost much easier to diffraction. If you have two cameras, one 20MP and the other 282MP, and shoot both with a lens set with its aperture smaller than f11, there will be no difference in resolution between the two. The higher MP body won't be worse - it just won't have any advantage. But shoot at f5.6 with a great lens, and the 282MP sensor will be able to resolve 70MP of detail while the 20MP sensor is limited to 20. So while 282MP clearly holds an advantage with a great lens in that particular scenario, why bother with 282MP? Isn't the cut off of where a FF sensor should ever go to somewhere around 70MP or below? And if its a video optimised sensor, 39.3MP seems like the ultimate destination for FF if video remains based on a multiple of 1080p (4k or 8k), even hundreds of years from now.

File sizes are a major concern when using these large sensors. As you said, the resolution of the D800 is too much, too soon for event shooters with current computers.

I was looking more into how far it is worth going based on the laws of physics, assuming sensor tech and storage/processing all continue improving, making these resolutions easy to capture and post process.


----------



## rs (Jan 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, diffraction is happening in the lens regardless of the sensor, but the advantage of the higher MP sensor is lost much easier to diffraction. If you have two cameras, one 20MP and the other 282MP, and shoot both with a lens set with its aperture smaller than f11, there will be no difference in resolution between the two. The higher MP body won't be worse - it just won't have any advantage. But shoot at f5.6 with a great lens, and the 282MP sensor will be able to resolve 70MP of detail while the 20MP sensor is limited to 20. So while 282MP clearly holds an advantage with a great lens in that particular scenario, why bother with 282MP? Isn't the cut off of where a FF sensor should ever go to somewhere around 70MP or below? And if its a video optimised sensor, 39.3MP seems like the ultimate destination for FF if video remains based on a multiple of 1080p (4k or 8k), even hundreds of years from now.
> ...


Going to the extremes of a 400MP FF sensor will allow you to see 400MP of beautiful blur up close when viewed at 100%, unless a lens exists to resolve 400MP of resolution at f2.3 and wider apertures. Having said that, software enhancements such as SmartDeblur, if further refined could turn those extra blurred pixels into meaningful detail:

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/21/smartdeblur-does-science-fiction-esque-enhancing-on-blurry-photos/

I still reckon 20 odd MP is enough for most people, and 70MP without any artificial enhancement should be more than enough for any real life situation.


----------



## art_d (Jan 2, 2013)

rs said:


> Going to the extremes of a 400MP FF sensor will allow you to see 400MP of beautiful blur up close when viewed at 100%, unless a lens exists to resolve 400MP of resolution at f2.3 and wider apertures.



I recall seeing on another forum that someone had tested the resolving power of a Canon 24TSEII on a Pentax Q with the rationale being that 12.4mp on the tiny sensor would correspond to a 360MP full frame sensor. The uptake of this experiment was that the 24TSEII obviously delivers the necessary resolving power. So I don't think it's that big of a stretch. 

Granted, 300-400MP may not be practical for many photographers, but it certainly is possible with lenses that exist today. And we are likely to see many more lenses with improved resolving power in the future.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 2, 2013)

rs said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



The article linked by privatebydesign indicates that raw engines overcome some of the diffraction limitations, otherwise surely a 7D sensor would have the same problem as the D800 and be noticeably impacted by diffraction after f/8?


----------



## rs (Jan 2, 2013)

art_d said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Going to the extremes of a 400MP FF sensor will allow you to see 400MP of beautiful blur up close when viewed at 100%, unless a lens exists to resolve 400MP of resolution at f2.3 and wider apertures.
> ...


If that's the case, my calculations are out. I was basing it on DLA as quoted on the-digital-picture, and found a website to allow you to show what various cameras pixels sizes are, compared to the Airy Diameter of a perfect lens at a given aperture: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Anyway, to calculate the pixel size of a sensor in µm, it turns out the calculation is =36/(sqrt(MP/2*3), and the ratio between DLA and pixel size seems to be 1.6 (to match up with Bryan's calculations at TDP). So my calculation was DLA = 57.6/(sqrt(MP/2*3). Which is according to your above post about the Pentax Q1 and 24 TS-E II, is incorrect.

If that is the case, 39.3MP is just a stepping stone towards much higher resolutions for those that demand it. The next logical resolution for video will be 39.3MP x 4 to allow for perfect downsampling of 1080p, 2k and 4k - and that's 157.3MP if the sensor is scaled up to 3:2. And stills? Who knows? I had assumed we were closing in on the practical limits as governed by diffraction with this next generation of sensors, with a possible sensible upper limit of around 70MP.

However, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 with a Nikon V1 seeing the centre crop at an equivalent of just over 70MP does fit in with my calculations - the lens at f5 is stopped down sufficiently to get close to its sweet spot in terms of sharpness, but crucially not beyond f5.6 to get diffraction setting it. However, that a FF lens such as the Nikon 70-200 is good enough to resolve that much detail does surprise me. It would be interesting to know from anyone using a FF lens on a V1 if the results suffer when moving too far away from f5.6?

It would be interesting to see an f3.5 lens resolving, even in the centre of the frame, enough to look truly sharp at 360MP when viewed at 100%. According to my calculations (which may be out), 360MP would need f2.5 to avoid diffraction, and a perfect f3.5 lens will top out at 180MP of resolution.

Thanks!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jan 3, 2013)

SPL said:


> I like that interesting lens on the EOS 3D......



That 40L lens image has been used on many rumour images, so don't hold your breath.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 3, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Many people (including myself) thought that the 5D3 would use 3x3 binning for video.
> 
> It doesn't.



Then how come it doesn't have the nasty moire of the 5D2 and 6D?

It is a bit soft, but I'm guessing that is because the AA filter was designed for 1x1 single photosite sizes for stills and doesn't help any for 3x3 blocks so they do a little AA in software to mush away some of the aliasing from that??? Not really sure though.


----------



## rs (Jan 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Many people (including myself) thought that the 5D3 would use 3x3 binning for video.
> ...


As a bayer sensor has 2x2 blocks to give the full colour info - one red, one blue and the two green, a 5D mk III 3x3 block downsampled into one video pixel, while better than what could be downsampled from a 21 or 20MP sensor (hence their use of pixel binning), it's not ideal. A multiple of 2x2 is theoretically much better, such as the 39.3MP 4x4 downsample. 

I would have guessed some sort of of merging of the resulting pixels occurs in software, probably to do with compensating for the inconsistent colour info across each 3x3 block.


----------

