Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
So… Are We At The Limit
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 488379" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>FWIW, I have reworked this same content, and put it at</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/reslimit.html" target="_blank">Have we hit a megapixel resolution limit?</a></p><p></p><p>The false "reached a maximum limit" notion is surely caused along the lines of incorrectly imagining a 200 pixels per mm sensor density matches a 100 line pair per mm lens resolution. But digital sampling simply does not work that way. Instead, those numbers only imply that we have finally reached the MINIMUM limit of sampling resolution.</p><p></p><p>I finally realized I knew this obvious argument (that we have only just begun on our journey toward any so-called resolution limit, if one in fact exists), this way.</p><p></p><p>Cameras have (until a few of them about now) always required anti-aliasing filters to prevent moire.</p><p></p><p>The Nyquist sampling theorem proved (nearly 90 years ago) that digital sampling at least 2x greater than the signal detail is REQUIRED to prevent aliasing, which is false detail created by insufficient sampling. Which is seen as moire.</p><p></p><p>So by definition, our camera sensors here to now obviously had not reached the 2x MINIMUM limit. A few of them are just now starting to reach this MINIMUM and so can be sold without the AA filter (but just barely, moire is still sometimes seen). But this does NOT speak of any MAXIMUM.</p><p></p><p>Hence, Q.E.D, we certainly are not near any maximum resolution limit. I doubt there is any concept of a maximum limit. It is a case when more is better. 100 megapixels is surely coming, and more. But yes, it may be more than our smaller purposes need.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is of course very clearly seen that oversampling (more than the 2x Nyquist Minimum requirement) does improve reproduction resolution. It is also true that oversampling large, and then drastically resampling smaller is also a noise reduction technique. However, extremes probably will be excessive size for our smaller goals of showing images on the video monitor, or printing them 4x6 inches (both goals are around 2 megapixels maximum).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 488379, member: 12496"] FWIW, I have reworked this same content, and put it at [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/reslimit.html"]Have we hit a megapixel resolution limit?[/URL] The false "reached a maximum limit" notion is surely caused along the lines of incorrectly imagining a 200 pixels per mm sensor density matches a 100 line pair per mm lens resolution. But digital sampling simply does not work that way. Instead, those numbers only imply that we have finally reached the MINIMUM limit of sampling resolution. I finally realized I knew this obvious argument (that we have only just begun on our journey toward any so-called resolution limit, if one in fact exists), this way. Cameras have (until a few of them about now) always required anti-aliasing filters to prevent moire. The Nyquist sampling theorem proved (nearly 90 years ago) that digital sampling at least 2x greater than the signal detail is REQUIRED to prevent aliasing, which is false detail created by insufficient sampling. Which is seen as moire. So by definition, our camera sensors here to now obviously had not reached the 2x MINIMUM limit. A few of them are just now starting to reach this MINIMUM and so can be sold without the AA filter (but just barely, moire is still sometimes seen). But this does NOT speak of any MAXIMUM. Hence, Q.E.D, we certainly are not near any maximum resolution limit. I doubt there is any concept of a maximum limit. It is a case when more is better. 100 megapixels is surely coming, and more. But yes, it may be more than our smaller purposes need. It is of course very clearly seen that oversampling (more than the 2x Nyquist Minimum requirement) does improve reproduction resolution. It is also true that oversampling large, and then drastically resampling smaller is also a noise reduction technique. However, extremes probably will be excessive size for our smaller goals of showing images on the video monitor, or printing them 4x6 inches (both goals are around 2 megapixels maximum). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
So… Are We At The Limit
Top
