10-07-2011, 04:05 AM
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1317735246' post='12070']
I'm just curious how the 36mp FF sensor without the antialiasing filter would compare against the 645D <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
Now you're talking about something real. Ignoring file size inconveniences, if the frame rates you need are attained, there are always definite advantages to more pixels. Firstly, there's some resolution at which AA anti-aliasing filters become irrelevant, am looking forward to getting rid of that anachronistic AA kluge that makes up for the fact that our sensor pitch is not a lot smaller than the lens resolution. Throw away the AA filter, and you get an immediate (admittedly modest) step up in max image clarity. Obviously only noticeable with great lenses.
Secondly, how neat it will be to flip a switch and read out our sensors at "full" (say 48 megapixels on APS-C) resolution and also at "binned" (12 megapixel) resolution with nicer color fidelity and half the noise.
Thirdly, wouldn't mind having so many zillion pixels that a single, isolated dead/hot pixel becomes irrelevant, as long as it can be "mapped out" by the camera firmware--perhaps even let the user map out dead/hot pixels too. This will have to lead to higher wafer yield, lower priced sensors in the future.
Fourthly, a super-count sensor with lenses like my tiny, ultra sharp Rodagon 28mm APS-C lens would let me sort of do limited range, instant "digital zooming"...but with adequate professional quality. Instead of mounting a zoom or swapping out to a 35 or 50mm lens, my Rody would probably work fine with cropping down to the equivalent of those focal lengths, if my sensor had a much higher pixel count. This work style meshes well with having no AA filter. This is another way of saying that with cropping, inside a super-pixel-count APS-C camera is a micro four thirds camera, a Nikon CX camera, etc.
I'm just curious how the 36mp FF sensor without the antialiasing filter would compare against the 645D <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
Now you're talking about something real. Ignoring file size inconveniences, if the frame rates you need are attained, there are always definite advantages to more pixels. Firstly, there's some resolution at which AA anti-aliasing filters become irrelevant, am looking forward to getting rid of that anachronistic AA kluge that makes up for the fact that our sensor pitch is not a lot smaller than the lens resolution. Throw away the AA filter, and you get an immediate (admittedly modest) step up in max image clarity. Obviously only noticeable with great lenses.
Secondly, how neat it will be to flip a switch and read out our sensors at "full" (say 48 megapixels on APS-C) resolution and also at "binned" (12 megapixel) resolution with nicer color fidelity and half the noise.
Thirdly, wouldn't mind having so many zillion pixels that a single, isolated dead/hot pixel becomes irrelevant, as long as it can be "mapped out" by the camera firmware--perhaps even let the user map out dead/hot pixels too. This will have to lead to higher wafer yield, lower priced sensors in the future.
Fourthly, a super-count sensor with lenses like my tiny, ultra sharp Rodagon 28mm APS-C lens would let me sort of do limited range, instant "digital zooming"...but with adequate professional quality. Instead of mounting a zoom or swapping out to a 35 or 50mm lens, my Rody would probably work fine with cropping down to the equivalent of those focal lengths, if my sensor had a much higher pixel count. This work style meshes well with having no AA filter. This is another way of saying that with cropping, inside a super-pixel-count APS-C camera is a micro four thirds camera, a Nikon CX camera, etc.