Welcome to AstaHost - Dear Guest , Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply w/o Sign-Up!
39 Megapixel Camera: Is It Worth Is?
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:42 AM
Can anyone explain to me what this would be used for? I work with a lot of professional photographers who only use a 10 megapixel Canon Digital SLR camera. 10 Megapixels is fine. 10 MP can do a lot. Now what on Earth would people do with a 39 megapixel camera? I can see if it shot video as well at the 39 megapixel resolution, but it can't even do that. If it did shoot video I would imagine it would be a cheaper competitor to the Red camera. Can anyone enlighten me on this new piece of cra....um, technology?
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:50 AM
Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:39 AM
Posted 29 January 2007 - 12:08 PM
However if you want to do large format photography I can see where 39 MP would be a benefit. For example, right now we're designing artwork for the side of a truck. It's 10' high.
Posted 29 January 2007 - 01:49 PM
Oh, and I'm pretty sure they don't intend this camera to be used by the average users, since it's going to be so expensive and it is, as you said, and odd form factor. They know its going to be for specialty use so there isn't a real need to make it pretty.
Posted 29 January 2007 - 09:11 PM
Curious ... how much is it anyway?
I can't even imagine the memory card it would take *grin*.
My camera at full resolution will give us a 22Meg TIFF file. (But even a 7 or 8 Meg JPG looks great.)
...(after all, the RAW files this shoots are a whopping 78MB each) .... the CF-39MS, which will go for close to $40,000
Posted 29 January 2007 - 10:31 PM
Yeah, but this camera would probably be very useful for large-format photographers. And like the other person said "Amateur aerial shots" is quite right, that would be splendidly useful for that. Though, I doubt many people will buy it, it probably being in the high hundreds to low thousands price range.
I'm not quite sure what large format photographers use today. But they are probably in the know-abouts of this already anyway.
Posted 30 January 2007 - 05:59 AM
Heh, maybe the US government could use these cameras to take some nice, high resolution photos of supposed weapon stockpiles being hidden by certain enemies of the country. With technology like this, there's no reason why we should have pictures of stuff like this. Actually, with this thought in mind, what about satellites? They couldnt use this camera itself, but the technology that went inside of this camera could be translated into something space-worthy to take high resolution pictures of planet surfaces.
Does anyone have any information about who makes the lenses for this camera?
Posted 30 January 2007 - 09:19 AM
And then there are special negative film formats that are useful for other photography. These are often expressed as "medium" or "large" format films. The negative film used in these photo sessions are any where from 5x7 inch to 10x10 inch size. These are used for poster size, scenic landscape photography.
Topography photos, contrary to belief, are taken with series of small films and combined later. Otherwise, using one giant plate of negative film with one large lens will result in vignetting--outter edge of a picture going out of focus and dark.
Although the provided picture of 39mp camera is hand-held size, the more practicle application would not be used until the photo-artists really make the trasition from the traditional film to the digital film.
It is said that FOX channel purchased 20mp broadcasting cameras for all their HD NFL shows--but this cannot be confirmed since HD broadcast cameras are not measured with mega pixel numbers, yet. But I would think that 30+ mega pixel CCD or CMOS sensors are used in Hollywood and broadcasting cameras first before they become widely availiable for general public.
Posted 05 February 2007 - 04:43 PM
Posted 04 March 2008 - 02:34 AM
Oh yeah I'm using a 10.8 MP Olympus DSLR 'Olympus EVolt E510' (then again I'm not doing the math but I think it is only a 10MP, but then again it is has a 4/3 aspect ratio) the files are +11 MP in RAW and +7.8 MP in JPEG. I Like it. OH yeah
Posted 24 March 2008 - 02:23 AM
Anyways, I just wanted to add my input about it since I have had the distinct pleasure of using one of these cameras. There's nothing like it.
Posted 24 March 2008 - 12:51 PM
Posted 10 July 2008 - 05:48 AM
Above all else, you need a good photographer handling your 39 megapixel beauty
Posted 10 July 2008 - 04:16 PM
Posted 09 October 2008 - 02:19 AM
I had to go back to the jpegs. Debate creating a new jpeg from the original or take the time with the RAW file (I don't have the best PC for handling 10MP RAW files). I then analyzed my work flow and tried to eliminate certain steps I did not need, don't go to bold on the S-Curves (cause the pictures were dark), and setup my monitor to closely mimics the color lab's output, I then had plan on compensated for the loss of sharpness and quality by introducing various types of noise before finally saving.
I'm sure a higher mega pixel camera would of definitely helped provided I had a good post editing machine. I'd settle for any Hasselblad camera.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users