Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Digital Camera Technology
An anonymous reader writes "CNet News has an interesting look at where digital camera technology is headed now that the megapixel buzzword can be put to rest. From the article: 'In compact cameras, I think that the megapixel race is pretty much over,' says Chuck Westfall, director of media for Canon's camera marketing group. 'Seven- and eight-megapixel cameras seem to be more than adequate. We can easily go up to a 13-by-19 print and see very, very clear detail.'"
Why all the big attachment to JPEGs?
Isn't it better to be taking lossless pictures with digital cameras anyway?
(My digital camera only writes in jpg format. I'm not sure if this is rare amongst digital cameras nowdays, but it doesn't seem ideal.)
...for all but the most discriminating consumers. The only difference with 8MP cameras is that now people are posting 4MB images on their Web pages, or emailing them to Grandma who's still stuck on dialup.
Better quality CCD sensors with very low "noise" even at high ISO settings (ISO 1000-1600). This will likely require either larger size sensors or improved semiconductor design for the CCD sensor itself.
Try running Mozilla Seamonkey on 1 GHz hardware. It's possible, but not enjoyable. And remember, that's just an email client and a web browser. Likewise, try running OpenOffice. Again, it's not a good experience, even on a system with 1 GB or more of RAM.
Don't ever underestimate the ability of software to become far more bloated, and less efficient. It's a problem that has plagued the industry for years.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
7 or 8 megapixel may be adequate for consumer cameras but even the highest pixel count availible doesn't match the needs of a lot of professionals. They've finally hit pro level but for high res work many still need to use film. The mass market race is over but pro cameras will keep increasing for years to come. A 4'x5' still has far more resolution than the best camera on the market today.
I'd suggest making cameras able to wirelessly connect to another portable device you could carry in a pocket of purse that acts like a hard disk and could store 100GB of files or more. That and improved batteries would be great.
On one hand, you suggest a technology that sucks the ever-loving batteries dry and on another, you suggest improving batteries. Battery life is probably far better without using wireless. Batteries are a chemical energy storage technology that simply cannot, by their very nature, improve as quicly as transistor process technology, the best way to improve battery life is to make electronics not draw excess current in the first place. Flash cards are improving in size pretty well. Anything higher than 5MP is going to demand practice and heavy stabilization, through optics and a tripod, to take full advantage of the sensor resolution.
I was looking at an ad in the New York Times just last week. It was a full-page photo for a major telecom and all I saw was pixels. It was something and art director would never have stood for even a couple of years ago but will accept today in exchange for the digital workflow and instant gratification. I'm not sure a lot of people who state how much resolution is enough have ever seen a good print made from a piece of large format film. But then again this isn't so different from what large format photographers were saying when 35mm came on the scene and it turns out the world was big enough for both.
I am surprised they didn't talk about speed. Latency and shot to shot. Every consumer level dicital camera I have tried so far was incredibly slow compared to a cheap film camera. I would buy new camera every two years if it was significantly faster.
AccountKiller
I'm glad that my digital photos don't all take up 19TB apiece -- but I am puzzled by the idea that I should be complacent with a given MP number as "good enough." I want shots that are infinitely detailed, and (at least in the area of interest) infinitely sharp. Since neither of these is an available option, I've got to settle for for "sharp enough that I can stand it" and "as detailed as the lens and sensor let me get."
...
;)
Doesn't everyone at some point end up cropping their digital photos, and hitting the jaggies? The main reason I'd like more (and more and more) resolution is because I don't *know* how big I want that photo to be shown in the future, and I don't know if cousin Vinny has a hilarious expression on his face that will be lost in the haze at 5MP but might be a treasure at 10MP
The idea that 8 or 10 MP is "enough" and that now everyone can just go home and be happy isn't completely groundless (we've certainly reached a point where "more pixels" isn't the main thing being sought by camera buyers), but it's only true while other things (sensor designs, storage capacity, cheap-yet-bright-and-not-too-heavy lenses) catch up and remind us that data uncaptured is data that can't be restored.
I'm sort of hoping that mid-range DSLRs hit 12MP in the next 2 years, and that Pentax still makes one that runs on AA batteries
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I'd be quite happy with a digicam that took photos at 1920x1080 or even a multiple of that, say 3840x2160, in the aspect ratio of all future TVs and monitors (ok, 16:10 seems to be the monitor ratio thanks to stupid Microsoft and their idea of having HD res PLUS room for taskbar.... but close enough).
Anyone else notice how digicams all take 4:3 pictures these days no matter how high end they are, just as the public is moving to 16:9 as the default ratio?
So....
any digicams out there ahead of the pack and already implementing widescreen resolutions by default?
I would think that a 1920x1080 camera phone would be quite the sweet spot for storage and speed while preserving good quality pictures for viewing on TVs direct from the camera....
Anyone?
Visceral Psyche Films
A 8MP camera is equivalent to a 4MB camera plus a x2 zoom.
Not quite. An 8MP sensor has sqrt(2) = 1.4 times as many pixels in each direction to get twice as many pixels overall. So it's only equivalent to a 1.4x zoom.
You actually need to go to 16MP to get the equivalent of a 2x zoom on 4MP, which is quite a different proposition.
The other problem of more pixels is the one you mentioned yourself - more noise. A low noise 800MP sensor would be far too big to fit in a normal sized camera.
Patent protection isn't designed to give you protection for all eternity. Patents are about a balance: Encouraging people to innovate by giving them a protected period during which they can capitalize on their own invention before, ultimately, handing the benefits of that encouraged innovation to society at large.
25 years, in the modern world, is arguably far longer than necessary. It'll be the 2020s by the time anyone else can start using that tech. That made sense when it could take many years to build machining tools, build production lines, market in your home town before slowly moving wider, etc. In today's business world, that's no longer true. Even fifty years ago, you could assume that most of the techs discovered today would be valid in 25 years - that's just not true anymore.
Given you can take an idea through to IPO within five years and then build that business to significant dominance within another five, given that you can use that time to develop your tech, adding new patents on the advances, I would argue that ten years - given the pace of modern business - is plenty.