Commercial cameras are nearing 100 megapixels. There must be some physical limit where increasing megapixels becomes meaningless. Say I took a picture of a leaf on a tree. Could I physically zoom in to see the cells of the leaf? Would I be able to in the future?
Have the sensors already surpassed human vision capabilities?
The limiting factor is not going to be the megapixels, which are now fairly meaningless numbers if you ask me, but the optics on the camera. If you’ve got a lens that can zoom to the molecular level, then you can record it. But squeezing 20 million megapixels out of a sensor the size of a fly’s dropping, as is found in most phones these days, will not give you better image quality.
This.
My 2.4Mp camera in 2001 gave sharper pictures per pixel (when zoomed in) than most modern cameras with 16Mp. there’s a reason why Canon, Nikon etc. have lenses that sell for $150 and similar sized lenses that sell for $1000, and it’s not just the f-stop number.
Look at a site like dpreview.com and see what they say about lenses. The zoom lnses especially tend to have visible aberration at the corners of the photo.
the other problem is that there is not a significant breakthrough in sensors; there have been evolutionary changes, but the majority of pixel count comes at the expense of sensitivity - smaller pixel sensor means low-light results are more noisy. Software to correct this leaves pictures looking less sharp.
Exactly. Increasing resolution, but not the quality or magnification of your optics (which themselves run into limiting factors, either costly or physically prohibitive), you’ll only end up with a very smooth, but still blurry/artifact-riddled image.
I still have my first digital Kodak camera from 2001 (2.1? Mp, I think it was $400), even though it died years ago. I hold on to it in the hopes if its resurrection. I look at those pictures and they are so colorful and lively compared to anything I’ve owned since. We’ve moved on to SLRs and can take great pictures of scenery and motion, but the “life” in a quick snapshot still eludes every camera since those early great lense snap-and-shoot cameras.
If you plan to show the pictures on HD displays, there is little point in going over 5 Mpx. You are better of investing in optics and larger CCD sensors.
The kind of zoom you suggest is possible. But it requires a rigid bench-mounted microscope. A handheld camera would produce only a blur at that magnification.
The real question is not “how many megapixels in real life”. Real life goes down to almost the molecular level before visibilty using optics stops working; good microscopes go beyond 1000x. If you expect to take a life picture and zoom to that level, you’re talking petapixels. Of course, there’s a limit to optical performance too. You might take a picture of a leaf and zoom in to the cellular level; atmospheric distortion, limits of optical resolution, light wavelength issues, etc mean that you are not going to zoom in to the cellular level on a tree down the block.
then there’s exposure time, shake etc. as mentioned above.
The question is, how much do you want to blow up the photo you took? The rule of thumb is about 300dpi (dots per inch) is the best the human eye can resolve when the picture is held at about normal reading distance. 24Mp is 6000x4000 pixels (Nikon 3200 I think). 6000pixels at 300dpi is 20 inches. So if your lens is good enough, you could print a poster 20x13 inches with the same quality/resolution as a nice sharp magazine cover. Go to 100Mp and we’re talking 40x26 inches.
By comparison, HDTV and good LCD monitors are about 2 Megapixels.
I believe OP is asking about what is the “resolution” of our eyes–or if not, Ihave asked this before elsewhere. I was speaking to I think a machine-vision cognitive science cross-over guy at Berkeley.
Can’t remember what he said though.
Another in a continuing series of near MPSIMS masking as GQ posts.
The human eye is 576MP, according to this source: https://plus.google.com/+YesIKnowThat/posts/LToL7NFHU4r
But the human eye is not a camera and has limited color vision (actually) so I think such comparisons are rather pointless.
Since you mention limited color vision, can I tack on a question about how many colors the human eye can distinguish, even unconsciously?
When someone is unconscious they cannot distinguish any colors.
The other problem with talking about the “resolution” of the eye is that it’s not uniform. There’s a high concentration of sensor cells near the center, and a much lower concentration further out. That’s why your eyes need to scan over a paragraph to read it, even though you can see the whole paragraph at once. So if you have a digital image that looks good to the eye no matter what part of the image you look at, it needs to have a high density of pixels everywhere, and so would end up with many more pixels than the eye effectively has in total.
Some of this depends on the aperture. As the aperture gets smaller, you will not be able to resolve any more details, no matter how many megapixels are on the camera sensor.
This is the diffraction limit.
Also that same website has a good page on your question.
They think 5-15 megapixels is the best (but flawed) comparison for the human eye.
Take resolution of the eye at its best. Calculate how many of those “points” it would take for you to cover your view from one point 360 degrees around and 180 up/down.
That’s one way to look at it.
I’m too lazy to do the math right now.
Any yeah I had a 3 megapixel camera from about 9 years ago that took way better ones (actually damn good ones if you were a bit careful) than my current 10megapixel POS. I just it around in case I see Bigfoot or the like. It sucks.
You can buy a P&S camera that easily outperforms your 9 year old camera, but it’s not going to be cheap. There are high end P&S cameras (like the Canon G15, the Fuji X20, Sony RX100) that do a much better job than those 3MP cameras but you’ll spend $500 for one. They have better image quality, better low light performance, and more features, all while being easier to use.
But for most folks, the $125 P&S cameras do a fine job, even if they are being replaced by camera phones.
The problem with colour and the human eye, is that our vision compensates for “off” colours to some degree. A photo taken in flourescent light is greenish. One taken in tungsten light is “orange-ish”. One taken in cloudy shadowis bluish. Our mind processes it to eliminate the problem unless we are specifically looking for the tint. Similarly, there are optical illusions where the same colour looks very diferent depending on what other colour it is in proximity to.
Digital cameras to some extent (to different extents) can process the photos they take to attempt the same hue compensation that the human mind does - auto colour balance, auto contrast, etc.
My phone has an 8 megapixel camera. I’ve been absolutely fascinated with the ability to zoom and see things in pictures I’ve taken with little to no pixelation or blurring. That’s what I’d like to see improve and become cheaper. Take a picture of a supermarket aisle and be able to read a box on the shelf at the far end. Neat stuff!
That’s much cheaper to achieve with optical zoom rather than more megapixels.
There is a physical limit. There is little point in making pixels on the sensor smaller than the wavelength of the light they are trying to capture. And those tiny 12-16 MP cameras in smart phones are fairly close. Red light has 750nm wavelength and pixels in these cameras are only about twice that. Further increase in pixel count would require a large sensor with a larger lens, etc.
Human eye would be close to 50 MP camcorder recording at 20 Hz and post-processing the data in real time. This is already doable, but is far bulkier and power-hungry than a human eye.