151–160 of 248 posts
But why?? It's not possible make use of more than 10mp unless you're printing a billboard? And that is if you get whole 10mp of sharpness. The best DSLR/Hasselblad images are limited by the cameras optics. There are other vital properties of a camera, like dynamic range and color accuracy. Going to extreme in one spec is absolutely pointless without improving all other aspects of the system.
Past a point, more megapixels does not mean more quality. I'd like to see better optics before we pour R&D into sensors.
I see this copy/paste a lot. And while MP doesn't mean better dynamic range, lower noise, faster shutter speeds, or higher ISO performance saying that it isn't "higher quality" is nonsense. Higher megapixels literally mean more information about a scene stored by the sensor. Now that information might not be more accurate than a camera with lower MP, but even with that being the case it does better allow you to sub-d…
I don't doubt that a better sensor behind SLR-quality graph lets you produce better output in Photoshop. But sharper lenses with larger apertures and better autofocus systems means that when conditions aren't ideal, the same actions taken by a user result in a better photograph for no additional effort at all.
I suspect part of this is because cell phone manufacturers know exactly how to throw EEs at a problem to make better electronics. That's their core competency. But the democratization of cameras with high quality senors needs to be met by the democratization of high quality optics. Right now the demand for (good) optics is pretty small, so they can continue to be rare/expensive specialty items. If OEMs want them the way Apple wanted displays in 2006, there's a decent chance the market could make it happen.
Past a point, more megapixels does not mean more quality. I'd like to see better optics before we pour R&D into sensors.
I see this copy/paste a lot. And while MP doesn't mean better dynamic range, lower noise, faster shutter speeds, or higher ISO performance saying that it isn't "higher quality" is nonsense. Higher megapixels literally mean more information about a scene stored by the sensor. Now that information might not be more accurate than a camera with lower MP, but even with that being the case it does better allow you to sub-d…
Past a point, more megapixels does not mean more quality. I'd like to see better optics before we pour R&D into sensors.
I see this copy/paste a lot. And while MP doesn't mean better dynamic range, lower noise, faster shutter speeds, or higher ISO performance saying that it isn't "higher quality" is nonsense. Higher megapixels literally mean more information about a scene stored by the sensor. Now that information might not be more accurate than a camera with lower MP, but even with that being the case it does better allow you to sub-d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue I have with super-high megapixel cameras isn't that number, it's the sensor density. At certain densities, light begins to behave different because of the shape of the sensor and it doesn't capture the image correctly anymore. This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. As for your SLR, 16MP, even around 20MP is still well within the "light beh…
> This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... As I said above, MP is just one way to measure a sensor's performance characteristics, and they have kind of ignored some others (dynamic range in particular). I'm not sure I follow your argument about "lig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue I have with super-high megapixel cameras isn't that number, it's the sensor density. At certain densities, light begins to behave different because of the shape of the sensor and it doesn't capture the image correctly anymore. This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. As for your SLR, 16MP, even around 20MP is still well within the "light beh…
> This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... As I said above, MP is just one way to measure a sensor's performance characteristics, and they have kind of ignored some others (dynamic range in particular). I'm not sure I follow your argument about "lig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue I have with super-high megapixel cameras isn't that number, it's the sensor density. At certain densities, light begins to behave different because of the shape of the sensor and it doesn't capture the image correctly anymore. This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. As for your SLR, 16MP, even around 20MP is still well within the "light beh…
> This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... As I said above, MP is just one way to measure a sensor's performance characteristics, and they have kind of ignored some others (dynamic range in particular). I'm not sure I follow your argument about "lig…
He's agreeing with you. When consumer-level devices boost megapixels, they don't usually boost the sensor's physical size.
The explanation I've heard is that the denser you pack the sensor elements, the more interference they receive from each other. This is why digital images become grainy at higher ISO, and why the problem is worse with higher-megapixel cameras (when the sensor size isn't also increased). SLRs can go higher than P&S cameras while maintaining acceptable levels of noise because their pixel density is lower (even if there are more total pixels).
In this particular case, they did make the sensor larger, which is great. But this is part of why more megapixels does not mean better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IE 11 will include WebGL support [1], and due to Microsoft's 'core systems' sharing across big Windows and Windows Phone, this is likely to propogate down to the phone. However the lack of webkit will remain :( [1] http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/06/ie11
The big issue with not previously including WebGL support was glaring security issues right? Doesn't WebGL essentially use root access to your gpu?
Only in badly-designed, non-conformant user agents. :)
The WebGL security issues have, for at least a year, been FUD. The spec is essentially fixed, drivers have become a whole lot better, and browsers have become a whole lot stricter in their validation code. WebGL is not OpenGL nor OpenGL ES.
Examples: while the OpenGL ES spec is silent on buffer overflows, WebGL mandates user agents to signal errors; while OpenGL ES doesn't specify the state of freshly allocated textures, WebGL requires them to be blanked out; WebGL textures can never be from non-origin-clean canvases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everyone had an attitude like that, no one would ever take a risk to fight the incumbents in any of the markets. Offering Battlefield 4 for only Linux would do wonders for Linux adoption. Linux on the desktop needs something like that to push it.
Only, what would a game company care about Linux adoption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nokia's really screwing up the messaging on this, as people are fixating on the megapixel count HTC has been trying to push the message you suggest with the camera on the HTC One, and while the One is a great device and (I think) doing well for HTC, no one is really talking about their camera -- even though it is a superior camera to most other phones. Megapixels are like Clock Speed was a decade ago: there are more…
What HTC did do a good job of was branding their pixels as "Ultrapixels". I see that branding used on all the major tech blogs when mentioning the HTC One's camera. Nokia's making the mistake of pushing a camera with specs that isn't easily understood by many people, and from the looks of it, that seems to include people who consider themselves photographers. I tend to think that the 41 megapixel count will turn off…