# 160 Megapixel Digital



## doobs (Jan 24, 2008)

http://www.gadgettastic.com/2008/01/17/160-megapixel-camera/

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

Wow.

My friend (non-photographer) is telling me how he won a debate we had a while back that film is still a better choice for capturing the best image possible. Not sure of the quality of this camera as compared to the characteristics of film, but I'm still stunned.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 24, 2008)

Welcome to the future. 

Now to get it to look as good as film....


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 24, 2008)

i dont know if i'd consider this 
"the future" (partly because i saw this camera somewhere online about a year ago) as far as i know, you could make a camera have as many megapixels as you'd want, it'll just be bigger and cost more, but who needs it if it takes 10 seconds to take a picture in the middle of the day?   still looks cool though


----------



## Alpha (Jan 24, 2008)

That about matches the resolution of a 6x17 negative @ around 3000dpi. However, most estimates put the resolution of high resolution emulsions closer to 4000dpi, and in the case of the best slide films, closer to 5000dpi. 

So if you're shooting a 617 with, say, Velvia or RSX 50, or perhaps 64T, you're looking at a resolution of about 394mp.

A good 8x10 chrome weighs in at an astonishing 2000 megapixels. I know what you're thinking. I had to do the math twice because I didn't believe it the first time.

By the way this camera you've linked to is simply a 617 with a scanning back. Check out BetterLight...they more or less invented the current scan-back technology. Though BetterLight's advertising is totally phony. They list their top scan back at 416mp, though at highest resolution its output is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels, which only works out to 138mp. A good chrome from my 4x5 works out to 500mp.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 25, 2008)

Yeah but does your film camera run Windows XP? I think this arguement is settled :lmao:


----------



## Alpha (Jan 25, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Yeah but does your film camera run Windows XP? I think this arguement is settled :lmao:



Once I edited a 13gb photo on the quad g5. Man that was a glorious day.


----------



## adolan20 (Jan 25, 2008)

I just bought it because it looks so cool.....j/k it's hideous.


----------



## Kentanner11 (Jan 25, 2008)

not exactly pocket size.... I wonder what it weighs!


----------



## Alpha (Jan 25, 2008)

They're beasts. Look up Fuji's gx617 for dimensions.


----------



## doobs (Jan 25, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> By the way this camera you've linked to is simply a 617 with a scanning back. Check out BetterLight...they more or less invented the current scan-back technology. Though BetterLight's advertising is totally phony. They list their top scan back at 416mp, though at highest resolution its output is 10,200 x 13,600 pixels, which only works out to 138mp. A good chrome from my 4x5 works out to 500mp.



Yeah, I was aware that it's not fully digital, if you will, however, it still is an astonishing advancement in the world of digital photography. The price of this camera is far too high to even consider this as a purchase for most people.


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2008)

When comparing film to digital there is a lot more to consider than just sheer megapixels... 

I'm more impressed by these guys.. not because of the final out come of the projct... but mainly because of what they accomplished as a project team:

http://www.gigapxl.org/


----------



## Alpha (Jan 27, 2008)

usayit said:


> When comparing film to digital there is a lot more to consider than just sheer megapixels...



Well...yes and no. As far as I'm concerned there will be a lot more to consider once they're on numerically level playing fields. By that I mean capable of equal resolution and field of view at the same focal length. Right now, digital is sorely behind in anything larger than 645.


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 27, 2008)

I'm amazed that more people haven't mentioned the 11 stops of dynamic range. Isn't a normal CCD closer to about 5? Correct me if I'm wrong...

It's kinda cool to see stuff like this becuase it gives us a glimpse of the technology we'll have in the next few generations of dSLR's.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 27, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> I'm amazed that more people haven't mentioned the 11 stops of dynamic range. Isn't a normal CCD closer to about 5? Correct me if I'm wrong...
> 
> It's kinda cool to see stuff like this becuase it gives us a glimpse of the technology we'll have in the next few generations of dSLR's.



I was going to edit my post to add dynamic range but got lazy.

As for future dSLR's I don't think this tells us much of anything. Formats this large will always be specialty items, and scan backs will most likely never be incorporated into any camera smaller than 6x9, if that.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Jan 28, 2008)

Can I get that in a point and shoot....slim line maybe?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 28, 2008)

doobs said:


> http://www.gadgettastic.com/2008/01/17/160-megapixel-camera/
> 
> http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm
> 
> ...



Who the hell would use that?


----------



## Alpha (Jan 28, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Who the hell would use that?



I know at least one person who shoots film with a 6x17. Price notwithstanding, they are the kings of panorama unless you count swing lenses.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jan 28, 2008)

I personally could not see myself pimping one of those, but i was watching a show on NGHD and they were doing these LARGE scale, digital photos, all in order to compare population v. water. They had the cam set up in the belly of the plane. The shots were awesome from altitude(at least what they showed) but I could not imagine using that kind of rig on the street.


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 28, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> I was going to edit my post to add dynamic range but got lazy.
> 
> As for future dSLR's I don't think this tells us much of anything. Formats this large will always be specialty items, and scan backs will most likely never be incorporated into any camera smaller than 6x9, if that.



I'm no saying that consumer cameras are ever going to be that size. I'm just saying there is usually a pattern of some crazy new technology coming out, it eventually gets smaller, lighter and significantly cheaper, and then reaches the average consumer. 

I'm mainly just looking forward to a sensor with that broad of a tonal range.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 29, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> I know at least one person who shoots film with a 6x17. Price notwithstanding, they are the kings of panorama unless you count swing lenses.



Film is one thing, this thing has a friggin PC ATTACHED TO IT!! WITH WINDOWS!!

Excuse me while it takes 5 minutes to boot up my camera...


..oh, lemme log off real quick...


----------



## That One Guy (Jan 30, 2008)

looks like a futuristic etch-a-sketch.

what ever happened to cameras being simple? remember the good ole "cam-ah-rock" that fred flintstone used to use?


----------

