The Megapixel war will never be over. Pixelnumbers will increase and the size of the pixel decrease. One of the downside is that the diffraction limit will get worser and worser. Sony had an idea on how to use a special refractive element positioned between the lens and the sensor. You can read more at Egami (google english translation).
11 Responses
That’s too much tech for me! =D
why mot make a bigger sensor. I bet Sony could take over a medium format digital back market with ease.
Then they’d have to make a whole new line of lenses, and Sony being Sony, that wouldn’t end well.
Pretty bad translation. What I’m understand about this topic is that with refractive element is possible to filter away outer parts of airy disk or changing “usual” light to something like laser light.
But the question still under discussions is how many Mpix we need. I think compact camera users rarely needs 8 Mpix. For placing pictures in i-net no more than 2Mpix is necessary. Sensors with Bayer array some 5-6 Mpix could be optimum.
For DSLT and DSLR it is hard to define rationale, because beginners needs is different than for pros, however both are using very similar cameras. Rather question is about lenses and computing hardware either in camera and PC. Good lenses and average computers could easy handle FF 24Mpix (35Mb) RAW. What I have read, diffraction limit for f5.6 on FF is 60Mpix, but this is what could resolve only best lenses. Any way it is interesting, what is rumored 60% resolution increase for A77.
Hmm… from what you say it looks like a very clever invention. Never the less – outer rings of Airy disk are quite small problem comparing to size of center spot – which you cannot really size down as it’s actual picture there, sizing it down would do no more than decrease picture brightness. Compare the outer rings to center spot. I guess some resolution increase would happen, that’s sure, but how high would it be?
Also: doesn’t this invention apply only to compact cameras? Cause AFAIK you cannot use it when angle of light falling on high-refractive surface changes so dramatically as it does in DSLRs from one lens to another. Wouldn’t it increase diffraction on the edges of frame by a lot with UWA lenses?
“But the question still under discussions is how many Mpix we need.” – as many as Sony and Canon decides. What people need doesn’t matter for companies. What people will buy more willingly – that’s what does matter. And so far people will buy 24 MPx camera more likely than 12 MPx one.
Ummm… You can’t cheat the diffraction limit, and diffraction limit does not limit pixel resolution, so I’m not sure what this is solving. 1) You cannot recover information lost to diffraction limit, just as you cannot recover information lost to being out of focus. 2) Having more pixels than the diffraction limit does improve image quality. Even a blurry spot looks better when you have more pixels. Technical Pan had a resolution of 200 lp/mm, and it allowed amazing enlargements even from mediocre lenses. 3) Besides, most lenses don’t come close to having a theoretical resolution higher than the diffraction limit, except at high f numbers when the diffraction limit becomes severe.
My guess is that this will reduce some problems, but create some new problems. For instance, that little lens will itself cause diffraction and aberration.
“Having more pixels than the diffraction limit does improve image quality” – to some point, yes, but it’s very very slight increase and the outcome image looks like out of focus as soon as Airy disc covers more than a single pixel. There’s no talking about razor-sharp picture than. Also you loose any advantage when Airy covers 4 pixels or more – with 24MPx APS-C sensor you hit this spot at f/11.
“Besides, most lenses don’t come close to having a theoretical resolution higher than the diffraction limit” – Most people, most lenses… we talk about high-end equipment here, it doesn’t matter what most lenses resolve. Most lenses are 2mm wide and are made of plastic – you find them in cellphones ;).
Besides that: 50mm f/1.8 prime lens can easily resolve what you need in center. And that’s very popular lens amongst beginners. Even Sony kit lens can resolve what you need in very center at optimal aperture & focal.
A clever idea, but not something that can be applied to DSLRs in its current form.
From what I can gather, it requires a fixed, single focus length lens, as the condensing array has to be matched to the characteristics of the lens it’s paired with. Otherwise, they’d have to make the array “zoom” somehow, which is beyond current technology.
I think metamaterial based lenses and adaptive optics are more plausible long term solutions to the diffraction limit. Though neither are currently realistic for consumer products.
Wont work. And its not needed.
Simple re-creating Pentax 6×7 in digital would solve those diffraction limits. You can squeeze probably 100-150 mpix into that space without problem (well, lens would be problem :D).
We need more megapixels! Digital zoom is the future.
And if you want that to retain any of the current IQ, we need tech like this patent, and more of it.
Remember that canons super cam patent, 5000mm equivalent, handheld white cam prototype, I believe…
Unneeded MPX and unneeded high ISO are the characteristic marketing ploy currently. Chosen by people who understand neither. It does not matter what technology is possible.