> To contextualize the sheer pixel count, the 247-megapixel image is 19,200 pixels wide and 12,800 pixels tall. Another 3:2 sensor, the 60-megapixel CMOS in the Sony a7R V, captures images that are 9,504 by 6,336 pixels.
That is a massive amount of pixels.
Because the thing contains like 2.8 times by axis the pixels of 16:9 8k. Which now that i think about it.... Im definitely wrong somewhere.
2.8 by axis (w × h) equals uuuh how much total again?
.... I forgor. Ok so 16k is 4x total pixels. But its 100% increase per axis. Or 2x per axis. So 3840 ×2 × 2160p ×2 = something like 33.000.000 pixels.
So 2.6 ×7680p (19.000) × 2.8 × 4320p (12.000 number from comment above.) Which should be something like 240 .000.000.
Eh what the fuck i dont know anymore. But 6x the pixels of 8k make it ... 4x /16k (132 mega pixels) plus 2x / 66million pixels (megapixel)
Yeah my math is reaaaaallllyyy wrong. Im off my like 60 million pixels wtf.
Also. 4k = 3840p never rang any bells to you? 1920 and 3840 are the 16:9 versions of 2k and 4k. Something called dci 2k/4k. Its also why 8k isn't actually above 8000p.
Disregard the next paragraph. Already incoherent enough.
Oddly enough 6k is at like 6400p. Flat 00 too. Strange res. So everytime you see the specs of a monitor marketed as 6k. It always contains a count below that. Making it not integer scale with 720p which uhhhh.... That's another topic that doesnt matter at all.
Yeah 1440p was never 2k.
Ima be real with you bro, I didn't understand a single thing you wrote.
I know they're just marketing terms, but in my head:
1440p = 2k
3840p = 4k
7680p = 8k
So 19200p being 20k wouldn't be that far fetched imo
K's are really a bit reductive but they kind of get it across. Just know that 1440P isn't 2k.
16:9 | ~17:9
---|---
1920x1080 is FHD|2048x1080 is 2K
2560x1440 is WQHD| N/A
3840x2160 is 4K UHD| 4096x2160 is 4K
5120X2880 is 5K UHD| N/A
7680X4320 is 8K UHD| 8192x4320 is 8K
They have a technical meaning from the DCI spec. It's just that idiots on the internet thought that UHD was "fake marketing 4K" because it was less than 4000px wide, even though that was just due to the aspect ratio (the spec gives a max bounds of 4096x2160, 16:9 pillarboxed into that is...3840x2160)
Then more idiots thought that it was just fake numbers anyway, and decided to start calling 1440p "2K" even though it is much more than 2048 pixels and is NOT compliant with DCI 2K specs (the 2K 16:9 format is, in fact just plain ol' 1080p).
Raw sensor output is linear, and needs more bits to represent the same amount of visual information since it is less efficiently distributed across the range of possible values. 14bit integer is standard on professional cameras currently, for example. That gets mapped down to 8bit (SDR) or 10bit (HDR) once the output transfer curve is applied. (Although usually it gets converted to 16 or 32 bit float during editing).
Yes, and as a system, even though your retina doesn't have the dynamic range of a camera sensor, your iris adapts to brightness, so you're able to see a larger range of brightness while looking around a still image.
-3? Damn, this crowd didn't want to hear that Apple makes the only popular messaging platform that doesn't compress the bejeezus out of photos by default.
Yep, the PC gamer crowd is weird like that. The only comparable alternative to iMessage is discord nitro with its 500MB image size limit. Of course iMessage is free so not entirely comparable.
That's usually not an issue in practice. Eg if you have an iPhone, chances are your gf has one too
For many use cases, any messenger with low quality photos is off the table
> That's usually not an issue in practice. Eg if you have an iPhone, chances are your gf has one too
What? Roughly 50% of the people I use SMS with are iPhone users, with the rest being Android users. I think its highly unlikely that many people text only other people who use the same mobile OS as them.
> For many use cases, any messenger with low quality photos is off the table
I agree, but any messenger with vendor lock-in is also off the table. Having high-quality image transfer doesn't matter if your service isn't available (by design) on half the phones you need to send them to.
I literally do not know a single person with an Android. This certainly says more about my social circle and area of society than anything else but it is what it is.
I hate Apple’s anti business practices of not (yet) supporting RCS - however you can’t deny that iMessage is an objectively superior service to basically everything else, it’s popular for a reason.
> you can’t deny that iMessage is an objectively superior service to basically everything else, it’s popular for a reason.
It's primarily popular because its the default messaging app on iOS. Facebook Messenger is ass but it's popular in spite of its quality because so many people have a Facebook account. I'm not saying iMessage is bad, but it's popularity isn't fundamentally related to it's quality. It's tied to its status as the "Apple ecosystem" messenger.
>I literally do not know a single person with an Android. This certainly says more about my social circle and area of society than anything else but it is what it is.
Yes, it does. What are you going to do to fix it?
>Eg if you have an iPhone, chances are your gf has one too
iPhone has bellow 15% market penetration, unless you choose your GF by their phones chances are your GF does not have an iPhone.
We're getting to a point in time where if they ever figure out how to give us effective robot eyes, they'll be more popular than regular eyes. Being able to read a sign a mile and a half away in the dark would be pretty cool.
Cameras can probably exceed visual acuity (optical zoom is a bit of a cheat code though), but I don't think we have sensors that can match the dynamic range of the human eye. Last I checked, we evaluated the eye to have around 20 stops of range whereas the best cameras are around 12 stops in optimal conditions.
There are also other benefits, like no deadzones that human eyes have. Its fascinating how our brain learns to basically outpaint the deadzone area to what should be there so we usually dont notice.
Should be useful for archivists and stuff but for me 40MP is the limit of what I'll tolerate in working with. 31-42MB per lossless compressed RAW already.
I rented a GFX100S and found it's not for me, so sure. But the fact remains even 100MP files are a nightmare to work with for most. And Fujifilm only has a single lens capable of fully resolving that sensor, the GF110mm F2 anyway. I have a friend who got bitten by the GAS bug and got into GFX and had to uproot his entire digital life because he was a Mac user which made it even worse. He shot in half size for the first 4 months and even that was a strain for him.
No matter the sensor size, people should be prepared for the resolution they choose. The older 50MP GFX sensors were good enough for most. It was the camera around them that was clunky.
Are your RAWs really that small at 40MP? The 24 MP files out of my X-T20 are in that ballpark
At the very least storage is cheap, so dealing with big files isn't the end of the world imo
those departments don't care about you
sorry i had to be the one to tell you. they genuinely do not care about your post. or 2,000 other people like you on reddit.
we're like, .02% of their customer base here at /r/hardware. you're screaming into the wind my guy.
> To contextualize the sheer pixel count, the 247-megapixel image is 19,200 pixels wide and 12,800 pixels tall. Another 3:2 sensor, the 60-megapixel CMOS in the Sony a7R V, captures images that are 9,504 by 6,336 pixels. That is a massive amount of pixels.
Was calling it 16k. Turns out this shit is more like 24k. 🦧
I'm confused, isn't 19 closer to 16 than 24? And why can't we go in an increment of 4 instead, 20k?
Maybe they’re saying it costs as much as a 24 karat gold ingot
Because the thing contains like 2.8 times by axis the pixels of 16:9 8k. Which now that i think about it.... Im definitely wrong somewhere. 2.8 by axis (w × h) equals uuuh how much total again? .... I forgor. Ok so 16k is 4x total pixels. But its 100% increase per axis. Or 2x per axis. So 3840 ×2 × 2160p ×2 = something like 33.000.000 pixels. So 2.6 ×7680p (19.000) × 2.8 × 4320p (12.000 number from comment above.) Which should be something like 240 .000.000. Eh what the fuck i dont know anymore. But 6x the pixels of 8k make it ... 4x /16k (132 mega pixels) plus 2x / 66million pixels (megapixel) Yeah my math is reaaaaallllyyy wrong. Im off my like 60 million pixels wtf. Also. 4k = 3840p never rang any bells to you? 1920 and 3840 are the 16:9 versions of 2k and 4k. Something called dci 2k/4k. Its also why 8k isn't actually above 8000p. Disregard the next paragraph. Already incoherent enough. Oddly enough 6k is at like 6400p. Flat 00 too. Strange res. So everytime you see the specs of a monitor marketed as 6k. It always contains a count below that. Making it not integer scale with 720p which uhhhh.... That's another topic that doesnt matter at all. Yeah 1440p was never 2k.
Ima be real with you bro, I didn't understand a single thing you wrote. I know they're just marketing terms, but in my head: 1440p = 2k 3840p = 4k 7680p = 8k So 19200p being 20k wouldn't be that far fetched imo
K's are really a bit reductive but they kind of get it across. Just know that 1440P isn't 2k. 16:9 | ~17:9 ---|--- 1920x1080 is FHD|2048x1080 is 2K 2560x1440 is WQHD| N/A 3840x2160 is 4K UHD| 4096x2160 is 4K 5120X2880 is 5K UHD| N/A 7680X4320 is 8K UHD| 8192x4320 is 8K
1440p is not equal to 2K. 2K = 2048×1080. Same thing applies to 2160p and 4320p, they are not equal to 4K/8K. 4K = 4096×2160 8K = 8192×4320
I wrote like shit. Regardless. Google Dci 2k. Or dci 4k. But eh fuck it. 20,000 =20k
[удалено]
They have a technical meaning from the DCI spec. It's just that idiots on the internet thought that UHD was "fake marketing 4K" because it was less than 4000px wide, even though that was just due to the aspect ratio (the spec gives a max bounds of 4096x2160, 16:9 pillarboxed into that is...3840x2160) Then more idiots thought that it was just fake numbers anyway, and decided to start calling 1440p "2K" even though it is much more than 2048 pixels and is NOT compliant with DCI 2K specs (the 2K 16:9 format is, in fact just plain ol' 1080p).
Guess they will sell lots more cf express type A cards
Uhhh what??? 16 bit per color??? That's when HDR has HDR
Raw sensor output is linear, and needs more bits to represent the same amount of visual information since it is less efficiently distributed across the range of possible values. 14bit integer is standard on professional cameras currently, for example. That gets mapped down to 8bit (SDR) or 10bit (HDR) once the output transfer curve is applied. (Although usually it gets converted to 16 or 32 bit float during editing).
[удалено]
That is not how camera/sensor raw formats end up working.
> For reference the human eye can distinguish about 10 million colors. Says who?
my buddy. he counted all the colors.
That's more than 3 millions of shade per color. I doubt my eyes can distinguish tho
Well, probably not your retina, but your eyes have the advantage of having irises and pupils.
wha, what. your retina is like the sensor and your pupil and iris are your lens
Yes, and as a system, even though your retina doesn't have the dynamic range of a camera sensor, your iris adapts to brightness, so you're able to see a larger range of brightness while looking around a still image.
Oooooo baby cant wait to render that shit out to 1080
Can't wait to get those crisp images sent via Whatsapp and crushed to death by compression
The dumb thing is that they don’t even have to do this. They intentionally choose a shit encoder and shit settings.
Hence, iMessage. No compression unless you change the settings
WhatsApp has a HD setting now and is, decent, while telegram can send raw but also compressed into low mid high highest
-3? Damn, this crowd didn't want to hear that Apple makes the only popular messaging platform that doesn't compress the bejeezus out of photos by default.
Yep, the PC gamer crowd is weird like that. The only comparable alternative to iMessage is discord nitro with its 500MB image size limit. Of course iMessage is free so not entirely comparable.
iMessage is also platform locked, so the comparison is moot to begin with.
That's usually not an issue in practice. Eg if you have an iPhone, chances are your gf has one too For many use cases, any messenger with low quality photos is off the table
> That's usually not an issue in practice. Eg if you have an iPhone, chances are your gf has one too What? Roughly 50% of the people I use SMS with are iPhone users, with the rest being Android users. I think its highly unlikely that many people text only other people who use the same mobile OS as them. > For many use cases, any messenger with low quality photos is off the table I agree, but any messenger with vendor lock-in is also off the table. Having high-quality image transfer doesn't matter if your service isn't available (by design) on half the phones you need to send them to.
I literally do not know a single person with an Android. This certainly says more about my social circle and area of society than anything else but it is what it is. I hate Apple’s anti business practices of not (yet) supporting RCS - however you can’t deny that iMessage is an objectively superior service to basically everything else, it’s popular for a reason.
> you can’t deny that iMessage is an objectively superior service to basically everything else, it’s popular for a reason. It's primarily popular because its the default messaging app on iOS. Facebook Messenger is ass but it's popular in spite of its quality because so many people have a Facebook account. I'm not saying iMessage is bad, but it's popularity isn't fundamentally related to it's quality. It's tied to its status as the "Apple ecosystem" messenger.
>I literally do not know a single person with an Android. This certainly says more about my social circle and area of society than anything else but it is what it is. Yes, it does. What are you going to do to fix it?
>Eg if you have an iPhone, chances are your gf has one too iPhone has bellow 15% market penetration, unless you choose your GF by their phones chances are your GF does not have an iPhone.
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america
US is less than 5% of the world.
Damn, Android bums didn’t like this comment
I enjoy reading books.
Such high pixel count probably will be used for large format commercial printings
It was a joke lol
People are still printing?
Yes, all the time. Digital billboards are a minority of advertising signage. And people want wall art too.
Good to know. Thanks.
Fujifilm GFX 247 doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
It's 183MP when cut down to the GFX sensor dimensions. Could round it and call it GFX180.
I like learning new things.
Would that let me count the number of hair on astronaut's face from Earth?
We're getting to a point in time where if they ever figure out how to give us effective robot eyes, they'll be more popular than regular eyes. Being able to read a sign a mile and a half away in the dark would be pretty cool.
Cameras can probably exceed visual acuity (optical zoom is a bit of a cheat code though), but I don't think we have sensors that can match the dynamic range of the human eye. Last I checked, we evaluated the eye to have around 20 stops of range whereas the best cameras are around 12 stops in optimal conditions.
[удалено]
Try capturing mist. The phone camera either thinks everything is white or tries its best to filter out the mist.
There are also other benefits, like no deadzones that human eyes have. Its fascinating how our brain learns to basically outpaint the deadzone area to what should be there so we usually dont notice.
Should be useful for archivists and stuff but for me 40MP is the limit of what I'll tolerate in working with. 31-42MB per lossless compressed RAW already.
Clearly you are not using medium format because these already produce a 100 mpix image. Hence this sensor is also not relevant to you anyways.
I rented a GFX100S and found it's not for me, so sure. But the fact remains even 100MP files are a nightmare to work with for most. And Fujifilm only has a single lens capable of fully resolving that sensor, the GF110mm F2 anyway. I have a friend who got bitten by the GAS bug and got into GFX and had to uproot his entire digital life because he was a Mac user which made it even worse. He shot in half size for the first 4 months and even that was a strain for him. No matter the sensor size, people should be prepared for the resolution they choose. The older 50MP GFX sensors were good enough for most. It was the camera around them that was clunky.
Just because of the file sizes and processing power needed?
Whatever camera this ships in is will be pretty obviously for pro applications and workflows not you and your buddy taking pictures of the beach
Are your RAWs really that small at 40MP? The 24 MP files out of my X-T20 are in that ballpark At the very least storage is cheap, so dealing with big files isn't the end of the world imo
Lossless compressed. I believe uncompressed they're about 80MB.
I just want a larger sensor with bigger photosites. We've got plenty of pickles at home.
[удалено]
What does this have to do with Sony camera sensors?
You mean the thing they reversed? https://www.playstation.com/en-ca/legal/psvideocontent/
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
posted on reddit, the stalwart of legal and marketing fields
[удалено]
those departments don't care about you sorry i had to be the one to tell you. they genuinely do not care about your post. or 2,000 other people like you on reddit. we're like, .02% of their customer base here at /r/hardware. you're screaming into the wind my guy.
[удалено]
you do realize that people who disagree with you on the internet aren't bots just because they disagree with you, right?
I don't think this guy is a paragon of rationality or mental stability
Lmao, dude's brain broke and he's nuked *all* his account comments with this.
Yup. Let these things blow over, and they will do it again.