• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Last fall Canon showed off a prototype of their 250 megapixel sensor 😲. It's experimental, who knows if it ever it gets to market.

      But even 120 megapixels, really? Who needs it and why? I have to admit, my Nikon D850 has 45 megapixels that I thought I'd never need, but I use them to zoom into objects when my lens couldn't zoom far enough.

      Anyway, this video from Canon is amazing. Is this the future of security cams? They'll be able to tell you had braces on your teeth?

    • The rugby video makes me think about all of the TV shows I've seen where the detectives ask the tech person to enhance the video - now it might actually be possible.

    •  Is this the future of security cams?

      I think so.

      This is really also a question of cost of storage. For consumers, will it be practical? Say over the last decade, does storage cost keep pace with file sizes of the ever growing sensor resolutions?

      Hmmm... My 42MP A7RII raw images come out to about 81.6 MB in size and $0.02/GB on a 2018 Segate Barracuda. Back in 2006, my D80 raw files were 7MB and 0.70/GB on a Segate Barracuda. $4.9 to store 1,000 D80 raws back in the day, and now it's $1.62 for 1,000 A7RII photos. I guess storage costs have come down faster than censor resolutions have risen. Give it a few years and 120MP files will be cheaper to store than 42MP files today.

    • Well it’s pretty cool (hi, Chris 👋 ) but we really don’t ‘need’ it. I found it a bit odd that they’re comparing it to HD vs 4K though - they’re making it look like a much bigger leap than it actually is.