<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The mother of all cameras&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://www.nicksimonsen.com/2007/09/18/the-mother-of-all-cameras/</link>
	<description>When in doubt, blog it out!</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:44:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Woo</title>
		<link>http://www.nicksimonsen.com/2007/09/18/the-mother-of-all-cameras/#comment-234</link>
		<author>Ian Woo</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.nicksimonsen.com/2007/09/18/the-mother-of-all-cameras/#comment-234</guid>
		<description>Hey Nick, I know I already replied to you once but this is for Sam's benefit too if he reads it.

7240x5433 is the size from the 39.3 mp camera used for the first Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week New York campaign. The camera was a Phase One P45  digital back, and it starts at about $29-30,000! (You can rent one from VisTek here in Calgary) If you want to see an image from that at 100% let me know.

The dimensions don't really seem too huge, but think of it this way: if you add just one px to each side to that image, you need another 12,675 pixels. So you get diminishing returns in width and height with higher and higher megapixels. Now... really good glass makes a huge difference in how crisp that image is. And it's scary how much THOSE cost. Then again, the Hubble has cost about $5 billion by now...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Nick, I know I already replied to you once but this is for Sam&#8217;s benefit too if he reads it.</p>
<p>7240&#215;5433 is the size from the 39.3 mp camera used for the first Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week New York campaign. The camera was a Phase One P45  digital back, and it starts at about $29-30,000! (You can rent one from VisTek here in Calgary) If you want to see an image from that at 100% let me know.</p>
<p>The dimensions don&#8217;t really seem too huge, but think of it this way: if you add just one px to each side to that image, you need another 12,675 pixels. So you get diminishing returns in width and height with higher and higher megapixels. Now&#8230; really good glass makes a huge difference in how crisp that image is. And it&#8217;s scary how much THOSE cost. Then again, the Hubble has cost about $5 billion by now&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Lu</title>
		<link>http://www.nicksimonsen.com/2007/09/18/the-mother-of-all-cameras/#comment-233</link>
		<author>Sam Lu</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.nicksimonsen.com/2007/09/18/the-mother-of-all-cameras/#comment-233</guid>
		<description>That camera and &lt;a href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/24/big-red-one-digicam-that-is-debuts-at-nab/" rel="nofollow"&gt;this camcorder&lt;/a&gt; should make babies.

But seriously, how large of a resolution photo can you achieve with 39 megapixels? That seems excessive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That camera and <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/24/big-red-one-digicam-that-is-debuts-at-nab/" rel="nofollow">this camcorder</a> should make babies.</p>
<p>But seriously, how large of a resolution photo can you achieve with 39 megapixels? That seems excessive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
