Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Insane camera

profile picture
JRullo
Posts: 1794 - Karma: 265
i was surfing the web and came across this and all i can say is holy shit.

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm
Feb 18 2010 10:20PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
154 million more mega pixels than 99.999% of photographers will ever need.
Feb 18 2010 10:22PM
0 0
profile picture
JRullo
Posts: 1794 - Karma: 265
148
Feb 18 2010 10:29PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
no.
Feb 18 2010 10:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
I hope you realize the size difference between 35mm and 6x17.
Feb 18 2010 11:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Ethan.G
Posts: 1166 - Karma: 465
might want to check this one out...


RED Epic 617 28k - 241 MP's
Feb 19 2010 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,240
play around with this, you will see why
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f1009.cfm
Feb 19 2010 12:45AM
0 0
profile picture
Keyjibbs
Posts: 1542 - Karma: 96
About time they made a 6x17 camera they have every other film format converted to digital already.
Feb 19 2010 1:01AM
0 0
profile picture
tommycat
Posts: 483 - Karma: 23
99.999% is very inaccurate, mostly because in any estimation you should allow 5% for mistakes therefore at the least you should have said "154 million more mega pixels than 99.999% of photographers will ever need." Which would be much more believe as this camera would be marketed tot that photographers.

However, 95% is so inaccurate when you look at the large scope of wealthy photographers. Like any other hobby that requires one to collect many different types of equipment, I'm sure many photographers with the money to blow could justify purchasing this camera.

But that's just what i think.
Feb 19 2010 10:36AM
0 0
profile picture
A.R.
Posts: 1111 - Karma: 11
just thinking out my ass here. "mega" means one million correct?

so this is actually only a 16 mega pixel 6 x 17 sensor.

even still, with that size of sensor your going to get unbelievable detail.
Feb 19 2010 1:03PM
0 0
profile picture
JRullo
Posts: 1794 - Karma: 265
no its 160 mega pixles with is 160, 000, 000 pixles
Feb 19 2010 2:40PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
what your telling me I should of said, is exactly what I said.
Feb 19 2010 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
i dont want to get flamed for this but, I know megapixels dont mean shit anymore, but I use the full 21mp that I have. I have been printing 24x36 images for my thesis and at 300 dpi and at 21mp that makes a 13x19 basically. When I blow them up to 24x36 I really dont lose any quality, photoshop does a good job, but it wouldnt hurt to print a 24x36 without blowing it up
Feb 20 2010 5:44PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Why would you get flamed?

I shoot 6 MP, and print 11 by 14s and they look great..
Feb 21 2010 12:39PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,240
and my 8 look like crap, it all depends on the camera/lens/skill of the photographer
Feb 21 2010 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
Because I was saying that I could use more megapixel. I have printed 20x30 form 8MP and looks great. It would be nice if I didn't need to blow it up to enlarge it :-D
Feb 21 2010 2:40PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)