Prediction: 32k cameras.

Yes there will be $32k cameras (more or less), but 32k cameras need not cost that much. They could cost hundreds. I'm jot talking about the digital cinema sensor with sensor pads measured in nanometers, bit just 1 micron ones. What application, car, transport and security cams a lot. See, its about evidence. People ask me where's the evidence, but don't stump up a 100 million starting funding or a non disclosure agreement, or offer evidence of sincerity. At distance it is important to have a lot of.detail I'm the evidence chain.

Say somebody is behaving erratically some distance away in traffic causing a sequence of events that you suddenly are thrust into. On a QVGA resolution sensor you might see little. On a fhd sensor you can see little st double the distance but more before. At each of 4k, 8k, 16k, and 32k you see double the distance. Now you can id the driver responsible, and if close enough, see his state of mind causing the accident. You no longer have a jumble of pixels on a 140-360 degree image, and in 3D stereo high frame rate even.

Let's look at security. Now. You can wide angle and post digitally zoom in. A single camera looks around, and tells you what is happening a while away.

Now, you could buy such a thing and film with it.

Now let's look at a micron spacing of 32k. That's a 32mm+ sensor, doable today, doable cheaply in future. One of the problems with small sensor pads, is that light itself is erratic. While visible light may fit into 1 micron, light photons get pushed SNF pulled around, producing a lot of noise. And they might hit the edge of one or more pads at a time. So. Lower quality. But it's ok.

Technically possible and practically useful are not always the same. The 4.6K sensor had 5.5 micron photosites and the original BMCC used 6.5 micron photosites. The BMPCC4K has 4.63 micron photosites. What useful dynamic range would occur using one micro photosites? I’d guess it wouldn’t make great cinema but could be useful. Still I’d rather go with 6K 5.5 micron photosites on a 33.79 mm sensor glass rather than shrink the sensor so severely.

the smaller is the photosite, the noisier it become...

Lol. For a long time ago they develop over 27 stop technology with color constancy (unlike normal camera, colors remain same over the brightness range). It was used on cat cameras. They develop sensor sights that can pickup a single deep space photon with little noise. What you see at these companies are not the finale word. They are very little compared to what is out there, but quality nevertheless. The smallest cinema sensor pixels I've heard of are under 50 nanometer from memory. You think that company is investing so many millions because they think it doesn't work. It is not the costs of low volume high cost manufacturers with individual technology and parts access you should be basing what can be done on. Its a red herring. The really big companies do cameras with cheaper technology, and charge you more while they market you his void it is, so shareholders can live in luxury.

Here is an updated article on 8 year old 20cm quare sensor from Canon. They also have a link to the 250mp canon. I don't know the resolution of this sensor, but a guy in the States years ago (before this I think) tried a 4 giga pixel image. A 20cm pixel could do 200k a side using conventional cell phone technology. That's 40 giga pixels. I don't know what it would be with that submicron cinema sensor tech. But hat tech was meant to emulate silver nitrate film, by registering the hits of individual photons on the grains. As such, maybe it doesn't even need a colour filter as it could one day map the light. Hmm, with upcoming computing next decade that could be possible holographically (3D). That sensor tech has gone quite, maybe Sony or Red has bought it, maybe somebody else, in such a case as Red is pursuing multipoint and Sony and another have other interests?

http://thenewcamera.com/world-biggest-c ... -by-canon/