Why have still cameras' resolutions become more than video cameras' resolutions? The res. of the 8K is about 33 megapixels, but hasselblad's h6d's res. is 100mp... (Just ignore Lytro Cinema for now)
Why do manufacturers give more priority to the resolutions of still cameras? I mean why people need more res. on their still photos?

  • Yes, why there's more res in a still camera?... I don't get why..
    – user152435
    Jun 18 '16 at 17:46
  • Not a dumb question. Vi Jun 19 '16 at 1:31

Do you have a display(TV) that could utilize 100mp? Also, capturing 30fps of 100mp images... Not going to happen in today's world without a serious cost. Why do stills need this? For printing large formats and for post production cropping abilities.

  • Ah! thanks, I slightly thought about cropping though... Anyway sorry for the dumb question....
    – user152435
    Jun 18 '16 at 18:10
  • State of the art would probably be cameras from Red. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company Jun 18 '16 at 18:45
  • Sensor size is another limiting factor. High end cine cameras use super 35mm format, highest resolution still photography sensors are much larger.
    – MirekE
    Jun 18 '16 at 19:45
  • 1
    Post production cropping can also be useful for video. It lets you add panning or zoom effects, even if you recorded a static video.
    – vclaw
    Jun 28 '16 at 22:32

We examine a photograph for detail and pictorial information. We look at video and movies for different kinds of information having to do with flow and sequence.

If we had the technology, we'd use it. Everything we have now is a concession to limited materials and processes. There are many phenomena that await such technology to reveal their secrets to curious minds but limited bodies.

For the present, we use theory, inference, conjecture, and work-arounds as a substitute.


Reading 33Mp at 25 fps with 3 8bit channels per pixel is nearly 20Gib/s (order of magnitude estimate based depending on how the Bayer mark is dealt with etc.). On-chip compression trades this against the need for real-time processing on the sensor. This is clearly possible but expensive, power hungry and bulky compared to still image readout rates (at least once the buffer is full).

Storing and particularly editing the output of this is beyond the capabilities of anyone without the facilities of a major studio, while a decent desktop can perform basic operations slowly on even gigapixel stills.

Stills can make use of the resolution by being cropped or printed to billboard size.


The main reason is data management.

A stills camera can freeze an image in the sensor using a shutter, then take it's sweet time reading it out, compressing it if desired and writing it to a storage device.

A video camera has to capture and readout the image within one frame time, the encoding and storage can be pipelined to some degree but they still need to have enough capacity to deal with tens of frames per second.

The same applies on the output side, a high resolution large format printer can take it's sweet time processing and outputting the data. A video screen can't.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.