Why Camera Raw Needs Larger Size Choices

Question

The upsampling provided in Camera Raw as part of the conversion process is excellent.  I know of no better way to extract the maximum possible detail from a raw image than to convert to an upsampled resolution.
Trouble is, the biggest value one can select from the list is 6144 x 4096 pixels.
Some cameras, e.g., the Nikon D800, already deliver images with more pixels that this, so there are no upsampled resolutions to choose from in the Workflow Options dialog.  There need to be!
There is a way to "trick" Camera Raw into providing a larger image - one can set a custom crop, then drag the crop tool around the entire image, then finish the conversion.
Just to illustrate the utility in doing this, I used the "trick" to get a 9000 x 6000 pixel conversion from a Nikon D800 image, which can be found here:
http://movies.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/nikon_d800/DSC_0241.NEF.zip
Once I opened this image at 54 megapixels (up from the camera's native 36.2 MP) I sharpened it.  You can see how well that came out here (11 megabyte JPEG file):
http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/ForumPosts/DSC_0241_Upsampled_and_Sharpened.jpg
I've made this request before, and it was ignored.  Here's hoping the Camera Raw team will reconsider offering some upsampled sizes based on the native size (e.g., 125%, 150%, etc.).  No matter how many megapixels you've got, more is better.
-Noel

Answer 1

Jeff Schewe wrote:
You need to make a use case argument that carries enough weight for the engineers to go into the sizing options and do additional work–which appearently you've not successfully done yet.
if enough users ask for it
You're advocating design by public popularity contest over technical leadership?  Really?  LOL, I mean no disrespect but that sounds like something out of Dilbert's world. 
Someone on the Camera Raw design staff has ALREADY made the case for providing both up- and down-sampling options for all the cameras available at the time, or those options would not have been implemented in the first place!  That they were implemented as fixed values rather than a formula based on the native resolution may have been because of constraints that are no longer there now (based on our current ability to arbitrarily choose sizes via the Crop trick).
RASouthworth wrote:
I've always read (and practiced) remaining at native camera res until edit completion, and then going thru an upsampling and sharpening phase for print. Why run it up early?
Ah, so now it becomes clear we're discussing something that goes against long-standing beliefs you have been running on.
1.  No one is trying to force you to abandon anything you like to do and which nets you good results already.
2.  No one is proposing anything radical here, but do always try to keep an open mind, because there might still be people in the world who are just as smart as those who have sold you books in the past.
-Noel