Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Seitz 160MP in 1 sec.  (Read 2401 times)
wilburdl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« on: October 01, 2006, 07:24:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Wonder how many architecture/ landscape guys are interested in this--the fastest scanning back.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Logged

Darnell
Editorial Photographer | Cartoonist
darnellwilburn.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8236



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2006, 07:45:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I am very interested, but we'll have to see...

- Large manufacturers typically have a very hard time meeting deadlines for such complex products, it must be even more challending for a small player like Seitz. Until the product is actually availalbe for sales TODAY, there is no real garantee that it ever will be. The slighest problem could result in months of delay since they probably don't have the resources to react efficiently if somethings doesn't go per the plan,
- Many things are unclear about the way the product actually works. It is real RGB or not, are the 3 channels captured at the same time or not,...
- Full definition sample of moving subjects are not availalbe yet as far as I know,
- ...

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
williamrohr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2006, 10:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply

IF this camera is for real and the specifications are anywhere near to accurate .. this could be one of the most significant advances announced at the show.  As I understand the numbers, the chip/sensor must have pixels approximately 8 microns square (17 cm / 21250 effective pixels ... I know, its a scanning back) that are capable of exposures as short as 1/20,000 sec.  It apparently manages this feat because of the extreme sensitivity to light (ISO equivalent estimated to be 100 times great than current sensors ... said to be effectively ISO 500 - 10,000).  Now what does that mean .... a 6X6 square back becomes a 56M pixel imaging device.  Furthermore with that ISO and acquisition speed one can easily visualize a pizo or similar micro positioning device (akin to devices already availble) which can achieve that density with a fraction of the actual pixels/sensors (presumably lowering the cost).  Another idea is given the high sensitivity and and fast acquisition speed, use the technology with a semi-transparent fixed mirror like Canon used in the RS and you can do away with the mirror movement mechanism completely ... and combine it with f5.6 or f8 lenses to lower the cost and aberations ... and have have plenty of light to spare for conventional exposures. Or use rotating RGB filters such as used in some current projector technology so each sensor site sees all three colors and eliminates the need for a Bayer filter and algorithm overhead (there isn't much movement in the 1/6600 second it takes for all three exposures).  Better yet use exposures in the 1/1000 to 1/10,000 range and even the need for technology such as image stabilization ceases to be necessary.  The possibilities hint at significant change ahead.  Andy Grove (Intel) and others have shown that new technologies truely displace existing technologies when they are 10X better ... if this chip technology is real, digital becomes a completely different imagining technology from film technology.... just as painting is a different imaging technology from film ...  
Logged
wilburdl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2006, 03:57:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IF this camera is for real and the specifications are anywhere near to accurate .. this could be one of the most significant advances announced at the show.  As I understand the numbers, the chip/sensor must have pixels approximately 8 microns square (17 cm / 21250 effective pixels ... I know, its a scanning back) that are capable of exposures as short as 1/20,000 sec.  It apparently manages this feat because of the extreme sensitivity to light (ISO equivalent estimated to be 100 times great than current sensors ... said to be effectively ISO 500 - 10,000).  Now what does that mean .... a 6X6 square back becomes a 56M pixel imaging device.  Furthermore with that ISO and acquisition speed one can easily visualize a pizo or similar micro positioning device (akin to devices already availble) which can achieve that density with a fraction of the actual pixels/sensors (presumably lowering the cost).  Another idea is given the high sensitivity and and fast acquisition speed, use the technology with a semi-transparent fixed mirror like Canon used in the RS and you can do away with the mirror movement mechanism completely ... and combine it with f5.6 or f8 lenses to lower the cost and aberations ... and have have plenty of light to spare for conventional exposures. Or use rotating RGB filters such as used in some current projector technology so each sensor site sees all three colors and eliminates the need for a Bayer filter and algorithm overhead (there isn't much movement in the 1/6600 second it takes for all three exposures).  Better yet use exposures in the 1/1000 to 1/10,000 range and even the need for technology such as image stabilization ceases to be necessary.  The possibilities hint at significant change ahead.  Andy Grove (Intel) and others have shown that new technologies truely displace existing technologies when they are 10X better ... if this chip technology is real, digital becomes a completely different imagining technology from film technology.... just as painting is a different imaging technology from film ... 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

sooo.... How is it that this small company came up with this incredible tech.? Why hasn't BetterLight come up with something faster?
Logged

Darnell
Editorial Photographer | Cartoonist
darnellwilburn.com
Ed Jack
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2006, 09:51:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
sooo.... How is it that this small company came up with this incredible tech.? Why hasn't BetterLight come up with something faster?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am fortunate that I am in many discussions with Mike Collete at Betterlight. he is a top guy in both sense of the word (i.e. a decent man who is a CEO)!

What I can say is that it is Kodak that really took the TDI technology forward not Dalsa... everyone is amazed that Dalsa has somehow developed a product before Kodak. I am not a liberty to explain what went on between Betterlight and Kodak in view of the new sensors, but lets just say don't underestimate the cost of developing new sensors to the final camera comapny. In this case Seitz have paid Dalsa well to delvope the chip into a product... somehow they have to recover that huge cost... who knows if they'll do this of the sales of this one piece of kit (if it ever makes debut in such a small market). It may well kill them. betterlight products are still rtelevent and have been used for the past 20 years for many applications and represent good value for many photogrpahers. The whole subject movemnt issue with scanning backs is helped by higher iso sensors, but not eliminated. I think you'll see ever more portable scnaiing backs from Betterlight i nthe future... nothing stands still... but be suspiocious of what "big steps" actuallt delover - are tehy big step forward, or sideways ?

Don't get me wrong the new camera is just great, I just don't think it can be compared to a betterlight in such simple terms (although it seems usability is definely well thought out).

I think he'd let me quote this bit :

"My biggest challenge is critically focusing my view
camera -- not camera or subject motion -- and focus problems only get worse
with smaller pixel sizes, as Michael Reichmann quickly discovered about his
P45-based "digital view camera.  

I suspect that Better Light scanning backs will continue to define the high
end of digital photographic image quality for quite some time, even if our
systems aren't the newest, fastest, or most expensive image capture devices
available.  Nobody I know hand-holds a 4x5 camera, anyway..."

Ed
« Last Edit: October 03, 2006, 09:52:54 AM by Ed Jack » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad