Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 33 MPX Dalsa & 39 MPx Kodak Sensors  (Read 89383 times)
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2007, 09:11:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm sure Phase can come up with their own spin sheet as to why the Kodak sensor excels. they are not tied to anyone and chose to use that after all...

no personal criticism Thierry, your back looks nice product, though the lack of a screen rules it out for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

nothing to apologize, and I know that everybody has its arguments: I have put the facts which seem important for me.

Display?: our eMotion models have a display, like any other competitor

All the best,
Thierry
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 861


« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2007, 10:24:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The multishot backs are the Sinarbakc 54 H (22 MPx) and the new eVolution 75 (33 MPx).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the eVolution 75 - your 'new' back - and the one most discussed here, has no screen in the pictures I've seen, including your own website.

hence it of no use to me when I can't see a histogram on location. I'm sure its a very good studio product though.
Logged
Esben
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2007, 01:08:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Thierry

Thanks for all the info.
What I was looking for was how the Dalsa 22 compare to the Dalsa33/28MP architecture, i.e. compared to: e,f,g,h, in your list.
Is the Dalsa 22 thinner or thicker than the Dalsa 33, and what does that mean for i.e. DR, centerfold issues, and wide-angel lenses ?
I would guess the Dalsa 22 have 2 read-outs as well ?
Does the Dalsa 22 use less or more power than the Dalsa 33 ?

One ad-on question.
You are the second I have heard referring to Sinar backs having a shoot rate of 0.9 sec./frame.
The Sinar US. info details 1.2 sec./frame for the eMotion 22.
What back/camera/coputer set-up do you use to get 0.9 sec./frame, and measured over how long time ?
I know all manufacturer details very "optimal" frame rates and I can only get around 36 frames/min. tethered, from my Aptus 65 and I believe the Phase One P30 is just about the same when you press the shutter for one minute.


Sincerely,
Esben

CaptureForce


Quote
Dear Dave,

the eMotions are single shot backs designed for on location work, with display, internal storage of 6 GB hard-state memory, CF-card slot, fast shooting rate of 0.9 sec/frame, etc ...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



e. The silicon design of the pixels of the Dalsa sensor requires less physical depth (is thinner) than the
Kodak design.
f. Nominal clock rate (how fast can the Sensor be operated): Dalsa = 27 MHz versus Kodak = 24 MHz.
g. Outputs: The Dalsa sensor can be operated with alternatively one or two outputs. With the Kodak sensor
there is no other way than to operate it using two outputs.
h. Power consumption: although working at higher speed, the Dalsa sensor uses considerably less power
thank to its design.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2007, 01:08:48 PM by Esben » Logged

Digital Tech NYC // LA
www.captureforce.com

phone. 212 203 6427
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2007, 03:06:29 PM »
ReplyReply

There does seem, as expected, to be a bit of spin in favor of the Dalsa sensor, like the hand-waving argument that lens resolution limits prevent the Kodak sensor from giving any greater image resolution. (Lens resolution is not a brick wall, so even increasing sensor resolution significantly beyond a lens's 50% MTF resolution limit will continue to improve total system resolution.)


In particular, I would like to comment on these claims in section 2 "What does all the above really mean?"

2. c ...Comparing pixels of the same generation, the old rules are still valid, however: the bigger the pixel the better is light sensitivity and contrast/dynamic range. [claiming or implying an advantage for the Dalsa's 7.2 micron pixel pitch over the Kodak's 6.8 micron.]

2 e. Dalsa pixels have not only a larger surface; they are also thinner, i.e. they are less tall. As a consequence, they are better suited for wide-angle applications and photography with view cameras (movements). Incident light hitting a pixel in a flat angle will therefore produce less shadow if the pixels are less tall.

Unfortunately, both of these claims, based on generalities, seem contradicted by the specific facts from the spec. sheets, which show that Kodak's "narrower but deeper" photo-sites have greater well capacity and equally good off-perpendicular sensitivity.

A. The off-angle sensitivity is essentially equal, and very good in both cases:
the Dalsa and Kodak are both about 90% at 20º and a bit over 80% at 30º;
the Kodak graphs go further to 40º where it is still over 70% (about 1/2 stop fall-off).

B. The Kodak sensor has a well capacity of 60,000e compared to about 55,000e for the Dalsa, despite the larger photo-sites of the latter. This seems to be an advantage of deeper electron wells: greater volume for a given horizontal dimension. Indeed I have read that Kodak deliberately deepened the wells in recent sensors in order to increase well capacity to this 60,000e, compared to 40,000e in earlier FF CCD's of the same 6.8 micron pixel spacing.

(I get that 55,000e for the Dalsa by dividing the maximum (linear operation) output voltage by the charge to voltage conversion factor.)

Dynamic range depends on read noise levels too, but the only numbers I can find to compare for linear dynamic range are
Kodak:  71.4dB
Dalsa: >70dB
Inconclusive, but certainly not evidence of the claimed Dalsa DR advantage.


Finally sensitivity. The 12% greater pixel area might give about a 12% gain if quantum efficiency were equal, but it is not:
Dalsa:  Red 22% Green 15% Blue 15%
Kodak: Red 20% Green 23% Blue 18%
The Dalsa is better in red, but Kodak's QE is about 50% higher (23/15) in green and 20% higher (18/15) in blue.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2007, 03:08:23 PM by BJL » Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2007, 04:10:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the eVolution 75 - your 'new' back - and the one most discussed here, has no screen in the pictures I've seen, including your own website.

hence it of no use to me when I can't see a histogram on location. I'm sure its a very good studio product though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


yes, the eVoltuion is not  location back: designed for studio, multishot and ultmate quality.

Thierry
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2007, 04:17:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Thierry

Thanks for all the info.
What I was looking for was how the Dalsa 22 compare to the Dalsa33/28MP architecture, i.e. compared to: e,f,g,h, in your list.
Is the Dalsa 22 thinner or thicker than the Dalsa 33, and what does that mean for i.e. DR, centerfold issues, and wide-angel lenses ?
I would guess the Dalsa 22 have 2 read-outs as well ?
Does the Dalsa 22 use less or more power than the Dalsa 33 ?

One ad-on question.
You are the second I have heard referring to Sinar backs having a shoot rate of 0.9 sec./frame.
The Sinar US. info details 1.2 sec./frame for the eMotion 22.
What back/camera/coputer set-up do you use to get 0.9 sec./frame, and measured over how long time ?
I know all manufacturer details very "optimal" frame rates and I can only get around 36 frames/min. tethered, from my Aptus 65 and I believe the Phase One P30 is just about the same when you press the shutter for one minute.
Sincerely,
Esben

CaptureForce
e. The silicon design of the pixels of the Dalsa sensor requires less physical depth (is thinner) than the
Kodak design.
f. Nominal clock rate (how fast can the Sensor be operated): Dalsa = 27 MHz versus Kodak = 24 MHz.
g. Outputs: The Dalsa sensor can be operated with alternatively one or two outputs. With the Kodak sensor
there is no other way than to operate it using two outputs.
h. Power consumption: although working at higher speed, the Dalsa sensor uses considerably less power
thank to its design.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dear Esben,

I have no tech info for these Dalsa sensors, but I would say the difference is minimal, and the influence is nearly nill. The centrefold issue is another problem, nothing to do with thickness.
Power comsumption is also about the same, when i compare battery lifes with my e 22 and e 75.

Shooting Rate: yes, we state 1.2 frames/ sec: I think we are the only manufacturer giving not "optimal" rates, but are very carefull and "conservative" here. Try the eMotion out and you will see that it is "+" since the begining!

Yes the dalsa 22 has 2 read-outs as well: it is the same technology more or less.

All the best,
Thierry
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4121



« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2007, 04:30:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Dear Thierry -

 Exactly what is the cause of the centerfold problem ?

Edmund

Quote
Dear Esben,

I have no tech info for these Dalsa sensors, but I would say the difference is minimal, and the influence is nearly nill. The centrefold issue is another problem, nothing to do with thickness.
Power comsumption is also about the same, when i compare battery lifes with my e 22 and e 75.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2007, 04:39:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dear Thierry -

 Exactly what is the cause of the centerfold problem ?

Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Dear Edmund,

There is a very good explanation and detailled description about it by Stefan Hess in an earlier tread here.
I just dont have time yet to search it: have to go out for some work!

If you didn't find it this eve, I shall go on search!

Have a nice evening,
Thierry

PS & Addendum: have found the tread and Stefan's detailled explanation:

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12581&st=20&p=80861&#entry80861]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....861&#entry80861[/url]
« Last Edit: February 12, 2007, 04:46:58 PM by thsinar » Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2007, 05:09:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There does seem, as expected, to be a bit of spin in favor of the Dalsa sensor, like the hand-waving argument that lens resolution limits prevent the Kodak sensor from giving any greater image resolution. (Lens resolution is not a brick wall, so even increasing sensor resolution significantly beyond a lens's 50% MTF resolution limit will continue to improve total system resolution.)
In particular, I would like to comment on these claims in section 2 "What does all the above really mean?"

hi BJL,

I was expecting ( and fearing  ) that my post was subject to controversy. But my purpose was to give some technical differences between the 2 technologies and the experience we have gathered with the 2 sensors, as well as the problems we have encountered by dealing with it.

At the end it comes always down to the same and single important fact: try and test by yourselves and look for what is important for you.

Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 861


« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2007, 11:00:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There does seem, as expected, to be a bit of spin in favor of the Dalsa sensor, like the hand-waving argument that lens resolution limits prevent the Kodak sensor from giving any greater image resolution. (Lens resolution is not a brick wall, so even increasing sensor resolution significantly beyond a lens's 50% MTF resolution limit will continue to improve total system resolution.)
In particular, I would like to comment on these claims in section 2 "What does all the above really mean?"

2. c ...Comparing pixels of the same generation, the old rules are still valid, however: the bigger the pixel the better is light sensitivity and contrast/dynamic range. [claiming or implying an advantage for the Dalsa's 7.2 micron pixel pitch over the Kodak's 6.8 micron.]

2 e. Dalsa pixels have not only a larger surface; they are also thinner, i.e. they are less tall. As a consequence, they are better suited for wide-angle applications and photography with view cameras (movements). Incident light hitting a pixel in a flat angle will therefore produce less shadow if the pixels are less tall.

Unfortunately, both of these claims, based on generalities, seem contradicted by the specific facts from the spec. sheets, which show that Kodak's "narrower but deeper" photo-sites have greater well capacity and equally good off-perpendicular sensitivity.

A. The off-angle sensitivity is essentially equal, and very good in both cases:
the Dalsa and Kodak are both about 90% at 20º and a bit over 80% at 30º;
the Kodak graphs go further to 40º where it is still over 70% (about 1/2 stop fall-off).

B. The Kodak sensor has a well capacity of 60,000e compared to about 55,000e for the Dalsa, despite the larger photo-sites of the latter. This seems to be an advantage of deeper electron wells: greater volume for a given horizontal dimension. Indeed I have read that Kodak deliberately deepened the wells in recent sensors in order to increase well capacity to this 60,000e, compared to 40,000e in earlier FF CCD's of the same 6.8 micron pixel spacing.

(I get that 55,000e for the Dalsa by dividing the maximum (linear operation) output voltage by the charge to voltage conversion factor.)

Dynamic range depends on read noise levels too, but the only numbers I can find to compare for linear dynamic range are
Kodak:  71.4dB
Dalsa: >70dB
Inconclusive, but certainly not evidence of the claimed Dalsa DR advantage.
Finally sensitivity. The 12% greater pixel area might give about a 12% gain if quantum efficiency were equal, but it is not:
Dalsa:  Red 22% Green 15% Blue 15%
Kodak: Red 20% Green 23% Blue 18%
The Dalsa is better in red, but Kodak's QE is about 50% higher (23/15) in green and 20% higher (18/15) in blue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

thanks BJL, an interesting and well informed response.
its a little sad that Sinar is having to spin its product here. it should make people wonder.

the + series phase seems like it will be the highpoint of digiback evolution for 2007. despite what others would have you believe.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4121



« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2007, 12:59:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
thanks BJL, an interesting and well informed response.
its a little sad that Sinar is having to spin its product here. it should make people wonder.

the + series phase seems like it will be the highpoint of digiback evolution for 2007. despite what others would have you believe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Let's watch - a kick in the rear end re pricing, resolution and features, is overdue. I expect our friends from company C will deliver it quite soon.

Edmund
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2007, 01:59:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
thanks BJL, an interesting and well informed response.
its a little sad that Sinar is having to spin its product here. it should make people wonder.

the + series phase seems like it will be the highpoint of digiback evolution for 2007. despite what others would have you believe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The highpoint of 2007? Really? Is this what you would have us believe?

It's awfully early in 2007 to be making those kind of statements.

I don't find that Sinar's white paper is anything other than what everyone else - including Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad - puts out there: Marketing blah, blah to help sell product. They have no exclusive on that. Everyone is a market leader in that category.

The Phase + series will:

Improve the screen: It needs it.
Extend the ISO: Kudos there.
Increase the speed: They will still be in 3rd place.

Look, it's admirable that you own and like the product. And Phase One has maintained the #1 market share position in recent years - deservedly so. Market share fluctuates though, based on the success of the current product and how it compares to it's competitors. But the continuous annointing of Plus backs as the be all and end all, without anyone really even comparing apples to apples is a joke.


Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
Logged

Steve Hendrix
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2007, 02:04:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
thanks BJL, an interesting and well informed response.
its a little sad that Sinar is having to spin its product here. it should make people wonder.

the + series phase seems like it will be the highpoint of digiback evolution for 2007. despite what others would have you believe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Narakin,
I think Thierry is doing a very good job in telling how good a product Sinar actually makes.
And he's right as well that you should try before you buy.
Yes,I bought the eMotion-75 and did try the Aptus-75 and P-45.
For my needs,the Sinar came out on top.

Regards,

Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2007, 03:18:17 PM »
ReplyReply

willem hit the nail on the head...try before you buy....the best numbers on paper don't mean anything....

thierry, i feel for you...you put the info out there and that is what you get for it....having to justify why a 4 and 16 shot back does not have a screen for location work....

so far the companies with an honest track record for specs are clearly phase and sinar...my leaf back never got close to shooting as fast as it was supposed to....my phase backs have actually been a tad faster then advertised....when i asked the phase rep about that he said i was shooting the fastest cards (ideal circumstances), not everybody does and so they take a conservative medium in their specs....as does sinar  (as far as i know) their backs shoot FAST and nobody seems to know.....


and then we have hasselblad of course, who is simply always the "first!" and "full frame!"

whatever anyone says about sinar...they don't come to mind for hyping or overstating facts....just like they have made relyable, perfectly engineered cameras and other professional photosupplies for decades, they also have a loooong history of Dbacks...workhorses that have made money.....


the P30 is the best all around Dback ever....price/size/speed/pixelcount/all in one package...there are better solutions for more specialized needs, but in general....
yes hass just came out with their version....
just in time for phase to put the updated + versions out....
Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2007, 05:06:06 PM »
ReplyReply

hi PPS,

- i did say nothing different: try it our AND under your conditions, not under the ones of yur sales rep.

- 4- & 16-shot not having a display: this is a choice to have a back for studio, exclusively, with best possible quality. Best possible quality means NOT having to correct the Raw's being produced, or as less as possible. The heat generated by a display is an issue, as well as CF slots and internal memory, when it comes to noise, among other "little details", which wen summed up makes a difference.

- thanks for the specs: here again, try it out after having read the specs of the product. You shall be surprised. "Shooting Rate" is just one example. Another good example is "battery life". Sinar claims 2 1/2 to 3 hours with eMotion: I can easily get 6 to 8 hours at about 20°C.

sorry if I have given the feeling to want to "spin" the product.

Thierry

Quote
willem hit the nail on the head...try before you buy....the best numbers on paper don't mean anything....

thierry, i feel for you...you put the info out there and that is what you get for it....having to justify why a 4 and 16 shot back does not have a screen for location work....

so far the companies with an honest track record for specs are clearly phase and sinar...my leaf back never got close to shooting as fast as it was supposed to....my phase backs have actually been a tad faster then advertised....when i asked the phase rep about that he said i was shooting the fastest cards (ideal circumstances), not everybody does and so they take a conservative medium in their specs....as does sinar  (as far as i know) their backs shoot FAST and nobody seems to know.....
and then we have hasselblad of course, who is simply always the "first!" and "full frame!"

whatever anyone says about sinar...they don't come to mind for hyping or overstating facts....just like they have made relyable, perfectly engineered cameras and other professional photosupplies for decades, they also have a loooong history of Dbacks...workhorses that have made money.....
the P30 is the best all around Dback ever....price/size/speed/pixelcount/all in one package...there are better solutions for more specialized needs, but in general....
yes hass just came out with their version....
just in time for phase to put the updated + versions out....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2007, 05:23:02 PM »
ReplyReply

thierry...

you did not spin anything...
it does not make a lot of sense for a 4 shot back to have a display....who shoots 4 shot untethered? ...maybe handheld, now that's an idea!....
Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2007, 05:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
thierry...

you did not spin anything...
it does not make a lot of sense for a 4 shot back to have a display....who shoots 4 shot untethered? ...maybe handheld, now that's an idea!....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100730\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's our point: studio = tethered

4-shot untethered and handheld? Would be an idea! But then 16 shot!

Seriously: the eMotion (single shot) with untethered/tethered operation is a location back with display, the eVolution (1-, 4- & 16-shot) a studio back with tethered operation without display.

2 different concepts, 2 different possibilities and 2 different features.

Thierry
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2007, 05:47:14 PM »
ReplyReply

although i would not say no also to a back which has 4 (+16 ) shot mode for studio use and the 1 shot mode for location work, ofcourse than with display.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2007, 06:30:24 PM »
ReplyReply

So you're stating the eVolution75 will be 1/4/16-shot.

Quote
Seriously: the eMotion (single shot) with untethered/tethered operation is a location back with display, the eVolution (1-, 4- & 16-shot) a studio back with tethered operation without display.

2 different concepts, 2 different possibilities and 2 different features.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Guillermo
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 861


« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2007, 08:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
thierry...

you did not spin anything...
it does not make a lot of sense for a 4 shot back to have a display....who shoots 4 shot untethered? ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100730\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
damn, there's a lot of weird opinions here.

I can think of dozens of landscape photographers who would jump at the chance of having a multi shot back on location, and I'm kind of surprised that Sinar thinks only people in the studio are concerned with Quality.
err... no.
there's plenty of us out there who want obsessive maximum quality, but work on location.
why do you think 4x5 field cameras exist? or  8x10 ones?
there was a device invented a while ago, I can't exactly remember, but I think, yes, it was to steady the camera on location, and called a "tri-pod."
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad