Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 48mm x 48mm Sensor  (Read 37016 times)
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« on: June 23, 2007, 08:28:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd always assumed that a 48mm x 48mm sensor was unlikely. However, with the new Sinar/Leaf/Rollei camera, there's suddenly lots of 48mm x 48mm talk. How realistic is this bigger sensor?
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2007, 09:49:04 AM »
ReplyReply

i believe there will be for sure a larger sensor, the question is when. will it be the next generation or  in the 2. generation from no on. i belive more in the last ...... but i am sure the sensors will grow.
personally i hope not in the 48x48 direction which will bring bigger files which mostly will be cropped. i would hope for a real 645 sensor .
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2007, 10:12:16 AM »
ReplyReply

What would be the manufacturing implications of a genuinely "full frame" 645 sensor (ie 55mm or 56mm wide) versus a 48mm x 48mm sensor, versus the current sensors?
Logged
Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2007, 10:16:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
i believe there will be for sure a larger sensor, the question is when. will it be the next generation or  in the 2. generation from no on. i belive more in the last ...... but i am sure the sensors will grow.
personally i hope not in the 48x48 direction which will bring bigger files which mostly will be cropped. i would hope for a real 645 sensor .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dalsa has the 48X48 sensor but so far not have been made into commercial use yet, or at least as I know it. I think the evolution of format moved from 6X6 then to 6X4.5 for some good reasons and may be in some time there will be a small support for such a sensor for the camera platforms use everyday.  At least Hy6 offer such a possibility if such sensor does become commercially available but really it is still designed as camera use both digital and film rather than Hasselblad primary designed for digital and with film option.
I was more or less hoping for just the current or true 645 size sensor but in a phsical movment enclosure so it can take single 645 shor or automatically stitched piture by moving the sensor - of course this will not be useful for action shot but I guess for a lot of application this will be useful.
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2007, 11:10:59 AM »
ReplyReply

High K, hello.........  
after reading your experiences of the training and after listening to thierry i think i start to be interested to see the HY6 ....... also very nice that there are plans to make again a rotatable back. i have that on my gottschalt and its such a practical detail.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2007, 11:11:33 AM by rehnniar » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

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

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2007, 12:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
High K, hello.........   
after reading your experiences of the training and after listening to thierry i think i start to be interested to see the HY6 ....... also very nice that there are plans to make again a rotatable back. i have that on my gottschalt and its such a practical detail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the camera has some great potential, to be honest.  The rotation mechanism, if finally made possible with acceptable tolerance, will be indeed a very good feature, what I understood is that is has been tested and will only be introduced when Sinar is satisfied with its performance.
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2007, 09:27:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
I think in terms of marketing a true 6x4.5 would be best. A square chip you will be cropping 95 % of the time.

Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
Wim van Velzen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2007, 04:35:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Unless you like the square for e.g. portraits (some even use it for landscapes   ).
A Hy6, WLF and 48x48 sensor sounds great to me!
Logged

I don't have a signature.
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2007, 04:54:01 AM »
ReplyReply

But what if the cost is rather high> I always hear people say " when that arrives i will buy it".... but then they say " lets wait for the right price " and " I do not need it at this moment ...) but the actually want to say "" I do not have the monney to buy that, but i really like to show off about it""
Sensors are getting better each year and when your business is profittable you just buy a new back each time your business feels the need for it.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2007, 10:29:50 AM »
ReplyReply

For back manufacturers, 48x48 is a great way to release some new uber model with little technological investment.

Plus, it might come handy to help a new platform - like the Hy6 - making the headlines with a "differentiator".

The only thing that is unclear is whether photographers really needs the solution, besides those who just want to be seen with the latest stuff of course.  

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Carl Glover
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2007, 10:35:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd love to see a big square sensor.

Before I went MF digital I used almost exclusively 6x6.

Embrace the square!
Logged

AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2007, 10:55:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd love to see a big square sensor.

Before I went MF digital I used almost exclusively 6x6.

Embrace the square!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Square will not do much for me so I would pass on it, but come out with 6x7 and I will not hassitate even a second to pay $60K for this double size sensor.

[a href=\"http://andrenapier.com/]http://andrenapier.com/[/url]
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2007, 05:23:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd always assumed that a 48mm x 48mm sensor was unlikely. However, with the new Sinar/Leaf/Rollei camera, there's suddenly lots of 48mm x 48mm talk. How realistic is this bigger sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I can tell, the new Sinar/Leaf/Rollei camera is based on 56x56mm square format for one simple reason: it is based on Rollei's 6x6 film format system including its lenses. Nothing about this "format inertia" is evidence that Kodak, Dalsa or any other sensor maker has told the Rollei team that larger, squarer sensors are coming.

A reversion to square from the now dominant 4:3 sensor shape is particularly unlikely. With industry leader Hasselblad-Imacon/Fuji along with Mamiya and Pentax having moved to 645 (56x42mm) and smaller formats, the market for sensors usable by none of them would be far too small.
Filling out more of the 56x42mm frame seems less unlikely, but there is no hint of that either: the latest generation of Dalsa and Kodak sensors did not increase at all in size.
Logged
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2007, 05:51:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A reversion to square from the now dominant 4:3 sensor shape is particularly unlikely. With industry leader Hasselblad-Imacon/Fuji along with Mamiya and Pentax having moved to 645 (56x42mm) and smaller formats, the market for sensors usable by none of them would be far too small.
Filling out more of the 56x42mm frame seems less unlikely, but there is no hint of that either: the latest generation of Dalsa and Kodak sensors did not increase at all in size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for that. Over the years I've seen several comments that different sized sensors are all made from a standard size "chip wafer", I was wondering how a 48mm x 48mm or 56mm x 42mm sensor would fit within this standard wafer and what the attendant cost implications would be?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2007, 10:12:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... different sized sensors are all made from a standard size "chip wafer", I was wondering how a 48mm x 48mm or 56mm x 42mm sensor would fit within this standard wafer and what the attendant cost implications would be?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wafers are easily big enough to fit larger sensors: diameters of 200mm are widely used, with 300mm coming in to use. The number of sensors per wafer does go down a bit faster than in proportion to sensor area, but that does not seem like a major cost factor.

The biggest cost factor with increasing sensor size seems to be the  decreasing proportion of usable chips: the likelihood of a chip being rejected due to fatal defect goes up rapidly with increasing chip size, once chips are large. For example, if 1/4 of chips at one size are usable, only 1/16 will be usable at twice the area, giving about 1/8 as many usable chips per wafer. Another example: Kodak's 36x48mm sensors seem to cost about fifty or more times as much as its 4/3" sized ones, while the area is only eight times as great. And there is competitive pressure on those 36x48mm sensors, from Dalsa.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1015


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2007, 11:55:41 AM »
ReplyReply

If you ask me, I'd rather have a 4:5 ratio sensor than the popular 3:4.

645 is 3:4 and all bigger sensors in 36-7 X 48-9 mm. sizes. One good thing about this ratio, it fits perfectly magazines pages.
The 4:5 ratio at current sensor sizes would be 39X49mm. If full frame, 44X55.
 
4:5 ratio equals 6X7, 4X5, etc, film formats. which in turn fit perfectly traditional darkroom paper sizes.
I know, we are in the digital era now, but 4:5 ratio works better (at least for me) for portraits and weddings. The extra space at the sides in verticals can help a lot in positioning bride veils, the couple and the works.
3:4 ratio is more constrained and 2:3 ratio is just plain unfitable for serious wedding work.

I always enjoyed the extra room I had with my Hasselblad 55X55mm negatives doing portrait shots. I would go for a full frame square sensor, but a 44X55 sensor would be cheaper and just as good. Of course only if provided with a revolving back. No re-attach funny thing.

Just my opinion.
Regards
Logged
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2007, 02:13:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Forgot to add: the separate smaller CCD parts that form a Dalsa chip are 12mm x 24mm. So stitching two more to the 36mm x 48mm CCD will already result in a CCD of 48mm x 48mm.

Very interesting!

That leaves me again with the question why the MF backs have such high prices. In the past it has been said by almost everyone who has discussed that topic that the large sensor surface results in very low yields. Apparently this argument was wrong, the actual surface of the parts is not even as large as a APS/ Dx sensor. In this case I guess that even larger (than 48x48mm) sensors will be made one day. 48x60mm as the digital version of a 6x7 film format comes to mind...

Could it also be that the centerfold issue of the Leaf backs is caused by stitching? This is what I always have guessed, I just believed that 36x48 was formed by 2 "FF" sensors, 24x36 each.

regards, bernie
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2007, 03:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

this sensor already exists in Dalsa's drawer!

The question is if the backmakers decide to take it.

Thierry

Quote
it is only a matter of willpower from Dalsa's side to create this economically feasible CCD.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

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

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2007, 03:45:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Dear Alba,

I had explained in a tread some months ago, that the costs of a high-hend digital back are not longer due to the high costs of the sensor: this is past. 10 years ago the price of a sensor was about 50% to 60% of the total costs of a back.

Today these sensor costs are much less, less than 20% of the total (manufacturing) costs of a back.

The rest of the costs of a MFDB?: R&D and Software development represent a big part of it.

Centerfold: yes, this problem comes from the "stitching" process. It has as well been well explained a few months ago in another tread by member Brumbaer.

The 38x48mm sensor have six little and rectangular "stiched" parts: if you hold the sensor in an angle to the light you shall see it easily.

Best regards,
thierry

edited for addendum

Quote
That leaves me again with the question why the MF backs have such high prices. In the past it has been said by almost everyone who has discussed that topic that the large sensor surface results in very low yields. Apparently this argument was wrong, the actual surface of the parts is not even as large as a APS/ Dx sensor. In this case I guess that even larger (than 48x48mm) sensors will be made one day. 48x60mm as the digital version of a 6x7 film format comes to mind...

Could it also be that the centerfold issue of the Leaf backs is caused by stitching? This is what I always have guessed, I just believed that 36x48 was formed by 2 "FF" sensors, 24x36 each.

regards, bernie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: June 29, 2007, 10:39:49 PM by thsinar » Logged

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

Posts: 1015


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2007, 04:43:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, backmakers are such pussies    

Ed


The 38x48mm sensor have six little and rectangular "stiched" parts: if you hold the sensor in an angle to the light you shall see it easily.

Quote
this sensor already exists in Dalsa's drawer!

The question is if the backmakers decide to take it.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad