Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Can we expect new sensors at Photokina?  (Read 17396 times)
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2010, 06:13:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The cost is directly related to the size of the chip, not the amount of megapixels.  So, 6x7, even if it was only 10MP, the price would be through the roof (as if it's not already).
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7872



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2010, 08:21:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: T-1000
The cost is directly related to the size of the chip, not the amount of megapixels.  So, 6x7, even if it was only 10MP, the price would be through the roof (as if it's not already).

I would argue that the biggest contributor to the cost of a sensor is how small the batch is.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
robert zimmerman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2010, 09:42:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: uaiomex
I'd be interested (back and once more) if Hasselblad introduces a CFV39 back with a revolving sensor.
Other than that, booooring!. Of course I expect another kick-butt dslr from both Canon and Nikon
Eduardo

yes booooring, i like boring. like boringly easy to use a wlf and shoot verticles, then switch to horizontal without raising, turning or even moving the camera.
would be boringly easy to do to: take the existing afi body and put a phase one back on it...

it's like some sick joke thinking of the thousands of fashion photographers out there either bent over or on there knees for hours, shooting verticles in 2:3 format with gaffer tape over the lcd so they know if they've cropped the head or feet off the model. who the hell thinks this stuff up?

what format the ipad? 4:3 and verticle, just like a magazine of course.
Logged
JSK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2010, 01:44:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PaulSchneider
Hi guys,

does anyone have an idea as to what lies ahead in medium format land?

Does Phase One have some surprises for Photokina?

So ... what will happen, anyone care take a look into the crystal ball?

Regards

Paul


Now with Leaf in their business portfolio.. it's up to them to make a move up the hill or stay where they are and work on
alternatives.. acquisitions, marketing, software..

I think Phase is ambitious enough to lead the MF market.. so there maybe a new design with new features coming soon..

Obviously Hasselblad's attitude is they are the ones to follow..

we'll see..


Logged

⨀ LEICA ⨀ PHASE 1 ⨀ HASSELBLAD ⨀ MAMIYA ⨀ NIKON ⨀ CANON ⨀ PROFOTO ⨀ BRONCOLOR ⨀ ARRI ⨀ BRIESE ⨀
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7321


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2010, 02:59:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

I don't think so. If you make the sensor in one single piece of silicon I guess that basic theory is that cost increases about (linear dimension)^4. Now, all large sensors (larger than APS-H) are stitched except possibly Canon's as Canon seem to have a larger format stepper.

So doubling size would increase cost by a factor of 16. If you double linear size the area will be four times larger, so you get a fourth of the number sensors from a certain size of wafer.
The number of error per chip will also increase by four, causing yield to go down.

Best regards
Erik




Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I would argue that the biggest contributor to the cost of a sensor is how small the batch is.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7872



WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2010, 06:23:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

I don't think so. If you make the sensor in one single piece of silicon I guess that basic theory is that cost increases about (linear dimension)^4. Now, all large sensors (larger than APS-H) are stitched except possibly Canon's as Canon seem to have a larger format stepper.

So doubling size would increase cost by a factor of 16. If you double linear size the area will be four times larger, so you get a fourth of the number sensors from a certain size of wafer.
The number of error per chip will also increase by four, causing yield to go down.

Erik,

Yes, I am aware of the basic theory. Now that is based on an everything else being equal approach that makes total sense within a typical small scale business model assuming the usage of existing methods.

I believe that very disuptive things can happen once you enter the realm of very large series, with new tools, methods and technologies being developped that can produce quantum leaps within a few years.

Now, the funny thing is that we probably don't even need any quantum jump to produce at reasonnable prices 6x7 sensors.

The price of a typical raw 200mm sillicon wafer is less than 50US$ if I am not mistaken. Even if you can only make one sensor per wafer and need to use 10 to find a perfect sensor you are still only at 500 US$ raw material cost... A lot more things are required to deliver a usable sensor, but we would still only be at around 5.000 US$ end user price, which is still only 15% of the price of a P65+ back...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7321


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2010, 09:53:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

I don't argue with your numbers, I got the impression that you have some insights in the industry and I don't.. Also as far as I know essentially all large sensors are stitched from smaller pieces. This is actually visible for instance on some Nikon D3X sensors and also on the Sony Alpha 900 sensors. So DALSA can probably make larger sensors by "stitching" smaller ones, and that circumvents the size^4 rule.

Just a few things:

1) The rest of the electronics is essentially the same independent of sensor size, but you need faster processing with more pixels
2) CCD production is not leading edge technology. Technology is lead by very small feature size, like 40 nano meters. The impression I have is that sensor production is done in old fabs.
3) MFDB CCD production is rather small scale I think, at least compared with DSLR sensors.

The final observation is that prices have much to do with what customers are willing to pay. Also a company probably prefers to have it's top product at a very high price so it doesn't compete with it's 'lesser' products.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Erik,

Yes, I am aware of the basic theory. Now that is based on an everything else being equal approach that makes total sense within a typical small scale business model assuming the usage of existing methods.

I believe that very disuptive things can happen once you enter the realm of very large series, with new tools, methods and technologies being developped that can produce quantum leaps within a few years.

Now, the funny thing is that we probably don't even need any quantum jump to produce at reasonnable prices 6x7 sensors.

The price of a typical raw 200mm sillicon wafer is less than 50US$ if I am not mistaken. Even if you can only make one sensor per wafer and need to use 10 to find a perfect sensor you are still only at 500 US$ raw material cost... A lot more things are required to deliver a usable sensor, but we would still only be at around 5.000 US$ end user price, which is still only 15% of the price of a P65+ back...

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 09:56:23 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2010, 11:16:13 PM »
ReplyReply

What do I expect? Not much, really.
Another year is going by and away and still MF (if we can call'em as such) sensors are closer to 35 dimensions than to 6X8, the ultimate MF film size. MF back prices are still only for the rich (dentists and such. No offense, my dad was a dentist) and famous (high-roller photographers).

It beats me. I don't get it. As far as I'm concerned just about every high-tech manufacturing line is being developing accordingly to Moore's law. Digital sensors seem to breaking this law for 7 years now. Suddenly they came to a complete screeching stop. I say sensors in general because even in lesser sizes is the same thing, they only have increase in pixel density.
What kind of limitation was reached?  Scientific?  Technological?  Marketing?  Political perhaps? Was it a powerful groupuscle of economic interests seizing this technology? National security?
Well, I sound like conspiracy freak now. But you get my idea. I'm starting to become startled by this phenomenom.
Best
Eduardo
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 11:18:27 PM by uaiomex » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2010, 07:56:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Now, all large sensors (larger than APS-H) are stitched except possibly Canon's as Canon seem to have a larger format stepper.
This internet myth refuses to die.
1. Canon has said repeatedly that it stitches its 36x24mm sensors, and that the 1D sensor size of about 19x28mm is about the largest that can be made without stitching, and this fits with the known maximum field size of 26x33mm for all suitable steppers, and all steppers introduced for some years now.
2. Canon makes one larger format stepper about 50x50mm field size, but it is a quite old model of very low resolution, 0.5 micron minimum feature size. Rather clearly, that minimum feature size is too large for good modern CMOS pixels of about 6 microns: CMOS sensors are typically made on steppers with minimum feature size 1/15th to 1/30th of pixel pitch.
3. That 50x50mm format stepper is likely used by Kodak to make its largest sensors (for X-rays and such) which are of exactly that size ... but those have huge 24 micron pixel pitch. And since Canon sells that stepper to al comers, and for example Kodak seems to have access to one, there is no Canon exclusive on it: any major sensor maker that wants one can probably get one.
4. Nikon used to sell a stepper with field size large enough for 36x24mm sensors, but discontinued it a few years ago. I am rather sure that Nikon or Sony could get one of those if needed (sensors are typically made on older equipment), so again the claim of a Canon exclusive fails.

P.S. The joins visible on some Nikon sensors are in the toppings (AA filter), not the sensor chip itself.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 07:59:52 AM by BJL » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2010, 08:07:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: uaiomex
As far as I'm concerned just about every high-tech manufacturing line is being developing accordingly to Moore's law. Digital sensors seem to breaking this law for 7 years now.
On the contrary, digital sensors follow Moore's Law nicely: the law is mostly driven by the benefits for digital electronic devices (which sensors are not really; they are analog or mixed analog-digital) of reducing feature size and chip size, and so is manifested in the increase in pixel density that you mention and in the ever-shrinking average sensor size in the mass market of compacts and phone-cameras. But Moore's Law scarcely touches the upsizing of low-volume specialty sensors for MF and such ... especially when the economies of scale will never be there, with the MF industry having more or less abandoned further development of formats larger than 645 even before the digital transition.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 08:09:23 AM by BJL » Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #30 on: June 24, 2010, 09:18:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
The three things they would have to do to get me seriously interested would be:
 
1. add a usable live view in back
2. devide the price of their high end +back by 2+,
3. garantee me 500+ images battery life at -15C

The cash is buried in the garden near the swimming pool.

Cheers,
Bernard

My 3 wishlist items would be:

1. Make "long-exposure processing" (taking & subtracting a dark frame internally) an option that can be switched off, to allow for long, consecutive, uninterrupted exposure sequences [Phase One take note!] - let the user take care of dark subtraction later in the software of their choice
2. Make the IR-cut filter easily user-removable, like the Mamiya ZD and old Kodak DCS backs [again, Phase One take note!]
3. Add an option for active peltier cooling of the sensor to at least 20 degrees C below ambient temperature.

Can anyone guess why I want these features?  


Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 24, 2010, 10:14:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi BJL.
According to your response the answer is "Marketing"
(Maybe they follow Morre's law except in size grow)
That and probably the slow-down of world economy of the last years.
Ed

Quote from: BJL
On the contrary, digital sensors follow Moore's Law nicely: the law is mostly driven by the benefits for digital electronic devices (which sensors are not really; they are analog or mixed analog-digital) of reducing feature size and chip size, and so is manifested in the increase in pixel density that you mention and in the ever-shrinking average sensor size in the mass market of compacts and phone-cameras. But Moore's Law scarcely touches the upsizing of low-volume specialty sensors for MF and such ... especially when the economies of scale will never be there, with the MF industry having more or less abandoned further development of formats larger than 645 even before the digital transition.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 10:16:48 PM by uaiomex » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7321


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2010, 11:33:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all info!

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BJL
This internet myth refuses to die.
1. Canon has said repeatedly that it stitches its 36x24mm sensors, and that the 1D sensor size of about 19x28mm is about the largest that can be made without stitching, and this fits with the known maximum field size of 26x33mm for all suitable steppers, and all steppers introduced for some years now.
2. Canon makes one larger format stepper about 50x50mm field size, but it is a quite old model of very low resolution, 0.5 micron minimum feature size. Rather clearly, that minimum feature size is too large for good modern CMOS pixels of about 6 microns: CMOS sensors are typically made on steppers with minimum feature size 1/15th to 1/30th of pixel pitch.
3. That 50x50mm format stepper is likely used by Kodak to make its largest sensors (for X-rays and such) which are of exactly that size ... but those have huge 24 micron pixel pitch. And since Canon sells that stepper to al comers, and for example Kodak seems to have access to one, there is no Canon exclusive on it: any major sensor maker that wants one can probably get one.
4. Nikon used to sell a stepper with field size large enough for 36x24mm sensors, but discontinued it a few years ago. I am rather sure that Nikon or Sony could get one of those if needed (sensors are typically made on older equipment), so again the claim of a Canon exclusive fails.

P.S. The joins visible on some Nikon sensors are in the toppings (AA filter), not the sensor chip itself.
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2010, 01:52:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I'd guess there is a concern about processing power, but you can add more chips. The Sony Alpha 900 uses two Bionz processor and AFAIK the Nikon D3 has 6 signal processing chips working in parallel.

The D3/s has 12 analog readout channels situated on 6 (expensive) low-noise dual-channel chips.  The DSP is done by the EXPEED, which as far as I know is still single core.
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2010, 01:32:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ondebanks
..... 3. Add an option for active peltier cooling of the sensor to at least 20 degrees C below ambient temperature. ......

I'm afraid you'd get troubles with moisture precipitation here and the additional power consumption ...
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7321


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2010, 02:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I was referring to this article:

http://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx?id=4626&blogid=86

It says: "On the Nikon D3 we found a whopping 6 total Analog Devices AD9974 signal processors – presumably two for each color."

http://www.chipworks.com/uploadedImages/Bl...g/DSLR-Blog.jpg

Best regards
Erik





Quote from: LKaven
The D3/s has 12 analog readout channels situated on 6 (expensive) low-noise dual-channel chips.  The DSP is done by the EXPEED, which as far as I know is still single core.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 03:02:14 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

PaulSchneider
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2010, 08:54:22 AM »
ReplyReply

... very interesting discussion here ...

so what is consensus right now:

Will there realistically be a sensor largern than 645 or are the costs of production in the year 2010 still too prohibitive?

....
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3968



WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2010, 11:15:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Same blog sees no stitching artefacts on the Canon sensor. I have a feeling Canon may be throwing some proprietary technology at their dSLR sensors, both at the lithography and and the process levels. Owning the fab and making some of the fab equipment is two key competitive advantages they have and I would be surprised that they have not found some way to take advantage of them.

Edmund

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I was referring to this article:

http://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx?id=4626&blogid=86

It says: "On the Nikon D3 we found a whopping 6 total Analog Devices AD9974 signal processors – presumably two for each color."

http://www.chipworks.com/uploadedImages/Bl...g/DSLR-Blog.jpg

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7872



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2010, 05:15:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PaulSchneider
... very interesting discussion here ...

so what is consensus right now:

Will there realistically be a sensor largern than 645 or are the costs of production in the year 2010 still too prohibitive?

We'd have to have feedback from pros about the full story, but the price of the silicon wafer that has been repeatedely pushed forward as the key issue doesn't seem to be that relevant relative to the final price of such cameras.

Now I suspect that we have 3 issues at hand:

1. The MF manufacturers will not do it because their business model is in fact similar to that of 35mm manufaturers, meaning that it is based on the assumption that enough customers will buy enough lenses. These lenses being mostly 645 lenses (Hassy and Mamiya), they have zero interest in going bigger,

2. Color cast issues might be difficult to overcome with existing lenses able to cover such a wide sensor. Most customers are simply not willing to deal with this on every single wide image. The R&D cost needed to overcome this might not be justified considering the size of the target market.

3. In all objectivity, as a famous landscape Japanese photographer was telling me last week when looking at my 300 megapixels panos, very few people need 40 megapixels and even fewer need more. The main value of a 6x7 sensor would be the ability to reach 100 megapixels with large photosites... but who needs that?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
PaulSchneider
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2010, 06:20:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
We'd have to have feedback from pros about the full story, but the price of the silicon wafer that has been repeatedely pushed forward as the key issue doesn't seem to be that relevant relative to the final price of such cameras.

Now I suspect that we have 3 issues at hand:

1. The MF manufacturers will not do it because their business model is in fact similar to that of 35mm manufaturers, meaning that it is based on the assumption that enough customers will buy enough lenses. These lenses being mostly 645 lenses (Hassy and Mamiya), they have zero interest in going bigger,

2. Color cast issues might be difficult to overcome with existing lenses able to cover such a wide sensor. Most customers are simply not willing to deal with this on every single wide image. The R&D cost needed to overcome this might not be justified considering the size of the target market.

3. In all objectivity, as a famous landscape Japanese photographer was telling me last week when looking at my 300 megapixels panos, very few people need 40 megapixels and even fewer need more. The main value of a 6x7 sensor would be the ability to reach 100 megapixels with large photosites... but who needs that?

Cheers,
Bernard


Megapixels aside, there's still the allure of the special look one can achieve whilst approaching large format ... I mean the dof appearance ...
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad