Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 8x10 ...... digital  (Read 13019 times)
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« on: August 23, 2011, 10:21:50 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2452



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2011, 11:06:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting that it appears he is using the back to save the cost of polaroids (to check for lighting etc) but still is using sheet film for final capture.  I would like to know more about the back eq. what sensor was used and software etc.

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2011, 11:45:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd love to see a sample 'polaroid' from that device. Very interesting!
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
TH_Alpa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2011, 12:27:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I would as well love to know more technical details, about this sensor: pixel size (12 micro?), resolution, colour (which pattern?), etc ...

Interesting.

Thierry
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8299



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2011, 12:43:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Next up: How about a digital back for the Polaroid 20x24" camera? That could have real mass-market appeal.  Grin
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2011, 03:00:47 PM »
ReplyReply


From the man,himself.

"A number of people have emailed me regarding the back’s specs. The device creates images a bit over 10MP; when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611. The image is 16bit, in RGB. Quality is excellent, due in part to the large pixel pitch. I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples. The image quality is not exemplary, but similar to a very high quality amateur camera of similar resolution. I do not use the back for final art; it simply does not have enough pixels to go to print."
Logged
TH_Alpa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2011, 03:23:16 PM »
ReplyReply

a pixel size of 77,3 microns, wow!

"when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611."
Logged

Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866


« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2011, 04:54:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I obviously get that developing this back for the owner was more than explanatory from economical point of view bu still... 10 mp on 10 x 8 sensor.. damn, such a waste
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2452



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2011, 05:11:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow - only 10mp.  But maybe fantastic looking images?  I'll bet the sensor was originally developed for astronomy use.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 860



« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2011, 05:42:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow - only 10mp.  But maybe fantastic looking images?  I'll bet the sensor was originally developed for astronomy use.

I very much doubt it. We astronomers like relatively big pixels, but that would be say 16 micron, not 77 micron! And there's no way a research instrument would use a Bayer array - it is described in the article as a "color capture back". Amateur astrophotographers (and I love to do that too) get wonderful pretty pictures using DSLRs with Bayer sensors, but for research we always want the full spectral response at every pixel, so that we can choose the colour filtration to be whatever the science requires; Sloan broadband filters, Stromgren intermediate band, nebular narrowband, or whatever.

Ray
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2452



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2011, 07:04:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Good info - thanks.  The only large sensors I've seen listed were for astronomy so that's why I made that bet.   What other scientific applications would need such larger sensors?  Hopefully when Mr. Feinberg returns he'll provide more info.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
nik
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2011, 09:09:39 AM »
ReplyReply

He can afford to go on vacation after buying 2 of those?! Go Mitch!


From the man,himself.

"... I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples"
Logged
heinrichvoelkel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2011, 09:33:50 AM »
ReplyReply

He can afford to go on vacation after buying 2 of those?! Go Mitch!



i like
Logged
DeeJay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2011, 10:13:22 AM »
ReplyReply

"The image quality is not exemplary"

Shame. But goes to show it can be done which the best part I think.
Logged
Ken Tanaka
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2011, 12:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

...  I'll bet the sensor was originally developed for astronomy use.

Much more likely military surveillance.

I've long wondered how and when such a back might be created.  There would never be a mass market for such a product.  Not even a micro-market, really.  So this thing may be the only sample we see.

I'd like to see a file from this back.  But I bet that it's a real mess to use in any practical terms.
Logged

Best Regards,
- Ken Tanaka -

www.KenTanaka.com
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866


« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2011, 01:59:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm absolutely not a tech guy, but shouldn't there be a way to stitch smaller sized sensors to get whatever sensor size you want? What technical difficulties would such a solution introduce? Again, don't scold me for my lack of technical expertise Smiley
Logged
TH_Alpa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2011, 06:13:54 PM »
ReplyReply

That is absolutely possible, and done since the begin of digital backs. It needs a bit of experience, the right lens(es) to allow enough movement within the IC, or a pano head, a computer with a minimum of memory and a stitching SW, and done it is.

However, subjects with movement are one of the limitations, obviously.

Thierry
Logged

Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866


« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2011, 06:36:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Thierry,

No no, I'm fully aware of stitching as a photo teqchnique Smiley What I meant was physically stitching the sensors of a smaller size to create a bigger sensor and was wondering why is this task impossible. Some bigger MFDB sensors, when you look at them under right angle, seem to be stitched from smaller sensors.
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2011, 01:57:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Thierry,

No no, I'm fully aware of stitching as a photo teqchnique Smiley What I meant was physically stitching the sensors of a smaller size to create a bigger sensor and was wondering why is this task impossible. Some bigger MFDB sensors, when you look at them under right angle, seem to be stitched from smaller sensors.

Indeed, you're not a technical guy...
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866


« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2011, 06:49:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Citing someone from this forum:

Aside: Dalsa does makes some large CMOS sensors for X-rays and maybe telescopes, by "mosaicing" smaller sensor chips, but that adds visible join lines, unacceptable in high end MF photography. This mosaicing is NOT the same as "stitching", which produces a single large sensor chip. Canon has also designed some large sensors, but again suitable for uses like telescopes but not MF cameras.

So, there's no way to stitch sensors physically? And if it is impossible, can someone enlighten my why?

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad