Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 8x10 ...... digital  (Read 11896 times)
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820



« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2011, 08:28:16 AM »
ReplyReply

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


Are you a technical guy, design_freak? If so, why don't you answer Mr. Rib's question?
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2011, 11:15:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you a technical guy, design_freak? If so, why don't you answer Mr. Rib's question?


I'm so technical that I know how to use "google" . Unfortunately people are lazy and ask questions instead of searching for answers. Just answer: it is too expensive
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3871



WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2011, 11:33:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, mosaicing would work for what is essentially a test strip that can have lacunae. I never understood why wafer scale tech isnt used more, i think it has more to do with common limitations of manufacturing equipment and intellectual laziness rather than real difficulty or expense. A direct write on wafer (ion implantation) system could probably have done it even back in my day, but these were little used, except by the chinese who built their own to circumvent the embargo on steppers. Disclaimer: I only wrote one Cad system and designed only one chip in my student days, so I know nothing whatsoever about *today's* technology.

Edmund
Logged

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

Posts: 820



« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2011, 01:11:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm so technical that I know how to use "google" . Unfortunately people are lazy and ask questions instead of searching for answers. Just answer: it is too expensive

And there I was, actually spending time to teach my students, when all along I should have been telling them: "Don't be so lazy! Just use google and leave me alone!"

You know, with this approach, we could eliminate entire expensive educational systems.  No-one with knowledge, skills and experience need ever be employed again to impart them.  Roll Eyes

Ray
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2011, 01:58:05 PM »
ReplyReply

And there I was, actually spending time to teach my students, when all along I should have been telling them: "Don't be so lazy! Just use google and leave me alone!"

You know, with this approach, we could eliminate entire expensive educational systems.  No-one with knowledge, skills and experience need ever be employed again to impart them.  Roll Eyes

Ray

Quietly, maybe no one will hear :-)
 So seriously, teaching the students is another matter. Their knowledge must be thorough, this can not be replaced by the Internet. But it was good if your students know how to use google. Unfortunately, according to recent studies, even students in engineering have a problem with finding information via Google....
 Do not suppose that MR. Rib wanted to be a student and explore the mysteries of CCD sensor technology, construction and in the future to build them. He is too old  Roll Eyes  But he can still learn a trick to use google.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

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

Posts: 831


« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2011, 05:02:53 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not lazyness, it's depending on your best information source, which for me is Lula when it comes to technical matters. I'm not sure what's wrong with you but I hope you'll get over it.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2011, 05:16:52 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not lazyness, it's depending on your best information source, which for me is Lula when it comes to technical matters. I'm not sure what's wrong with you but I hope you'll get over it.

Don't worry, it's his MO, just take a glimpse at his commenting history.
Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2011, 05:39:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't worry, it's his MO, just take a glimpse at his commenting history.

a man who thinks that Nokia is still the market leader ...

I know that someone knows better it becomes annoying. But what can I do? With this should be born  Grin
Logged

Best regards,
DF

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

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2011, 05:48:30 PM »
ReplyReply

a man who thinks that Nokia is still the market leader ...

I know that someone knows better it becomes annoying. But what can I do? With this should be born  Grin

I know they are: IDC CQ1, Gartner CQ2.

I don't know what your second sentence means. Nor do I care.
Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2011, 05:55:21 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not lazyness, it's depending on your best information source, which for me is Lula when it comes to technical matters. I'm not sure what's wrong with you but I hope you'll get over it.

If you feel offended, I apologize. That I have a way of being. Such chip is done for the Army. Hence they are very expensive toys. So you will not find such sensors in a long time in MF. Contrary to appearances, is not built with several ready-made sensors.

Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3871



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2011, 06:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

If you feel offended, I apologize. That I have a way of being. Such chip is done for the Army. Hence they are very expensive toys. So you will not find such sensors in a long time in MF. Contrary to appearances, is not built with several ready-made sensors.



Off the top of my head, I'd expect $50-100K in mask creation costs for an old process, and then each chip costs you a wafer. For a current process you need $300K or so for masks, but who needs a current process to make HUGE sensor cells?

On a related note, I would speculate that the fab lines and processes used to make the iPad3 display could easily be modded to make a large sensor with very large cells.

I can keep making up fake numbers and smart sentences and general BS, while you people talk about Google. But in fact, the marginal costs per sensor for *LO-REZ* 8x10 these days are probably in line with making them for what an H4D60 is sold for today, apart from the initial design and masking costs.

Actually, all of that is engineering, it's not as hard as photography Smiley once someone has already done it the first time, any idiot like me can do it again by following the recipe with a bit of work. Look up the circuits, get process details, spend a night on the simulator, iterate until exhausted ... the chip topography is very repetitive (just like memory, in fact in a way it is memory) and so you probably only have a handful of base cells to deal with.

I'd be surprised if they have more than a couple of people doing the layout on each sensor they push out at DALSA; of course they have the house design libraries to back them up, but so did I when I was young.

Edmund

« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 06:32:50 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2011, 06:36:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's another way to make digital 8x10 (or so) sized pictures on the cheap.
Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2011, 06:42:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Off the top of my head, I'd expect $50-100K in mask creation costs for an old process, and then each chip costs you a wafer. For a current process you need $300K or so for masks, but who needs a current process to make HUGE sensor cells?

On a related note, I would speculate that the fab lines and processes used to make the iPad3 display could easily be modded to make a large sensor with very large cells.

I can keep making up fake numbers and smart sentences and general BS, while you people talk about Google. But in fact, the marginal costs per sensor for *LO-REZ* 8x10 these days are probably in line with making them for what an H4D60 is sold for today, apart from the initial design and masking costs.

Actually, all of that is engineering, it's not as hard as photography Smiley once someone has already done it the first time, any idiot like me can do it again by following the recipe with a bit of work. Look up the circuits, get process details, spend a night on the simulator, iterate until exhausted ...

I'd be surprised if they have more than a couple of people doing the layout on each sensor they push out at DALSA; of course they have the house design libraries to back them up, but so did I when I was young.

Edmund



The question is, who really needs it. Is this the right way forward ... Whether the investment will pay for itself? And even if it's not better to squeeze as much as possible with current technology. Chip costs some $ 500-2000, and the camera 20k - 40k. If I were a manufacturer of squeeze as much as possible from what I have.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

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

Posts: 1074



« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2011, 06:50:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's another way to make digital 8x10 (or so) sized pictures on the cheap.

You can...
but not simpler just to use the film? Nicer, more pleasant ...
Logged

Best regards,
DF

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

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2011, 07:10:51 PM »
ReplyReply

You can...
but not simpler just to use the film? Nicer, more pleasant ...

Indeed, you are not a tinkerer.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3871



WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2011, 07:32:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The question is, who really needs it. Is this the right way forward ... Whether the investment will pay for itself? And even if it's not better to squeeze as much as possible with current technology. Chip costs some $ 500-2000, and the camera 20k - 40k. If I were a manufacturer of squeeze as much as possible from what I have.


It's a question of perspective - I mean as the OP notes, it just takes one guy who wants one for the base investment to be amortized; after that you could imagine a cottage industry - if someone offered me a high quality 8x10 back for $1O K I think I'd go for it, even at the cost of selling a lot f my lenses.

Actually, I'm quite astonished that the guy who had the 8x10 polaroid made didn't have one made that was good enough for photographic purposes.

Edmund
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 07:54:37 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2011, 09:37:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, it kind of blows my mind that he'd go to all that trouble and expense with the idea that he would not replace both the polaraoids and the film costs by getting something higher res.   Admittedly, I've never shot 8x10 film so can't say firsthand how wonderful it is, but it must be.....

as and aside, I am wondering how much capital went into the 'impossible project' to bring back polaroids anyhow?

Logged

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

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2011, 02:14:42 PM »
ReplyReply

of course one wonders: if you could get about the same level of quality with a chip that was 4 x 5 cm, gave 80 mp resolution, was portable, already battle tested, would you rather carry around an 8x10 view camera?
Logged

Geoff
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3871



WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2011, 02:18:08 PM »
ReplyReply

of course one wonders: if you could get about the same level of quality with a chip that was 4 x 5 cm, gave 80 mp resolution, was portable, already battle tested, would you rather carry around an 8x10 view camera?


Either would be nice Smiley

Edmund
Logged

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

Posts: 1074



« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2011, 05:11:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course it would be great to have 80 - 150 megapixel at 8x10 Or 6x7. Only if someone is aware of what it costs, because unfortunately the same matrix is not the end. What is needed is a body, lenses, pretty damn accurate AF systems. (In this format, it is quite a big problem, depth of field is very small). Since I am professionally associated with the determination of what will be put on the market and what does not and why. My intuition tells me that the sooner we will see MF camera that will make films and it will be sooner than later. The reason is quite simple, such are the expectations of customers. Film industry is attractive, gives security to the manufacturer for the failure of the market as a result of technological transformation.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad