Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Future Medium Format Camera  (Read 6488 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2011, 09:30:28 PM »
ReplyReply

The clock is ticking - we have a 70 Mpix CMOS available with 3 frames per second, it was shown in October - the only problem is: Itīs 3.1 micron and only 31x21mm in Size.
That size fits with one of the harsh realities that large sensor makers have to deal with: the largest field size of any fabrication equipment (apart from one old Canon stepper capable of only very low resolution, like for pixel size of about 20microns and up) is 33x26mm, and all the stepper makers seems to have standardized on this size for almost all of the dozens of new models over the last eight years or so. With about 99.99% of all semiconductor chips being smaller than that, and mostly getting smaller (like the ARM microprocessors displacing bigger Intel chips in mobile devices) there is simply no economic case for new steppers with larger field size.

This size barrier at 33x26mm is probably related to the persistent price jump between mainstream DSLR formats (all comfortably smaller than 33x26mm) and the old 35mm film legacy format of 36x24mm. For that 35mm format, it has been a long time since the original Canon 5D dropped below $3000 not long after it was introduced, with not much drop in prices since then. (For a while there was the $2000 Sony A850, but that was discontinued, leaving only the more expensive A900: clearly it was not a profitable venture.)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 09:38:39 PM by BJL » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7676


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2011, 11:23:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Do you have any idea how the existing full frame sensors are made? Do they use a full frame stepper? Are they using normal steppers with multiple exposures on the same chip? Are they stitching several physical chips?

I would say that Nikon D700 also fits in the around 3 kUSD group?

I don't necessarily think that large CMOS chips can be made at low price, but are they different from CCDs in manufacturing cost?

Presumably, cost ist not very much dependent on sensel size, so a 5 micron sensor is not more expensive to produce than a 8 micron sensor of the same physical size, assuming that design rules and manufacturing equipment can handle both?

Does someone have an idea on the complexity of making the filter grid? How is that made? is complex chemistry involved?

Best regards
Erik

That size fits with one of the harsh realities that large sensor makers have to deal with: the largest field size of any fabrication equipment (apart from one old Canon stepper capable of only very low resolution, like for pixel size of about 20microns and up) is 33x26mm, and all the stepper makers seems to have standardized on this size for almost all of the dozens of new models over the last eight years or so. With about 99.99% of all semiconductor chips being smaller than that, and mostly getting smaller (like the ARM microprocessors displacing bigger Intel chips in mobile devices) there is simply no economic case for new steppers with larger field size.

This size barrier at 33x26mm is probably related to the persistent price jump between mainstream DSLR formats (all comfortably smaller than 33x26mm) and the old 35mm film legacy format of 36x24mm. For that 35mm format, it has been a long time since the original Canon 5D dropped below $3000 not long after it was introduced, with not much drop in prices since then. (For a while there was the $2000 Sony A850, but that was discontinued, leaving only the more expensive A900: clearly it was not a profitable venture.)
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2011, 01:59:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I made a series of exposures with a 200 mm lens from 1/15s to 1/125s

A) Camera on tripod MLU and cable release no IS
B) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release no IS
C) Camera on tripod no MLU, cable release IS
D) Free hand, no MLU, hand release, IS
I am guessing that practically, liveview == MLU (A) in this regard?

It would be very interesting to see numbers on how well IS really works. In terms of "how large is the effective convolution kernel compared to sensel size for this well-defined camera motion". My guess would be that they are focusing on reducing large, hard-to-predict motionblur in the multiple sensel range (over e.g. 1/60 to 1 second timeframes), rather than small and/or simple movements in the sensel to subsensel range. If those two are opposing requirements. In other words: make "blurry" situations "quite unblurry", not necessarily making "quite unblurry" "totally unblurry". If that makes any sense.
Quote
All images looked sharp at actual pixels!
Not sure that I know what you are saying here. If the image looks sharp, then why hunt for more (measurable only) sharpness?

Quote
Cutting resolution in half wastes 75% of the pixels.
If motion blur cause the effective mtf50 to be cut in half, that may or may not give the same perceptual effect as reducing the pixel density until mtf50 is cut in half. I

-h
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 02:05:17 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7676


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2011, 05:06:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I see your point.

The way it worked, at first the images all looked essentially sharp, and I was looking at actual pixels. After checking with imatest I found that half of the resolution was lost. I have rechecked the images and made pair to pair comparison and could see the difference.

The issue is that if we loose half of the resolution due to sloppy work than we don't utilize the equiment fully.

Eyeseight and brain may play a big role. But, would I invest in a high res digital back than I would certainly try to optimize my technique.

Best regards
Erik


Not sure that I know what you are saying here. If the image looks sharp, then why hunt for more (measurable only) sharpness?
If motion blur cause the effective mtf50 to be cut in half, that may or may not give the same perceptual effect as reducing the pixel density until mtf50 is cut in half. I

-h
Logged

Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2011, 05:15:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric

About motion Blur:
Adobe did have this impressing demo on features of the deblurring filter in the new Photoshop CS 6.

http://www.finestdaily.com/news/adobe-develops-photoshop-anti-blur-feature.html

I think the future capacity of Highresolution imaging systems of all kinds will heavily rely on such software.
Same applies to exposure bracketing for HDR, Superresolution and noise removal.
It is possible that this will be the real killer of large format - breaking it down into many tiny portions and
process these ultrafast to any needed size.

Which BTW is exactly what our eye and brain are doing to give us the impression of our visual sight.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 05:17:48 AM by Stefan.Steib » Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
marfa.tx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2011, 09:41:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric

I think this is purely political and as I think the task that Leica, Phase/Leaf, Pentax and Hasselblad have to solve, is to cooperate  !.......
So there is the big question: why arenīt they doing it HuhHuh??

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

perhaps they don't have someone driven enough to propose, and implement "patent pools."


Logged

-------
richard
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2011, 11:56:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you have any idea how the existing full frame sensors are made? Do they use a full frame stepper? Are they using normal steppers with multiple exposures on the same chip? Are they stitching several physical chips?
Canon has made some comments on this in various white papers on its 1Ds and 1D models, and it is almost certain that all DSLR and MF camera sensors 36x24mm and up are made using steppers of maximum field size 33x26mm (or smaller?), using stitching, meaning moving the stepper horizontally during the process to "draw" second or third portion of the sensor. No stepper exists covering 36x24mm and with adequate resolution for making DSLR or MF sensors. The only one of a larger field size is an old Canon model [Edit: the FPA-5500iX from 2001] covering 50x50mm, but it has only 500nm resolution, good only for pixel sizes well over 10micron. That is likely use to make some 50x50mm Kodak X-ray seniors with 24 micron pixel pitch: the KAF-4301 and KAF-4320.

UPDATE: I just checked Canon's website, and it seems to have updated its stepper/scanner models. The old model FPA-5510iX with field size about 50x50mm might be gone, and there is a new model with large field size 52x32mm, but even lower resolution, described as "<1.5 microns":
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper

As before, all other models have maximum field size 33x26mm or smaller.

Physically butting together ("stitching") chips is hopeless for DSLR or MF sensors due to the join lines, but is used for some X-ray sensors and such.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 07:41:39 PM by BJL » Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2011, 02:22:01 PM »
ReplyReply

After some searching I found this - a discussion here on the forum - that may be interesting to look back - so Pentax is also in that "wait state" mode:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54362.20

Interesting though that there has not been any progress in the last 6 months.
And the Japanese seem to be paralyzed by Fukushima and now the Thailand flooding.

So lets see who moves first.........?

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7676


WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2011, 03:10:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

Interesting discussion! Thanks a lot! Danke sehr viel!

BR
Erik


After some searching I found this - a discussion here on the forum - that may be interesting to look back - so Pentax is also in that "wait state" mode:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54362.20

Interesting though that there has not been any progress in the last 6 months.
And the Japanese seem to be paralyzed by Fukushima and now the Thailand flooding.

So lets see who moves first.........?

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7676


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2011, 03:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have seen the demo and the samples. I'm a firm believer in deconvolution, but I'm also a firm believer in keeping everything optimal at every stage.

But nobody is perfect, at least I am not!

Best regards
Erik

Eric

About motion Blur:
Adobe did have this impressing demo on features of the deblurring filter in the new Photoshop CS 6.

http://www.finestdaily.com/news/adobe-develops-photoshop-anti-blur-feature.html

I think the future capacity of Highresolution imaging systems of all kinds will heavily rely on such software.
Same applies to exposure bracketing for HDR, Superresolution and noise removal.
It is possible that this will be the real killer of large format - breaking it down into many tiny portions and
process these ultrafast to any needed size.

Which BTW is exactly what our eye and brain are doing to give us the impression of our visual sight.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged

Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2011, 03:49:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric

so do I, but once I had read through completely Lloyds "Making sharp images" I knew that there is a lot to go wrong (some of it was even new to me after 35 years of Photography).
Especially I liked the part on the wave of vibration coming back to the camera from the different Gitzos - showing the big one was actually worse than the middlesize because it was reflecting the vibrations.............weeeeiiiiiiiird, but logical. I think he does a tremendous job on his website.

So my favourite MF Camera improvement to come is: ......Usertuning....... Smiley, get better knowledge to use your existing gear better. At least this is approached very nicely by all contestants, may it be Phase, Leaf or Blad with their Workshops.

And further I want the: "Have fun" button, to be pressed whenever you need it, with an extra large ,self charging battery, maybe solar to be totally PC and BIO ....... Grin

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
Peter Devos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 465


« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2011, 04:27:01 PM »
ReplyReply

i havent read Lloyds text on sharp images but i do remember a Carl Zeiss workshop in the 90'ies were they showed the difference between images made with Manfrotto, Gitzo and Sachtler tripods. The oil dampned sachtler fiber tripod was the only tripod that gave full resolution of the Zeiss lenses and they gave the same vibration reflection explanation. The special oil filled Video head got rid of all vibrations with spactacular pictures as a result. :-)
In studio i now only use the Hartbleicam for still live. There is no mirror inside so there is no vibration. I can also mount almost all possible lens on it, giving it the maximum of freedom in lens choice. Maybe a fixed translucent mirror with an electronic viewfinder to compensate the lack of thicness of the body would be even more disirable  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 04:31:23 PM by Peter Devos » Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2011, 04:52:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Peter

Yes, the shutter of our HCam-B1 is even mounted in a rubber block, so the shutter to the rubber and the rubber to the 6-8 mm thick Aluminium plates takes all the vibrations.

And we are thinking to have an electronic Viewfinder + a touchscreen in the B3 version, the plan is already there. Hopefully next year we can do the B2 which shall get a wireless html user interface and a built in electronic level (for all the people who donīt have IQīs)

What back are you using on your HCam ?

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7676


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2011, 10:50:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Yes, sometimes we miss, or just cannot do the impossible. Like we need to stop down to much, deconvolution can make a real nice job on diffraction. I use Topaz "In Focus" from time to time.

Best regards
Erik




Hi Eric

so do I, but once I had read through completely Lloyds "Making sharp images" I knew that there is a lot to go wrong (some of it was even new to me after 35 years of Photography).
Especially I liked the part on the wave of vibration coming back to the camera from the different Gitzos - showing the big one was actually worse than the middlesize because it was reflecting the vibrations.............weeeeiiiiiiiird, but logical. I think he does a tremendous job on his website.

So my favourite MF Camera improvement to come is: ......Usertuning....... Smiley, get better knowledge to use your existing gear better. At least this is approached very nicely by all contestants, may it be Phase, Leaf or Blad with their Workshops.

And further I want the: "Have fun" button, to be pressed whenever you need it, with an extra large ,self charging battery, maybe solar to be totally PC and BIO ....... Grin

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad