Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 140 MP 88x82mm sensor  (Read 2877 times)
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« on: February 19, 2013, 11:02:57 PM »
ReplyReply

http://teledynedalsa.com/corp/news/235/

Now that would make a really nice 6x8cm MF camera or a back for a small LF camera.

Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2013, 11:12:05 PM »
ReplyReply

http://teledynedalsa.com/corp/news/235/

Now that would make a really nice 6x8cm MF camera or a back for a small LF camera.



If it makes it to consumer life it will raise the bar again for sumptuous photographers. It will be nice to own a Bugatti Veyron and digital back with that sensor though. Another super nice photo toy I will never own. Damn it!
Eduardo
Logged
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2013, 12:34:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Things have moved on a bit since then.

There's a chip used in the DMC II 250 that's 17216 x 14656 5.6 micron pixels.

So that's a 96x82mm 250MP chip. Panchromatic though. Resolves 2.5cm objects at 500 meters.

Hmm. I might know someone who would be interested in one of these Smiley



Logged
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2013, 01:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

It would be cheaper and faster to stitch with something like a D800 Smiley
Logged

Emilmedia
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2013, 02:02:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm so NOT interested in carrying around those lenses
Logged

yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2013, 02:06:13 PM »
ReplyReply

It would be cheaper and faster to stitch with something like a D800 Smiley

E...you forgot the E...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2013, 02:40:47 PM »
ReplyReply

the chip will probably be the cheapest part in a setup which can resolve that data with full Nyquist.
I guess an appropriate lens for that will cost in the upper 5 digit range.

And is probably only available for infinity (aerial) use.

But impressive chip , no question.

Greetings from Germany
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
hasselbladfan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 407


« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2013, 04:35:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I would love to get again a 6x6 square format. Smiley
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2013, 07:47:28 PM »
ReplyReply

"Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it. " (c) BtB
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5141


« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2013, 08:22:15 PM »
ReplyReply

It is hardly news that, at a sufficiently (sky-high?) price, a company like Dalsa can stitch together a sensor at up to wafer size, using its standard CCD pixels. Prices for those Intergraph cameras are very hard to come by, but this link has a photo of several such cameras. The article is actually about "supports" for the cameras, and as the article notes, "prices are in millions".

http://www.aerial-survey-base.com/blog/casual-friday-need-a-new-survey-aircraft-survey-aircraft-for-sale/
Logged
julienlanoo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2013, 07:36:12 AM »
ReplyReply

@ Nick-T, stupid remark, midformat is not only about pixels, its a complete different way of working, its a complete different way of composing an image,
I frankly don t care that much about the mpix ob ly DB, i care about its sensor size !!!

And its flexability, !,  i can compose my own camera, to my own needs with a DB, with a small format i have to use what the factory tells me to ..
Logged
julienlanoo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2013, 07:37:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Any way, a 6x9 Db would be fantastic,

A 4x5 would be better altough i d prefere the compact size of a 6x9.. And the way of composing that format ..
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2818


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2013, 08:21:42 AM »
ReplyReply

@ Nick-T, stupid remark, midformat is not only about pixels, its a complete different way of working, its a complete different way of composing an image,
I frankly don t care that much about the mpix ob ly DB, i care about its sensor size !!!

Nick-T was being sarcastic and referencing the recent trend of some on this section of the LL forum declaring that the D800 is the solution to all the world's problems and is always the right choice for everyone. He runs the Hasselblad forum; I think he knows a little something abut the inherent advantages/disadvantages/pleasures/pains of midformat.  Grin
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4058



« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2013, 08:49:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Disruption will eventually arrive in MF/LF,  but it won't be the makers of the Loonycam or the Outofocuscam who will cannibalize their products or squeeze their dealers.

In digital cinema we have seen BlackMagic come along with a $3K sensor-in-a box with a mount and eat everybody's lunch. MF is just about ready for some innovation too.

The neat thing about LF is that the box itself is easy to make (low precision), and so is the lens, and in fact so is the sensor which can be rolled off any display fab, because the pixel/mm rez can be quite low. Sooner or later someone with a spare fab is going to realize that and roll out 8x10 digital magazines.


Edmund
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 08:51:46 AM by eronald » Logged
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 282


« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2013, 08:18:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I still remember when Canon first announced the first Rebel, there are so much skeptical about it, same when  the first full frame. ... It's rediculous, whole'd need the stupid full frame DSLR? ....
It's a matter of time when the larger sensor will hit the economic scale.
I just saw a slide set today about the microprocesor in 2018. It says a single chip will have 100 CPUs, ... assuming the chip size stays the same as of today. With the coming of 18-inch wafer, a 6x9 sensor within economic scale is not unthink of.

Only if Leica s, Hasselblad, Mamiya can live till then.         
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511


« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2013, 02:48:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Has someone looked up the cost reductions concerning producing large size chips? It should be *much* slower than packing in more circuits on the same chip size.

The inherent value of having a large light-gathering area is much weaker now than in the film days. Despite the larger area the older MF sensors actually gather less light than a modern 36x24mm sensor, as the quantum efficiency has improved. Maybe sensors in the future can be made so they can flush while the shutter is open so we gain unlimited well capacity regardless of sensor size.

Some look advantages maybe can be had through alternative optics designs thanks to larger area (as can be seen in 6x9 and 8x10"), but I think it is unlikely that it will be economically feasible to make such sensors in the foreseeable future.

Concerning tech cam, I think the 36x48mm sensor size seems like a quite nice sweet-spot concerning camera size, required precision and optics. Not sure if there's much gain to go larger, except for special ultra-high-res applications.
Logged
EinstStein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 282


« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2013, 10:14:34 AM »
ReplyReply

While the viewing media is shifting from paper printing and slide projection to tv and video monitor, the requirements on the sensor light gathering must change too. Besides the low light shooting capability, the dynamic range also needs large improvements.

For paper printing, 10 stops dynamic range is about all we need, but it becomes 12-14 stops for slide. The current led tv claims much higher contrast ratio, and is improving in every new release. Larger sensor can not be replaced by the high sensitivity pixeling.

On the resolution side, paper printing still puts the highest demand than the other viewing methods. In the old days, the photo galleries usually have 40inches as the dominate largest size, but now seems dominated by 2x larger printing, albeit most are long panaramic, and I heard it is likely to grow. I am curious how likely a regular house can fit with such large art work. It is said that stitching multiple shots into one picture is becoming ever more popular. I tend to believe this is anther indication the want of larger sensor.

The dragging back factor for the larger sensor perhaps is still determined by the available optical systems.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 573


« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2013, 07:11:07 AM »
ReplyReply

It would be cheaper and faster to stitch with something like a D800 Smiley


Largest photographs in the world (wikipedia).
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2013, 08:23:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Stitching isn't any panacea. Okay, if you are doing things that don't move it can be your universal(?) answer, but many folks shoot people, and the big-bucks earners seem to live within that range of genres.

I still believe that a digital 500 Series using the full original format would be a winner: in commercial work it's always nice to have room to crop and make adjustments; you don't always know how the final usage is going to pan out, even when you work to a layout: folks are sometimes willing to be surprised by what they see and have a change of mind because of it. Spare space is useful; that was the biggest problem with using 35mm (135): I always had to shoot to suit the format because of real estate limitations. The plus side, of  course (with film), was mobility and the longer flow of building up a shot.

Rob C
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5141


« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2013, 09:29:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I just saw a slide set today about the microprocesor in 2018. It says a single chip will have 100 CPUs, ... assuming the chip size stays the same as of today.
How many hundred of times does this need to be said: "Moore's Law" and the cost reductions and performance improvements driven by downsizing components and chips do nothing for reducing the cost of a sensor of any given large size ... even less do they drive progress towards making even larger chips.

With the coming of 18-inch wafer, a 6x9 sensor within economic scale is not unthink of.   
A 6x9cm sensor fits comfortably within the well-established 200mm and 300mm wafer sizes, so I do not see how even bigger wafers will help. Instead, the major cost barrier is the size restriction on the maximum field size that can be etched at one time, before the stepper/scanner has to be moved to a different position on the wafer. That size is now at an effective maximum of 33x26mm, a standard across all major stepper makers. Larger format steppers have far lower resolutions: they are aimed at first rough stages and for making LCD panels, but useless for camera sensors. Canon has even discontinued its one larger format 50x50mm stepper with 0.5 micron minimum feature size, replacing it by a lower resolution stepper with minimum feature size greater than one micron.

P. S. Those stories of skepticism about the Canon digital Rebel and FF DSLR's are fiction: both were met with great enthusiasm.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad