 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006when will "true" medium/large format digital be affordable?
The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my limited understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading in various photography forums and websites. That said, here goes... In playing around recently with medium format film, I was astonished at the improvement of enlarged image quality over 35mm. I also own and enjoy using both a Nikon D50 dslr and a point/shoot Panasonic FZ30, and I shoot 95% of my photos in digital form, at a minimum. However, seeing the huge improvement with the larger film size over 35mm, it makes me wonder what a truly medium-format-sized digital sensor (with the same pixel density as that in a "dx" or "35mm sized" digital slr), or even a 4x5" sensor, could do, assuming you had enough data storage to handle those huge images. I realize that "scanning backs" exist out there that can cover a 4x5 frame, but I'm sure that birds or waves or blowing leaves would appear to move across the frame during such a scan. I also recently read about a 4x4 INCH digital sensor (150 mpixel) that costs $200,000, and I realized that this is far beyond my financial reach. So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on digital detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead of $200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just tossing it out there, wondering. On the other hand, as digital technology evolves, is a bigger sensor always going to be better? For example, let's say that super-quiet ccd's could be created such that point/shoot-sized 50 mpixel CCD's could look great, even at high ISO. Would this obviate the need for physically larger sensors? I realize that, at some point, as pixels are made smaller (even super-quiet ones), one will eventually reach the diffraction limit of the optics in FRONT of the detector, and I'm wondering how close we already are to those limits with the digital sensors in the best cameras reachable by a photographic hobbyist. Also, I realize that if you make a mosaic of smaller ccd's to have more physical size, you'll still have the "blank regions" between the separate ccd's. Can sensors now be made that could have such narrow gaps (say 1 or 2 PIXELS) between their edges that this gap would be inconsquential, so that you could build a 2x2 or 4x4 array of cheaper full-frame digital sensors and get pretty much the same result as a single huge sensor? Scott > The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my limited > understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading in various [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Scott The first 6mp cameras came out in 1995 by Kodak for $28,000. That camera line ended in 1992 and then list was $7600, but it was and is the only camera using a Nikon F5 as a body. Used is still around $1000 for a DCS760 in good condition, they were very good cameras. Hassleblad is now 39mp for $40000 or so, the problem now is a matter of scale can they sell enough of these to inspire a less expensive back. Unluckily Hasslebald has released their own back and no longer will accept backs from other manufacturers. But Mamyia and Pentax have medium format cameras coming out, the Mamiya at least is 22mp for $12K, but not available in the US. It may take 10 years to bring prices out of the stratosphere. But 35mm based cameras are already as good as 6x4.5 cameras and most 6x6 cameras. You need a film based 'blad with good lenses or 6x7 and up to beat a Canon 1Ds MkII, ad most APS cameras are just behind that. For 4x5 you need a scanning back, they work great in the studio BTW. Some folks have been sucessful using them outside, but you still need a static image, don't think you can generate any volumes with your 4x4 inch sensor if they start at $200K. The 39mp Hassleblad comes close to 4x5, but still you can develop 1000 sheet for the price of the 'blad, and it doesn't have swings and tilts. Only time will tell. Tom Sorry Meant 2002 for the last year of the DCS760. Tom > But 35mm based cameras are already as good as > 6x4.5 cameras and most 6x6 cameras. You need a film based 'blad with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but you still need a static image, don't think you can generate any > volumes with your 4x4 inch sensor if they start at $200K. 36x49mm sensors are available for about 32,000 dollars. they will work on Blads and 4x5 cameras. PRICE: $29,999.99 Includes: Hasselblad H2D SLR camera with 80mm lens, viewfinder and 39MP single-shot digital back. Phase One P45 Digital Back for Hasselblad H Series With Three Year Warranty PRICE: $32,999.99 $17,000 Phase One Specifications: Imager: * Color filter: Red, green, blue * Pixels (active): 6496 x 4872 * CCD Size (active): 44.2 x 33.1mm * Pixel Size: 6.8 x 6.8 micron * Image ratio: 4:3 * Image output: 48 bits (16 bits per color) * Antiblooming: 8 f-stops Digital Image * Color depth: 16 bit per color * Dynamic range: 12 f-stop Sensitivity * ISO: 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 Camera system: * Capture rate: 45 frames per minute * Writing speed to CF: Up to 20MB/sec., depending on CF card * Battery type: Lithium ion * Battery lifetime: 250 captures/4 hours * Exposure time: Several minutes to less than 1/10000 * IR filter: Mounted on CCD * Orientation: Automatic image rotation (Patented) * Power: 8-33 V DC If you chose the right back, it will take either single shot exposures for moving subjects, or 4 exposures for still lifes, so each pixel location gets all four exposures. Ixpress 528c 4*Res upgrade option: a new level of quality for studio photography Get ultra-high-end image quality for still-life subject photography, with image sizes from 96 to 528 MB. This unique upgrade provides moiré-free operation in both 4-shot and 16-shot modes. > Tom > So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on > digital > detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead > of $200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just > tossing it out there, wondering. Never. Until we have Star Trek-style transporters, the cost of making 16 square inches of semiconductor is never going to be cheap. Investigate how those things are manufactured, and you'll see. You could tile multiple small sensors, but still - you're talking about 16 square inches, and that is COSTLY. steve >>So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on >>digital [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > steve Never say never.... A high school buddy of mine made millions in developing storage, (MTI it is listed in NASDAQ) has since retired. He said his company was selling 20 gigs of storage (about 15-20 years ago) for half a million! Can buy a 200 gig hard drive now for $100. Was going to say "what happened to Cray computers, but they are going to deliver the first petaflop 'puter, I guess they are still in business... http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=873357&hig hlight= >>> So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on >>> digital [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 20 gigs of storage (about 15-20 years ago) for half a million! Can buy > a 200 gig hard drive now for $100. First hard drive, for an intel development system, was 20mb, for $15,000. Was going to say "what happened to > Cray computers, but they are going to deliver the first petaflop 'puter, > I guess they are still in business... > http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=873357&hig hlight= > Never say never.... > A high school buddy of mine made millions in developing storage, (MTI it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > guess they are still in business... > http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=873357&hig hlight= Yeah, storage is cheap. But look into the costs associated with semiconductor manufacturing. Over the last 20 years, they have dropped, but not by a terrible amount. Seriously, do your own reading on what goes into those things, and you'll see for yourself. steve > Yeah, storage is cheap. But look into the costs associated with > semiconductor manufacturing. Over the last 20 years, they have dropped, but > not by a terrible amount. Seriously, do your own reading on what goes into > those things, and you'll see for yourself. Are you sure? You can get a LOT more transistors for $1000 now than you could get 26 years ago. Current micprocessors have hundreds of millions of transistors in them, compared to the tens of thousands of 1980. >> Yeah, storage is cheap. But look into the costs associated with >> semiconductor manufacturing. Over the last 20 years, they have dropped, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > millions of transistors in them, compared to the tens of thousands of > 1980. But you could compare a sensor of a particular size with a transistor or a certain size over time. A power transistor for say audio power amplifier applications would be a good example. A little less expensive over 30 years, but not by a factor attributable to Moores Law etc. as that relies on increasing miniaturisation. So for sensors, they are already at the point where increasing miniaturisation is not desirable, so big gains in economy aren't likely. > So for sensors, they are already at the point where increasing > miniaturisation is not desirable, so big gains in economy aren't likely. But, if you can put a gazillion pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8 mm sensor, wouldn't that be desirable? And then would a large format even be necessary? Just wondering. Tony V >> So for sensors, they are already at the point where increasing >> miniaturisation is not desirable, so big gains in economy aren't likely. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tony V No - it wouldn't be desirable. Diffraction is explained here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm# Aside from diffraction which would render huge pixel counts of no benefit, noise is an issue, and also if you have dealt with large MP images (I do with stitched >30mp images) then dealing with them with a current home PC is a pain in the neck. (Sure - for the latter you can expect that PC processing power / storage increases to make up for it) If you look at sample images from the latest small sensor 10mp P&S cameras, the results aren't very good - even at low ISO aggressive NR robs detail, and at normal working apertures (even typically widest aperture at long zoom f/l) they are diffraction limited. For an APS-c sized sensor, then over about 15mp isn't going to be much practical use, and even if they get to that they have to deal with noise. The latest Olympus 4/3 10mp camera has about the same pixel density as 15mp or so on APS-c. When sample images are seen, that's the sort of performance you'll get from 15mp APS-c. I think it won't be very good. >> So for sensors, they are already at the point where increasing >> miniaturisation is not desirable, so big gains in economy aren't likely. > > But, if you can put a gazillion pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8 mm sensor, > wouldn't that be desirable? And then would a large format even be > necessary? Just wondering. Smaller pixels have less dynamic range, highlights blow & shadow detail is lost. Calculating the quantum physics of how many photons will fit in a tiny pixel, we are fairly close to the practical limit. When small pixels fill up, the charge bleeds over to adjacent pixels causing purple fringing, there is less range for adjusting ISO sensitivity, more noise, etc. You never know what other trick they might come up with like microlenses or fuji's second set of mini pixels between the main set to get another level of the dynamic range, but there seem to be some major barriers.  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >You never know what other trick they might come up with like >microlenses or fuji's second set of mini pixels between the main set to >get another level of the dynamic range, but there seem to be some major >barriers. I don't think there is any physical limit to dynamic range. But you may end up with ISO 25 or lower. Which is not very practical in a lot of cases. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>You never know what other trick they might come up with like >>microlenses or fuji's second set of mini pixels between the main set to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think there is any physical limit to dynamic range. But you may > end up with ISO 25 or lower. Which is not very practical in a lot of cases. The is no real physical limit, except the number of photons you can collect. For daytime photography, that is how many photons is put out by the sun and incident on the Earth through the earth's atmosphere. It is finite. Little pixels don't help; it is lile slicing up s pie in smaller pieces. Smaller pixels gather fewer photons. Roger >The is no real physical limit, except the number of >photons you can collect. For daytime photography, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >lile slicing up s pie in smaller pieces. Smaller >pixels gather fewer photons. And if you are prepared to wait longer (or to to some extent, to increase apertures) you can still collect an arbitrary number of photons. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>The is no real physical limit, except the number of >>photons you can collect. For daytime photography, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And if you are prepared to wait longer (or to to some extent, to increase > apertures) you can still collect an arbitrary number of photons. There is a limit to the number of electrons that can be on a given area of silicon before the electric field is too strong, I suppose. However, a) this is not a fundamental physical limit, and b) one could imagine clearing the well and continuing the exposure after that. But as you say, the real practical limit is probably how long you're willing to wait for them to be collected. >>> The is no real physical limit, except the number of >>> photons you can collect. For daytime photography, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > say, the real practical limit is probably how long you're willing to > wait for them to be collected. Isn't "clearing the well" essentially what happens when you stack images. A technique in astrophotography uses almost any ol' camera (from web cams to high grade research chips) to take dozens to thousands of short exposures, stacks the best of them together and ends up with fabulously low noise/high resolution final images. This all takes time though. In Roger's well analogy it is like digging a deeper well. Each pixel has a finite S/N ratio determined by its surface area but each pixel can be re-used over time to improve the result. If you don't have the time though, the best image seems to come from the most big pixels you can use. -Guy >>>> The is no real physical limit, except the number of >>>> photons you can collect. For daytime photography, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Isn't "clearing the well" essentially what happens when you stack > images. That is a mathematical post readout signal processing step and not related to the original sensor and its well. > A technique in astrophotography uses almost any ol' camera (from > web cams to high grade research chips) to take dozens to thousands of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the time though, the best image seems to come from the most big pixels > you can use. -Guy Yes, it works extremely well (both post processing stacking of images, as well as large pixel cameras)! Roger >> So for sensors, they are already at the point where increasing >>miniaturisation is not desirable, so big gains in economy aren't likely. > >But, if you can put a gazillion pixels on a 23.6 x 15.8 mm sensor, >wouldn't that be desirable? No, the noise would be worse. >And then would a large format even be necessary? Yes, you could have a larger number of large pixels. SignatureIan G8ILZ >> Yeah, storage is cheap. But look into the costs associated with >> semiconductor manufacturing. Over the last 20 years, they have dropped, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > millions of transistors in them, compared to the tens of thousands of > 1980. Yes, I'm sure. While you get more transistors, you don't really get more surface area. Surface area (or "die size") is by far the greatest, most overwhelming factor in determing the cost to manufacture. In the CPU world, where the advances have taken place the fastest, a die less than 2/3ds of a single square inch is considered VERY large, and is VERY expensive. Considering that costs go up exponentially with die size because of lithography challenges and lower yields, the size of sensor suggested (at over 25 times the surface area) is enormous. steve >>>So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on >>>digital [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > guess they are still in business... > http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=873357&hig hlight= With regard to the cost of storage, yes, it has come down, but many years ago the cost of 3.5" drives hit a bottom--not sure where it was, under $100 though. The capacity keeps getting higher but the price of an entry-level drive is not decreasing. The reason is that there is a certain irreducible minimum level of materials and labor required to make the device. The same is the issue with large sensors. It doesn't matter how many devices you put on it 16 square inches of silicon is still 16 square inches of silicon. > The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my limited > understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading in various > photography forums and websites. That said, here goes... ...<snippage>... > So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on digital > detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > On the other hand, as digital technology evolves, is a bigger sensor always > going to be better? Maybe not, and maybe not necessary. How close is the pixel size in the current generation of sensors to the theoretical minimum? If it is possible to make the pixel size 1/2 or 1/4 of the present size, this would result in an image which has four or sixteen times the pixel density.... ns >> The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my >> limited understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ns http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter Regarding of manufacture of large sensors, the cost for a wafer run is pretty high. The last number I heard for an 8-inch silicon wafer run was about $10,000. Electronics have become cheaper by miniaturization. There is some fraction of defects per wafer, so the larger the chip, the higher percentage that fail, driving costs up further. With digital camera sensors, you can't shrink below a couple of photons in size, and even then you won't collect many photons (see above web site). Photons from the sun are finite, and DSLRs are collecting only a few tens of thousands of photons in a typical picture, and small P&S cameras much less (e.g. less than 10,000). Roger > Photons from the sun are finite, and DSLRs are collecting > only a few tens of thousands of photons in a typical > picture, and small P&S cameras much less > (e.g. less than 10,000). I assume that you mean "per pixel" in above. >> Photons from the sun are finite, and DSLRs are collecting >> only a few tens of thousands of photons in a typical >> picture, and small P&S cameras much less >> (e.g. less than 10,000). >> > I assume that you mean "per pixel" in above. [Not Roger] - yes, that's a per pixel value. Roger obviously meant "in a typical pixel". David >>>Photons from the sun are finite, and DSLRs are collecting >>>only a few tens of thousands of photons in a typical [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > David Yes, I meant per pixel. Sorry for the confusion. Roger > So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on digital > detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead of > $200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just > tossing it out there, wondering. Obviously everyone here has raised some good points (better than I'm capable of), but I'm just throwing in my speculation as to the questions raised. First, to answer the question in the subject line, if you're willing to assume the 1.1x crop factor associated with modern MF backs, then I think we'll see integrated camera and back DSLR-type systems of 48mm x 36mm hit ~$10,000 two years from now. To compete with 35mm and APS-C type cameras, manufacturers will need to hit that pricepoint, and with Mamiya and Pentax making baby steps already, I don't think this is out of line. Someone needs to step up and offer "prosumer" MF digital to fill the "prosumer" role in MF that once catered to the sort of well-heeled hobbyists that enjoyed medium format but don't need and can't justify buying a $30,000 back. The market's there, it is large enough to be worthwhile, and it also hedges against the world moving to smaller formats. I've already stated that I think that the speculation that Canon is investigating stitching two 1Ds sensors to compete in this realm makes alot of sense, and I stand by that. Even if they don't, I think we'll see others trying it. As for the specific question asked here, a 4x4 CCD will never cost $1000. A 48x36mm CCD will never cost $1000. No respectable medium format camera ever sold new (to my knowledge) for $1000 (adjusted for inflation, if you must)... as a format, it is just more expensive. Large format digital will never become anything that a typical consumer can (or would want to) buy. Just my thoughts, Will |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.