Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Gary Ferguson on June 23, 2007, 09:28:31 am
-
I'd always assumed that a 48mm x 48mm sensor was unlikely. However, with the new Sinar/Leaf/Rollei camera, there's suddenly lots of 48mm x 48mm talk. How realistic is this bigger sensor?
-
i believe there will be for sure a larger sensor, the question is when. will it be the next generation or in the 2. generation from no on. i belive more in the last ...... but i am sure the sensors will grow.
personally i hope not in the 48x48 direction which will bring bigger files which mostly will be cropped. i would hope for a real 645 sensor .
-
What would be the manufacturing implications of a genuinely "full frame" 645 sensor (ie 55mm or 56mm wide) versus a 48mm x 48mm sensor, versus the current sensors?
-
i believe there will be for sure a larger sensor, the question is when. will it be the next generation or in the 2. generation from no on. i belive more in the last ...... but i am sure the sensors will grow.
personally i hope not in the 48x48 direction which will bring bigger files which mostly will be cropped. i would hope for a real 645 sensor .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dalsa has the 48X48 sensor but so far not have been made into commercial use yet, or at least as I know it. I think the evolution of format moved from 6X6 then to 6X4.5 for some good reasons and may be in some time there will be a small support for such a sensor for the camera platforms use everyday. At least Hy6 offer such a possibility if such sensor does become commercially available but really it is still designed as camera use both digital and film rather than Hasselblad primary designed for digital and with film option.
I was more or less hoping for just the current or true 645 size sensor but in a phsical movment enclosure so it can take single 645 shor or automatically stitched piture by moving the sensor - of course this will not be useful for action shot but I guess for a lot of application this will be useful.
-
High K, hello.........
after reading your experiences of the training and after listening to thierry i think i start to be interested to see the HY6 ....... also very nice that there are plans to make again a rotatable back. i have that on my gottschalt and its such a practical detail.
-
High K, hello.........
after reading your experiences of the training and after listening to thierry i think i start to be interested to see the HY6 ....... also very nice that there are plans to make again a rotatable back. i have that on my gottschalt and its such a practical detail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the camera has some great potential, to be honest. The rotation mechanism, if finally made possible with acceptable tolerance, will be indeed a very good feature, what I understood is that is has been tested and will only be introduced when Sinar is satisfied with its performance.
-
Hi
I think in terms of marketing a true 6x4.5 would be best. A square chip you will be cropping 95 % of the time.
Denis
-
Unless you like the square for e.g. portraits (some even use it for landscapes ).
A Hy6, WLF and 48x48 sensor sounds great to me!
-
But what if the cost is rather high> I always hear people say " when that arrives i will buy it".... but then they say " lets wait for the right price " and " I do not need it at this moment ...) but the actually want to say "" I do not have the monney to buy that, but i really like to show off about it""
Sensors are getting better each year and when your business is profittable you just buy a new back each time your business feels the need for it.
-
For back manufacturers, 48x48 is a great way to release some new uber model with little technological investment.
Plus, it might come handy to help a new platform - like the Hy6 - making the headlines with a "differentiator".
The only thing that is unclear is whether photographers really needs the solution, besides those who just want to be seen with the latest stuff of course.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I'd love to see a big square sensor.
Before I went MF digital I used almost exclusively 6x6.
Embrace the square!
-
I'd love to see a big square sensor.
Before I went MF digital I used almost exclusively 6x6.
Embrace the square!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=124651\")
Square will not do much for me so I would pass on it, but come out with 6x7 and I will not hassitate even a second to pay $60K for this double size sensor.
[a href=\"http://andrenapier.com/]http://andrenapier.com/[/url]
-
I'd always assumed that a 48mm x 48mm sensor was unlikely. However, with the new Sinar/Leaf/Rollei camera, there's suddenly lots of 48mm x 48mm talk. How realistic is this bigger sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I can tell, the new Sinar/Leaf/Rollei camera is based on 56x56mm square format for one simple reason: it is based on Rollei's 6x6 film format system including its lenses. Nothing about this "format inertia" is evidence that Kodak, Dalsa or any other sensor maker has told the Rollei team that larger, squarer sensors are coming.
A reversion to square from the now dominant 4:3 sensor shape is particularly unlikely. With industry leader Hasselblad-Imacon/Fuji along with Mamiya and Pentax having moved to 645 (56x42mm) and smaller formats, the market for sensors usable by none of them would be far too small.
Filling out more of the 56x42mm frame seems less unlikely, but there is no hint of that either: the latest generation of Dalsa and Kodak sensors did not increase at all in size.
-
A reversion to square from the now dominant 4:3 sensor shape is particularly unlikely. With industry leader Hasselblad-Imacon/Fuji along with Mamiya and Pentax having moved to 645 (56x42mm) and smaller formats, the market for sensors usable by none of them would be far too small.
Filling out more of the 56x42mm frame seems less unlikely, but there is no hint of that either: the latest generation of Dalsa and Kodak sensors did not increase at all in size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for that. Over the years I've seen several comments that different sized sensors are all made from a standard size "chip wafer", I was wondering how a 48mm x 48mm or 56mm x 42mm sensor would fit within this standard wafer and what the attendant cost implications would be?
-
... different sized sensors are all made from a standard size "chip wafer", I was wondering how a 48mm x 48mm or 56mm x 42mm sensor would fit within this standard wafer and what the attendant cost implications would be?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wafers are easily big enough to fit larger sensors: diameters of 200mm are widely used, with 300mm coming in to use. The number of sensors per wafer does go down a bit faster than in proportion to sensor area, but that does not seem like a major cost factor.
The biggest cost factor with increasing sensor size seems to be the decreasing proportion of usable chips: the likelihood of a chip being rejected due to fatal defect goes up rapidly with increasing chip size, once chips are large. For example, if 1/4 of chips at one size are usable, only 1/16 will be usable at twice the area, giving about 1/8 as many usable chips per wafer. Another example: Kodak's 36x48mm sensors seem to cost about fifty or more times as much as its 4/3" sized ones, while the area is only eight times as great. And there is competitive pressure on those 36x48mm sensors, from Dalsa.
-
If you ask me, I'd rather have a 4:5 ratio sensor than the popular 3:4.
645 is 3:4 and all bigger sensors in 36-7 X 48-9 mm. sizes. One good thing about this ratio, it fits perfectly magazines pages.
The 4:5 ratio at current sensor sizes would be 39X49mm. If full frame, 44X55.
4:5 ratio equals 6X7, 4X5, etc, film formats. which in turn fit perfectly traditional darkroom paper sizes.
I know, we are in the digital era now, but 4:5 ratio works better (at least for me) for portraits and weddings. The extra space at the sides in verticals can help a lot in positioning bride veils, the couple and the works.
3:4 ratio is more constrained and 2:3 ratio is just plain unfitable for serious wedding work.
I always enjoyed the extra room I had with my Hasselblad 55X55mm negatives doing portrait shots. I would go for a full frame square sensor, but a 44X55 sensor would be cheaper and just as good. Of course only if provided with a revolving back. No re-attach funny thing.
Just my opinion.
Regards
-
Forgot to add: the separate smaller CCD parts that form a Dalsa chip are 12mm x 24mm. So stitching two more to the 36mm x 48mm CCD will already result in a CCD of 48mm x 48mm.
Very interesting!
That leaves me again with the question why the MF backs have such high prices. In the past it has been said by almost everyone who has discussed that topic that the large sensor surface results in very low yields. Apparently this argument was wrong, the actual surface of the parts is not even as large as a APS/ Dx sensor. In this case I guess that even larger (than 48x48mm) sensors will be made one day. 48x60mm as the digital version of a 6x7 film format comes to mind...
Could it also be that the centerfold issue of the Leaf backs is caused by stitching? This is what I always have guessed, I just believed that 36x48 was formed by 2 "FF" sensors, 24x36 each.
regards, bernie
-
this sensor already exists in Dalsa's drawer!
The question is if the backmakers decide to take it.
Thierry
it is only a matter of willpower from Dalsa's side to create this economically feasible CCD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Alba,
I had explained in a tread some months ago, that the costs of a high-hend digital back are not longer due to the high costs of the sensor: this is past. 10 years ago the price of a sensor was about 50% to 60% of the total costs of a back.
Today these sensor costs are much less, less than 20% of the total (manufacturing) costs of a back.
The rest of the costs of a MFDB?: R&D and Software development represent a big part of it.
Centerfold: yes, this problem comes from the "stitching" process. It has as well been well explained a few months ago in another tread by member Brumbaer.
The 38x48mm sensor have six little and rectangular "stiched" parts: if you hold the sensor in an angle to the light you shall see it easily.
Best regards,
thierry
edited for addendum
That leaves me again with the question why the MF backs have such high prices. In the past it has been said by almost everyone who has discussed that topic that the large sensor surface results in very low yields. Apparently this argument was wrong, the actual surface of the parts is not even as large as a APS/ Dx sensor. In this case I guess that even larger (than 48x48mm) sensors will be made one day. 48x60mm as the digital version of a 6x7 film format comes to mind...
Could it also be that the centerfold issue of the Leaf backs is caused by stitching? This is what I always have guessed, I just believed that 36x48 was formed by 2 "FF" sensors, 24x36 each.
regards, bernie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Oh, backmakers are such pussies
Ed
The 38x48mm sensor have six little and rectangular "stiched" parts: if you hold the sensor in an angle to the light you shall see it easily.
this sensor already exists in Dalsa's drawer!
The question is if the backmakers decide to take it.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Isn't it the other way around? By that I mean a back manufacturer had to have ASKED for it to be made. I doubt Dalsa or Kodak just make these expensive sensors and wait for them to sell. So who was it?
Although I'd like the Hy6 to be the 1st platform to utilize a 48*48 chip, I wouldn't be surprised if Hasselblad get there 1st with a square chip to attach to all the V series cameras out there, or even adapt the H series to it, let's face it, their platform is king of the hill right now even if the H series is less than ideal, a LOT of people are buying it and rentals are doing very well too.
We don't hear too much of them in terms of developments / rumors, I guess they have their heads down working on a few surprises themselves, maybe one of them is in terms of a larger sensor.
-Nik
this sensor already exists in Dalsa's drawer!
The question is if the backmakers decide to take it.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Hasselblad get there 1st with a square chip to attach to all the V series cameras out there, or even adapt the H series to it,
I very much doubt that the V series will be resurrected in that way. It just can't compete with some of the newer platforms with its half f-stops, lack of metering and auto exposure modes, lack of autofocus, lack of digital integration, etc. The Hy6 would beat it in almost every possible respect.
The H series can't be adapted to 48x48 because the viewfinder can't be enlarged to show the whole image, and the lenses aren't designed with a sufficient image circle. Just makes no sense at all.
I can only see the 48x48mm back going on a Hy6/AFi or maybe even a Mamiya RZ67 via an adapter.
Personally I'd rather see a full-frame 645 chip (42x56mm) which I won't be cropping 99% of the time. If a chip has to be square then why not 56x56mm?
-
Personally I'd rather see a full-frame 645 chip (42x56mm) which I won't be 99% of the time. If a chip has to be square then why not 56x56mm?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hassy probably won't support that one... if I am not mistaken, their latest 28 mm only covers 36 x 48 mm, right...
I don't see Kodak investing money in a format that one of their main customer isn't likely to use. Now Dalsa might be different...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hassy probably won't support that one... if I am not mistaken, their latest 28 mm only covers 36 x 48 mm, right...
I don't see Kodak investing money in a format that one of their main customer isn't likely to use. Now Dalsa might be different...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The lens creates an image circle, so in THEORY it could produce the 48 x 48mm image. Things that may cause a problem include the rear lens baffle, the mirror, obstructions in the mount, etc. It's at least plausible that the 28mm lens could produce a 48x48 image circle.
-
No comment, as said in earlier posts: it makes no sense to speculate on something which might take years until available.
And to be honest, although discussions have surely taken place, I am not informed (yet).
And, Thierry, how about Sinar's willpower to use this 48mm x 48mm CCD?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Nik,
Sometimes it is one way around, sometimes the other: this time Dalsa have developped this sensor (and even much bigger = see one of my earlier posts a few weeks ago) and is looking to be able to sell it.
But they certainly won't go in production stage unless they get firm order(s).
Best reggards,
Thierry
Isn't it the other way around? By that I mean a back manufacturer had to have ASKED for it to be made. I doubt Dalsa or Kodak just make these expensive sensors and wait for them to sell. So who was it?
-Nik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Ed,
Yes, they are!
Such a decision has to be thought over: there are much more aspects than being the technological leader by having the biggest sensor and the possible resulting sales potential . The risk factors are at least as important, if not more.
Best regards,
Thierry
Oh, backmakers are such pussies
Ed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
GBPhoto,
Yes, you are right.
Best regards,
Thierry
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the stitching happens in the exposure phase on a single wafer. It's not stitching 6 separate chips together. So, you still need a relatively large, relatively flawless continuous area of silicon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
If Dalsa already makes this CCD (see Thierry's comment) and its main back making customers (Leaf and Sinar) have the camera under their own brand name to use it (the Hy6/AFi), why would they not make a back to max out the advantage of that camera? Isn't competition about exploiting your unique selling points?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, I agree 100% with you on this.
Regards,
Bernard
-
A square chip in a DB is an absolute certainty in my view. You don't place an order with a camera manufacturer for a square format camera that will accept lenses specifically made to cover square and then only produce 4:3 backs for it. It's a bit late don't you think? The thousands of man hours spent developing the camera's optimum shape, size and weight distribution for square would be wasted, not to mention the time spent on lens design to cover this format. Can anyone from Schneider offer any input or validate this?
No disrespect, but being a pussy is one thing, being stupid is another!
-Nik
Dear Ed,
Yes, they are!
Such a decision has to be thought over: there are much more aspects than being the technological leader by having the biggest sensor and the possible resulting sales potential . The risk factors are at least as important, if not more.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi
If they do come out with a square chip being Dalsa for Leaf & Sinar. They will also have to make one for the Mamiya 6x7 format. Personally I don't see the advantage to square.
-
Dear Nik,
you are certainly 100% right, absolutely! No question about that.
My point is: such a decision has to be thought over carefully, and having all the aspects and risks in front of the eyes. All these considered, the decision can go in both directions.
And more over, even if the decision to go with it is taken, it is not for TOMORROW!
So why speak and speculate about something which is not here and ready, and which might take certainly more than a year to be in the market?
Others and myself have been much "criticized" here (no harm for me) for speaking about the Hy6 when it was launched during Photokina. And it was an officially announced product.
Best regards,
Thierry
A square chip in a DB is an absolute certainty in my view. You don't place an order with a camera manufacturer for a square format camera that will accept lenses specifically made to cover square and then only produce 4:3 backs for it. It's a bit late don't you think? The thousands of man hours spent developing the camera's optimum shape, size and weight distribution for square would be wasted, not to mention the time spent on lens design to cover this format. Can anyone from Schneider offer any input or validate this?
No disrespect, but being a pussy is one thing, being stupid is another!
-Nik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
For me personally a Hy6 with a rotating 36x48mm MFDB would be all I want.
For my work the file-size that comes out of my eMotion 75LV is more than large enough.
After I sold my Blad and went to the RZ and after that the Fuji GX680 I really enjoyed the rotating
backs.
Now I'm waiting to take delivery of the Hy6 and that's the camera for me.
I was forever cropping my Polaroids with the 6x6 Blads.
However,if Sinar,Phase or Leaf will come out with a square sensor there will be lots of users that
want a larger and square file.
-
Dear Nik,
So why speak and speculate about something which is not here and ready, and which might take certainly more than a year to be in the market?
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because it's been a slow week work-wise and I'm bored. Thankfully next week looks better. Drinks are on you at Photokina '08 if my speculation was right.
-Nik
-
Dear Thierry,
Could you please elaborate us on all the aspects and risks that are involved in a decision to use a larger and probably square CCD in a Sinar back?
I believe Thierry is referring to the business risk, not the technical merits of the chip itself.
-
Willem, didn't you think it was a nice luxury to be able to crop afterwards? And also: do you never want to use real wide angles anymore? A larger CCD does not nessesarily have to lead to larger files. A 45MP or 50MP 56mm x 56mm back would just be fantastic, I think. Lower noise, higher ISO values. Everything is already there: the lenses, the cameras, the routine. The waiting for is that full frame back to make it all work the way it did with film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epd,
I would be happy with a 50MP 56x56 full frame sensor.
At the moment I have a four year lease on my e-75LV and I won't be upgrading till then.
It will have to do for now.
Like I said before,I prefer to frame the image while I shoot and the images are always either
landscape or portrait.
Very rarely square.
WR.
-
I very much doubt that the V series will be resurrected in that way. It just can't compete with some of the newer platforms with its half f-stops, lack of metering and auto exposure modes, lack of autofocus, lack of digital integration, etc. The Hy6 would beat it in almost every possible respect.
-foto-z
I think there are so many V systems gear around the world waiting for the right dback at the right price, that it doesn’t need to be resurrected. Dback makers could easily profit from existing V system. Of course, Hy6 would be beat it, but at an extra $ 20k usd for body, lenses and accessories. I think shooting raw, half stops are not a real necesity.
Eduardo
---------
A square chip in a DB is an absolute certainty in my view. You don't place an order with a camera manufacturer for a square format camera that will accept lenses specifically made to cover square and then only produce 4:3 backs for it. It's a bit late don't you think? The thousands of man hours spent developing the camera's optimum shape, size and weight distribution for square would be wasted, not to mention the time spent on lens design to cover this format. Can anyone from Schneider offer any input or validate this?
No disrespect, but being a pussy is one thing, being stupid is another!
-Nik
I agree with you Nik. I see a 6X6 sensor for the near future. However
putting a rectangular sensor in it, it’s not a waste of resources. It just shows the versatilty of the original idea. And that was not to have to keep turning the camera from hor to vert, over and over. In the digital era, since sensor area is such an expensive comodity, rectangular sensors make economic sense. Film was (still is) so inexpensive, that having the extra room didn’t make any real harm in our pockets.
Eduardo
---------
If they do come out with a square chip being Dalsa for Leaf & Sinar. They will also have to make one for the Mamiya 6x7 format. Personally I don't see the advantage to square.
-mcphoto
I believe square is actually a convenience from the film era, not an advantage. Just, it caught up with many photographers and square format became favorite for many photographers doing portraits, weddings and whimsical landscapes among other things.
Eduardo
--------
Everything is already there: the lenses, the cameras, the routine. The waiting for is that full frame back to make it all work the way it did with film.
-Epd
Exactly. Its already out there (inside thousands of drawers). Now, we don’t need more megapixels, we need sensors that aproach or equal film sizes. I’m sure if Canon were a MF maker too, they already had a full-frame sensor. So, maybe it’s just a power war among sensor makers and mf gear makers.
Eduardo
You are right Nik, it’s been a long boring week.
Best regards all
Eduardo
-
Dear EPd,
See foto-z's comment: so it is, and I was thinking that I had been clear and precise in my explanation. What puzzles me, is that you seem so well aware about all and can't figure out the risks involved.
And I don't want to speculate simply because I prefer speaking about things I know (or think to know). This means that I simply don't know (as already said) and it has nothing to do with future plans of my employer or harming sales. You are suggesting that it is a simple matter, that one has just to drop the new sensor in its casing and then the new digital back is ready to hit the market. My experience of the past shows me that one has to be careful with such statements.
I cannot speak for other companies, but wish to clear your statement about "stretching the wallet of customers or potential customers", concerning Sinar: no, this is definitively not our philosophy, and our nearly 50 years of existence in this professional market is a little prove of it.
And as for myself and my suggestions of investing to a photographer ready or willing to invest (being it into a view camera or into a digital back), or even willing to upgrade his current system, my own philosophy has always been to know first his REAL needs and possibilities: there are many photographers out who know me and who would tell you that although ready to buy the top of the line of our analog cameras or digital backs, I have suggested them to start slowly by investing in either a f1 or f2 camera, or then to make their first steps into digital with a lower resolution instead of buying the top of the line and most expensive, when I was feeling they didn't need more or couldn't afford more, or that the technical possibilities of what I was suggesting was enough for them . My guess is, that there are others out, either colleagues or from other companies, sharing the same philosophy and acting the same way.
So yes, we are in the same boat and we strongly feel so, and that is what has always driven my acts.
Best regards,
Thierry
Dear Thierry,
Could you please elaborate us on all the aspects and risks that are involved in a decision to use a larger and probably square CCD in a Sinar back? What puzzles me is that the CCD is readily available, it uses known interpolation technique since it is just an enlarged piece of silicon and has the same Bayer pattern as smaller ones, and it works with the same electrical technique as the current CCDs Sinar uses. What would make it take years to implement this larger CCD when the underlying technique is readily available? (This is not meant as a rhetorical question, but one I would like to get an answer to.) Also, Yair, feel free to chime in on this subject.
I can understand that you don't want to "speculate" here. Speaking about future plans of your employer could harm today's sales and we all understand that companies always try to stretch their customer's wallets to the max, preferably for a long period of time. That's just plain business. However, stretching wallets untill they snap would be the end of all business in this area. I have known several photographers who went broke only because of their very high investments in digital technology that became obsolete long before they had reached their return on investment. It's not just the digital back makers that take risks here. We are all in the same boat and some more solidarity from the back makers with the photographers would be most welcome, IMHO.
Regards,
EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Understood, Nik!
As for the beer at PK '08: I already owe one to "eronald", that would definitively be a "though" PK for me!
Thierry
Because it's been a slow week work-wise and I'm bored. Thankfully next week looks better. Drinks are on you at Photokina '08 if my speculation was right.
-Nik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Thierry,
Like you I prefer not to speculate whenever this is not needed. I could think of many both business risks as well as development risks for the making of DB's with larger sensors, but why dreaming it up? So I was asking you since I would expect you to be an expert in this specific field. If one has access to an expert, why not ask? Generally this is how I become so well informed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I am may be an expert in my field, though never having pretended so, but even experts don't know it all (see my introduction post, when I joined LLF).
I'm not suggesting anything but I am raising obvious questions. I was actually asking about specific experiences that could tell us why it is not so easy to develop a new version of a DB, when a lot of basic techniques seem to be there already. Your experience with past matters would be very interesting to hear about in detail. You seem to suggest that it is not just business risks involved here, rather technical risks as well. I would love to learn about those. Perhaps you will tell things that I already knew, but more likely you will have to add useful information to my knowledge base. And that of the others reading this as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See above.
There no specific technical risks, rather uncertainties about timing and readiness for the market. I think everybody has experienced this, when companies are announcing a new product (being it a DB maker or other companies in other fields of high-tech) and how is the reality as opposed to the announcement. I am not an expert in this field, but I have experienced delays, due to issues which did not turn out the way they should have or have been thought they would. All I am saying is that it is dangerous to make any timing statement for a new product.
To me it seems that this 50 years of existence is the very proof of Sinar's ability to stretch the customer's wallet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is your opinion, which many do not share. You have the right to have this opinion and I respect it.
I have been watching Sinar's offerings for a loooong time, but I have never found anything that suggested Sinar tried to break down high prices of professional photo gear. On the contrary, they have always been in the forefront of highest priced companies. Now, before we go into the semantics of pricing: I do not want to suggest that anything would be wrong with that per se, or that Sinar's products would not be of high quality. Most of them are. But they come at a very high price, even for photographers who can afford them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You probably know the costs of living in Switzerland, and what that means for a Swiss company, in the photographic field or else. You probably also know that a company's budget is calculated with a certain gross margin which ensures that the company is viable. And this gross margin is adapted to the market price realities.
Now you are speculating, Thierry. I personally have very different experiences with representatives from both Sinar and other companies. No grudge here, but they surely aren't always angels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is simply too easy to "accuse" somebody of speculations by being anonymous: I have said it in an earlier post. I would be pleased to put a name on you, other than EPd, the same way you are putting my name Thierry on my posts. It is also too easy to badmouth about representatives (being it from Sinar or other companies). And you should read what I have written: "there are others out ... sharing the same philosophy...". I am well aware that not all are "angels".
Thanks, I'll remember that.
Best regards,
EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Best regards,
Thierry
-
Talk of a possible 48x48mm sensor from Dalsa has come up in other threads recently, so I thought I would wake this discussion up and ask:
Is there any news or evidence of plans from Dalsa for a 48x48mm color sensor suitable for use in a medium format camera? Or is such talk all purely in the realm of speculation, rumor and wishful thinking?
Since the rumors of such a sensor have been mentioned numerous times, I am only interested in more solid facts, such as statements from Dalsa or in reliable media outlets.
Given that Kodak is currently the principal sensor supplier for both the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems (including Phase One backs), Dalsa is left with the Hy6 as its main DMF platform, and so maybe one possible "unique selling point" for Dalsa sensors and Hy6 is a roughly 48x48mm sensor. This would also reduce the large mismatch between lenses, viewfinders, mirrors and such designed for 56x56mm and sensors no larger than 36x48mm.
I doubt it though: one third more area would make for quite a price difference, and the vast majority of final images would be produced by cropping away the extra to fit the far more common oblong prints shapes.
P. S. I believe that sensors need to be at least about 6mm narrower in each direction than the film format for which a camera is designed in order to be compatible with a film/digital hybrid body like the Hy6, as the whole sensor including "non-imaging parts" around the edge must fit through a gate the size of the film frame. That is probably the reason that the Leica R digital back used a Kodak sensor of about 18x27mm, not the full 24x36mm that Kodak was clearlty capable of. It might also be one reason that the largest current DMF sensors are about 36.7mm high, while the 645 frame is 42.5mm high.
If so, about 50x50mm is the max for 56x56mm (6x6) format bodies.
-
For example, if 1/4 of chips at one size are usable, only 1/16 will be usable at twice the area, giving about 1/8 as many usable chips per wafer. Another example: Kodak's 36x48mm sensors seem to cost about fifty or more times as much as its 4/3" sized ones, while the area is only eight times as great. And there is competitive pressure on those 36x48mm sensors, from Dalsa.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
I'm having trouble with the logic of the above statement. Surely the number of reject chips will be proportional to the area of each chip. Double the area of the chip and you double the number of rejects. However, mathematics is not my strong point. Is there some esoteric principle at work here?
Also, do we actually have any information on actual manufacturing costs? Whilst economy of scale has a great bearing on price as well as amortisation of R&D costs, it might be an eye-opener if we knew what the unit production cost actually is for different size sensors.
-
Understood, Nik!
As for the beer at PK '08: I already owe one to "eronald", that would definitively be a "though" PK for me!
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund to my friends ...
E.
-
BJL,
I'm having trouble with the logic of the above statement. Surely the number of reject chips will be proportional to the area of each chip. Double the area of the chip and you double the number of rejects. However, mathematics is not my strong point. Is there some esoteric principle at work here?
Also, do we actually have any information on actual manufacturing costs? Whilst economy of scale has a great bearing on price as well as amortisation of R&D costs, it might be an eye-opener if we knew what the unit production cost actually is for different size sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Mathematics is something I can do when pushed BJL is correct. It is a Poisson statistic.
However, in this case going square means upsizing the chip by 1/3, I'd expect it to be doable. Precise yield statistics are closely guarded secrets, but the fact that 36x48 has been economically doable for at least 4 years indicates that 48x48 is now feasible economically.
Canon now seems to have the ability to mask 48x48 in a single step, Sony can do at least 24x36, I guess many fabs will soon have this ability making stitching a thing of the past, obsoleting the APS size, and improving the quality of the next chip generation and reducing the cost.
Last not least, from what I have been told the centerfold issue was not as stitching issue. As usual I cannot talk about it - in public- but I'll be glad to tell Thierry
Edmund
Edmund
-
hi Edmund,
Stefan (Brumbaer) had explained the exact reasons why the effect of the centerfold happens (see the corresponding tread/topic about > 1 year ago).
Best regards,
Thierry
Last not least, from what I have been told the centerfold issue was not as stitching issue. As usual I cannot talk about it - in public- but I'll be glad to tell Thierry
Edmund
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You don't seriously think that I've forgot it, do you?!
Thierry
Edmund to my friends ...
E.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ray,
Mathematics is something I can do when pushed BJL is correct. It is a Poisson statistic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
Can I infer from that statement that there is an uncertainty principle at work, at the quantum level, which would make it impossible to produce a defect-free chip, just as it's impossible to capture an image which is free of all shot noise?
-
Edmund,
Can I infer from that statement that there is an uncertainty principle at work, at the quantum level, which would make it impossible to produce a defect-free chip, just as it's impossible to capture an image which is free of all shot noise?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think we need to invoke a quantum phenomenon. I think we can probably make small defect-free chips at the moment. The larger ones end up beoh sold with defects, but we tolerate defects which just disable isolated pixels ...
Edmund
-
I don't think we need to invoke a quantum phenomenon. I think we can probably make small defect-free chips at the moment. The larger ones end up beoh sold with defects, but we tolerate defects which just disable isolated pixels ...
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But you've invoked Monsieur Poisson to explain this. I'm curious as to why a Canon G9 sensor of approximately 72 sq.mm, containing 12mp can be so cheap ($100 would you say?) and a P45+ sensor of 24x the area, but much lower pixel density, is so expensive.
Isn't the likelihood of defects also proportional to the number of pixels?
I'm here to learn. Teach me!
-
But you've invoked Monsieur Poisson to explain this. I'm curious as to why a Canon G9 sensor of approximately 72 sq.mm, containing 12mp can be so cheap ($100 would you say?) and a P45+ sensor of 24x the area, but much lower pixel density, is so expensive.
Isn't the likelihood of defects also proportional to the number of pixels?
I'm here to learn. Teach me!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oooh! Quantum levels and the uncertainty principle. Let's hope it involves di-lithium and tachyon warp drives too.
Dr. Ronald, pray tell. What has the Poisson distribution got to say about wafer yields?
P.S. I wanna play "I'm smarter than a 5th grader". Can I play? Can I play?
-
Oooh! Quantum levels and the uncertainty principle. Let's hope it involves di-lithium and tachyon warp drives too.
Dr. Ronald, pray tell. What has the Poisson distribution got to say about wafer yields?
P.S. I wanna play "I'm smarter than a 5th grader". Can I play? Can I play?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, you cannot play. You've just frightened off Edmund. I was after serious information.
-
Here is a rough explanation (requiring neither Poisson nor quantum mechanics.)
Suppose that for a sensor of a certain area (say 24x36mm) only one in four will be free of fatal flaws.
Next consider a sensor of twice the area (say 48x36mm) and consider its left and right halves separately, each the same size as the smaller chip.
One quarter of the left halves will work, and of these sensors, one quarter will also have a working right half. So only 1/4 of 1/4 or 1 in 16 will have both halves free of fatal flaws, so the yield is reduced from 1/4 to 1/16.
As to Poisson, I believe that his result is that as area in increased by a factor S, the probability of something (like a fatal flaw) not happening anywhere is raised to the power S, so my example is for S=2, squaring the yield factor.
Of course this is an all things equal comparison for the case where a single flaw is fatal. Maybe pixel count is more relevant than area for the probability of some types of flaw. And some acceptability criteria for sensors are based on a low enough number of defects, rather than being defect free: Kodak's sensor spec. sheets state some such criteria for "point" and "cluster" defects.
-
Here is a rough explanation (requiring neither Poisson for quantum mechanics.)
Suppose that for a sensor of a certain area (say 24x36mm) only one in four will be free of fatal flaws.
Next consider a sensor of twice the area (say 48x36mm) and consider its left and right halves separately, each the same size as the smaller chip.
One quarter of the left halves will work, and of these sensors, one quarter will also have a working right half. So only 1/4 of 1/4 or 1 in 16 will have both halves free of fatal flaws, so the yield is reduced from 1/4 to 1/16.
As to Poisson, I believe that his result is that as area in increased by a factor S, the probability of something (like a fatal flaw) not happening anywhere is raised to the power S, so my example is for S=2, squaring the yield factor.
Of course this is an all things equal comparison for the case where a single flaw is fatal. Maybe pixel count is more relevant than area for the probability of some types of flaw. And some acceptability criteria for sensors are based on a low enough number of defects, rather than being defect free: Kodak's sensor spec. sheets state some such criteria for "point" and "cluster" defects.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe I should sober up before attempting a response, but there's also the factor of CCD costs as opposed to CMOS costs. Your explanation is a bit difficult in my bleary haze. Tomorrow it may be clearer.
-
Ray,
Canon now seems to have the ability to mask 48x48 in a single step, Sony can do at least 24x36
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon has for a long time made a stepper with field size big enough for 48x48mm, but does not use it to make its 24x36mm sensors. That jumbo stepper is an old design with a rather large minimum feature size of 500nm, so perhaps it is not suitable for DSLR sensors. (I believe it is useful for devices like LCDs, and the first roughing out of other devices.) Canon has referred twice in white papers to 26x33mm as the largest field size of steppers suitable for DSLR sensor fab.
Nikon used to have a stepper with field size large enough for 24x36mm in its online catalog, but has apparently discontinued it. Nikon and the largest stepper maker AMSL now offer no stepper with field size larger than 26x33mm. That 26x33mm is a de facto industry standard, being the size of many steppers from each of AMSL, Nikon and Canon, with only that single old low resolution Canon model going larger.
Stitching (fabbing a sensor with multiple exposures of different parts of the chip) seems the dominant approach for the small fraction of devices larger than 26x33mm: AMSL offers 2D stitching as a feature on some stepper models, so it is not a trade secret of Canon or Dalsa, at least not anymore. Sony has also mentioned that 26x33mm limit, and both Canon and Sony said that they use stitching to produce their 24x36mm sensors.
So Sony and Canon can do 24x36mm, but only in the way that anyone can by buying (or outsourcing to) a suitable stepper, such as some AMSL models: by stitching. The same is probably true for Dalsa, Kodak, Tower Semiconductor in Israel (which fabbed the original sensor for the Kodak 14/n), the English foundry that fabbed the sensors for the Kodak SLR/N and SLR/C, and whoever fabs the sensor for the Nikon D3. Matsushita also used stitching to make the roughly 18x27mm CCD for the original Canon 1D.
In summary, there are many foundries capable of stitching and thus fabbing a 24x36mm or larger sensor, including third party foundries, so that a DSLR maker does not need to do it in house, but apparently no one can do it without stitching, which keeps costs high.
-
The trick of the large Dalsa chips is to stitch several smaller ones together to one big surface. This way they can decrease the high outtake rate considerably. A modern CCD as it appears in the Leaf and Sinar backs is built up of six smaller pieces.
Three points.
1) This is what causes the horrible centre fold and the even worse problem of non-uniformity causing magenta and green striping. I keep hearing they will overcome this, but it seems to be an achilles heel for really high quality imaging for photography.
2) Any sensor sizes and formats created won't be for MF photographers... but for other markets. We just get the spin offs.
3) Is it really such a good idea to have a square sensor? From my POV I don't get a wider angle of view... plus the flange/focal length is now longer making it harder to create good wide angle lenses at affordable prices for MF SLR's. We've seen the cost of a Mamiya 28mm. Will it be practical to even create a 28mm at an affordable price for a 48x48 sensor? Would I prefer such a lens or a new car ;-)
-
In summary, there are many foundries capable of stitching and thus fabbing a 24x36mm or larger sensor, including third party foundries, so that a DSLR maker does not need to do it in house, but apparently no one can do it without stitching, which keeps costs high.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's very surprising, that no-one can produce a 24x36mm sensor without stitching. Why is this? Are we waiting for future developments to come into play? Is this just a temporary set-back?
-
No, you cannot play. You've just frightened off Edmund. I was after serious information.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=186746\")
I found Edmund (Dr. Ronald to you) rolling around the floor in Paris, with stitches in his side.
Naw, you underestimate him. Edmund won't be frightened off by the Poisson distribution. It is grade school stuff. Me poor head still throbs from sitting my A levels on that. No, I don't know what it means either. He will certainly be frightened off by those who try to appear as smart as he is.
Say, Ray, do you know what 'Plethora' means?
[a href=\"http://wordwise.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/plethora_puhlee.html]http://wordwise.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/p...ora_puhlee.html[/url]
Kind of up there with your 'quantum levels' and 'uncertainty principle'. Not forgetting invoking Monsieur Poisson.
-
That's very surprising, that no-one can produce a 24x36mm sensor without stitching. Why is this?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=186764\")
The current reason is that all new steppers introduced in the last five years or more have a maximum field size of 26x33mm or smaller, and possibly all are exactly 26x33mm. (There are some current steppers with smaller maximum field size, but they might be older models.) Of the several stepper models once made with larger maximum field size, only one remains available. Its minimum feature size of 500nm should be compared to the current range of mostly 90nm down to 45nm, with 35nm coming soon.
As to why, I can only speculate, but here I go:
1) The vast majority of all IC devices have die sizes no larger than 26x33mm, and in fact mostly far smaller than that. DSLR's as a whole are a tiny fraction of all IC's, and so do not drive design decisions for new steppers, but rely on using steppers designed primarily for other main markets, like CPU's, memory chips and the smaller sensors for mobile phones, compact digicams, video cameras and such.
Memory chips do not need to be large, as it is easy to wire together multiples, and all the recent mainstream CPU's I know of (from Intel in particular) are comfortably under 26x33mm, even the recent dual core ones.
The biggest microprocessors that I know of are the Intel Itanium processors, and the dimensions I can find are die size of 27.72 x 21.5 mm = 596mm^2 for recent dual core models made using 90nm process:
[a href=\"http://www.chiplist.com/Intel_Itanium_2_9000_series_processor_Montecito/tree3f-subsection--2242-/]http://www.chiplist.com/Intel_Itanium_2_90...section--2242-/[/url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montecito_(processor) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montecito_(processor))
(This is about as wide as a 1D sensor, but slightly higher.)
The other Intel processors families like Xeon and the mainstream CoreDuo and such have far smaller dies sizes, 143mm^2 or less. (That is far smaller than even 4/3" sensor size of 225MM^2).
The smaller sizes of these other processors is largely due to using new, smaller feature size fabrication technology, like 65nm and 45nm instead of Itanium's 90nm, which for one thing allows higher clock speeds. That diminishing feature size seems to be keeping die size the same or smaller in new CPU models, balancing out increases in transistor counts, even with dual and quad core designs.
2) The remaining larger devices are small volume items that can be most cost effectively handled by stitching rather than having a rarely needed stepper of larger field size: a larger stepper would reduce unit costs for such IC's, but demand for such a stepper would be so low that the cost of designing and building the stepper itself would be too high.
Unless the demand for sensors larger than 26x33mm increases a thousand fold or more, DSLR sensors will be constrained by the size needs of other far larger parts of the IC market.
-
No, Dalsa specifically makes large sensors for photographical use. When you buy their sensors you can choose between three different qualities. A top quality A-grade sensor can be used for reference purposes (and theoretical state-of-the-art backs). A B-grade is fine for general use in DB's, and for those companies that wish to cut costs there is the C-grade sensor quality. C-grade is near-outtake and I suspect these are the sensors used by Mamiya for their ZD back.
Dalsa's R&D department and production facility in the Netherlands (where all these large sensors are being made) is very small. Like a lab. The engineers who work there often have guest jobs as professors in tech universities. Some have written scientific papers about CCD technology. This small scale gives a lot of production flexibility (but also the disadavantage of small scale economics). You can even buy your owns sensors from them and start building your own back. Start with their evaluation kit:
[attachment=5912:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the correction... I assumed that although they produced these for photographic purposes it would be for more industrial/military imaging applications.
In that case they need to get their act together and 'like quit with the centrefold man'
I think I'll pass on building my own back for the moment though :-)
-
No, Dalsa specifically makes large sensors for photographical use. When you buy their sensors you can choose between three different qualities. {snip} C-grade is near-outtake and I suspect these are the sensors used by Mamiya for their ZD back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
wow - thats quite an accusation - I'd suggest checking it for being 100% accurate before you thrown it in there and tarnish Mamiya!
-
So Sony and Canon can do 24x36mm, but only in the way that anyone can by buying (or outsourcing to) a suitable stepper, such as some AMSL models: by stitching. The same is probably true for Dalsa, Kodak, Tower Semiconductor in Israel (which fabbed the original sensor for the Kodak 14/n), the English foundry that fabbed the sensors for the Kodak SLR/N and SLR/C, and whoever fabs the sensor for the Nikon D3. Matsushita also used stitching to make the roughly 18x27mm CCD for the original Canon 1D.
In summary, there are many foundries capable of stitching and thus fabbing a 24x36mm or larger sensor, including third party foundries, so that a DSLR maker does not need to do it in house, but apparently no one can do it without stitching, which keeps costs high.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My impression (rumor) is that Canon can *now* do 24x36 without stitching. It's quite possible that they designed their own one-off equipment for this, they have their own fabs and claim to have a process line optimized for the sensor CMOS chips which is better than what their competitors would get from a foundry. Canon appear dead frightened of Sony at the moment, and the reason might be another rumor that Sony too can do 24x36 without stitching. Maybe someone with close ties to the Japanese industry can tell us what's going on.
PS. I shall write up the Poisson stuff later for those who are interested.
Edmund
-
QUOTE(EPd @ Apr 3 2008, 08:20 PM)
No, Dalsa specifically makes large sensors for photographical use. When you buy their sensors you can choose between three different qualities. {snip} C-grade is near-outtake and I suspect these are the sensors used by Mamiya for their ZD back.
*
Hi
Having been a happy owner of the ZD for 2 years the ZD uses the same Dalsa chip that is in the Leaf Aptus 22. http://www.dalsa.com/news/news.asp?itemID=165 (http://www.dalsa.com/news/news.asp?itemID=165)
Denis
-
QUOTE(EPd @ Apr 3 2008, 08:20 PM)
No, Dalsa specifically makes large sensors for photographical use. When you buy their sensors you can choose between three different qualities. {snip} C-grade is near-outtake and I suspect these are the sensors used by Mamiya for their ZD back.
*
Hi
Having been a happy owner of the ZD for 2 years the ZD uses the same Dalsa chip that is in the Leaf Aptus 22. http://www.dalsa.com/news/news.asp?itemID=165 (http://www.dalsa.com/news/news.asp?itemID=165)
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
denis,
your information is consistent with the conversation i had with the dalsa tech person last year when i was choosing between the the aptus 22, zd and e22.....
-
My impression (rumor) is that Canon can *now* do 24x36 without stitching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alright, I will file that rumor/impression/belief with the one that Dalsa has a design for a 48x48mm sensor suitable for use in a DMF camera, waiting for a customer.
But since no official statements and publications of Canon and Dalsa that I know of indicate such a thing, and in Canon's case two white-papers offer the opposing idea that the need for stitching is imposed upon Canon by the 26x33mm maximum field size of current steppers, I will remain skeptical until I see corroborating information, because in particular rumors that correspond strong wishes or fears should be treated with particular skepticism. (I do mean skepticism, as in "show me why I should believe that", not cynicism as in " that's not true and you are a fool for believing it".)
The price and spec's of the much anticipated replacement for the 5D, and any related Canon white-paper, might be a key source of information. The price of the forthcoming Sony 24x36mm flagship model could also tell something about how low the price of a camera using a stitched 24x36mm sensor can be.
... another rumor that Sony too can do 24x36 without stitching. Maybe someone with close ties to the Japanese industry can tell us what's going on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is Sony close enough to the Japanese industry? Sony has recently said that it needs to use stitching to make the sensor for its forthcoming flagship, citing the same 26x33mm restriction as Canon has. So this seems to be another false rumor.
-
Given that Kodak is currently the principal sensor supplier for both the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems (including Phase One backs), Dalsa is left with the Hy6 as its main DMF platform
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I should clarify one thing here. I believe that Mamiya uses (previous generation) Dalsa sensors in its ZD bodies and backs, but I suspect that those will be phased out in favor of Phase One backs, which use Kodak sensors. So the Mamiya/Phase One alliance is potentially further reducing Dalsa's access to 645 systems, pushing it more towards doing what it can with the 56x56mm based Hy6 system.
-
Alright, I will file that rumor/impression/belief with the one that Dalsa has a design for a 48x48mm sensor suitable for use in a DMF camera, waiting for a customer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think there's anything particularly hard about the design here, as they already have modular sensor setup. Of course that's just conjecture on my part, the last and only time I designed a chip was in the eighties. But even then, you just designed the base cells and then got the automation to iterate and lay the whole thing out.
Edmund
-
I don't think there's anything particularly hard about the design here ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I will not disagree: scaling up sensor designs is probably relatively easy, apart from scaling up the fabrication procedure, in particular the stitching process needed. Commercial viability is probably mostly a matter of the extra cost in relation to the demand for the squarer images and/or the avoidance of camera or back rotation for verticals.
-
Has anyone compared the Aptus 65S to a P30+ to see how the image quality and high i.s.o. performance is helped or hurt by the microlenses?
I ask because Steve H's i.s.o. 800 photo of the cat with the H3DII-31 is very impressive
-
But since no official statements and publications of Canon and Dalsa that I know of indicate such a thing, and in Canon's case two white-papers offer the opposing idea that the need for stitching is imposed upon Canon by the 26x33mm maximum field size of current steppers, I will remain skeptical until I see corroborating information, because in particular rumors that correspond strong wishes or fears should be treated with particular skepticism. (I do mean skepticism, as in "show me why I should believe that", not cynicism as in " that's not true and you are a fool for believing it".)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BJL,
Having now read with a clear head your exellent explanation of the reason why the number of reject chips increases exponentially with the area of the chip, there might seem to be little economic incentive to invest in the development of a stepper which can accommodate a larger chip in the one process. Any savings in economy flowing from such a development are bound to be at least partially (and probably significantly) offset by the hugely greater number of rejects.
If there is a significant cost savings to be made by applying the lithographic process to the full chip size, one might wonder why Canon have not already given us a new format, 26mmx33mm, which has the benefit of being closer to the 4/3rds format, has very nearly the same area as 24x36 and very nearly the same diagonal.
Most 35mm lenses should be able to accommodate such a format. Vignetting in the corners would be no more of a problem because the diagonal of a 26x33 format is just a millimetre or so less than the standard 35mm format.
I would think that any development of a larger stepper would have to occur in tandem with a significant reduction in the number of rejects resulting from improvements in other areas of the chip making process.
-
... one might wonder why Canon have not already given us a new format, 26mmx33mm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
I have wondered about the same thing! In fact I speculated that Nikon might try some such approach to produce a sensor of roughly the same area as 24x36mm and potentially usable with the same lenses as it has about the same diagonal.
Here are some possible problems
1) mirror and shutter assemblies would have to be redesigned for the extra 2mm of height
2) some high end lenses might have tight 24x36mm anti-flare baffles, also a bad fit for 26mm frame height.
3) that 26x33mm region must include some "non-imaging" parts of the sensor: the non-imaging pixels around edge, and the A/D convertors on a CMOS sensor. (Especially now that Sony is putting an A/D convertor atop each column of pixels on its CMOS sensors, for higher frame rates and such.)
For all those reasons, limiting frame height to the current 24mm might be far more cost effective, so I proposed 24x32 or 24x30.
But item (3) might require trimming more. Pessimistically, it might be that Canon stayed with exactly the same 18.7x28.1mm mm in the 1DMkIII sensor as in the MkII because this is up against the height or width restrictions of the 26x33mm stepper field size. Canon has in fact implied this. The gap is 7.3mm vertically (26-18.7) and 4.9mm horizontally, so it might be that about 4.9mm is needed in each direction and the width is already maxed out. That would allow only a small vertical growth to about 21.1x28.1mm.
Although this would give the 4:3 that I and many MF enthusiasts prefer to 3:2, there would still be a noticeable vertical crop of 1.14x and horizontal crop of 1.28x from the 24x36mm frame of current 35mm format lenses, so not helping much with recovery of full FOV performance from wide angle lenses and the wide end of standard zooms.
So I suspect that any sensor format currently possible without stitching would still impose a noticeable wide angle crop on 35mm format lenses, and so every DSLR maker prefers to match "sub 35mm" sensors to their existing smaller format lenses: DX, 4/3, EF-S, etc. (Except the 1D series, where wide-angle is arguably a lower priority. But I expect the 1D to go 24x36mm eventually.)
-
See page 21 of F&H's e-magazine
http://www.franke-heidecke.net/files/image...n_Poetry_EN.pdf (http://www.franke-heidecke.net/files/images/QUADRAT_No2_Urban_Poetry_EN.pdf)
stating Hy6 as Full frame 6x6 medium format camera with the option of using future 48x48mm sensors.
-
See page 21 of F&H's e-magazine .... stating Hy6 as Full frame 6x6 medium format camera with the option of using future 48x48mm sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That seems only to be making, in an ambiguous way, the obvious point that:
IF in the future sensors in 48x48mm format and suitable for MF photography become available
THEN these 6x6 based cameras will be able to use them, while 645-based cameras will not.
I very much doubt that that F&H has suddenly become the first company to announce that such sensors are in fact coming, before any sensor maker like Kodak or Dalsa has announced such a product.
Square sensors continue to be offered, but in recent years the only new models have been monochrome designs adapted to other uses like X-ray equipment.
To be cynical, the Hy6 partners would of course like potential customers to believe that 48x48mm DMF backs are likely to come, and thus to prefer the Hy6 over 645-based alternatives, but this sort of talk about unannounced future larger square sensors could well be just marketing-driven obfuscation.
-
Dear BJL,
I don't know where and when Sinar (or Leaf, if I can allow myself speaking for them), or even F&H have started a hype about this bigger 48x48 sensor coming: all these companies did was to mention the readiness in their respective Hy6/AFi brochures, which is a fact. I for myself have mentioned it once.
None of these company has started a talk about it, none of it has "played" on this to lure potential customers, at least not Sinar and myself.
I do not see here any "marketing-driven obfuscation" and wonder why talks/rumors/discussions by photographers in threads here and elsewhere are turned into being a company's marketing communication.
Best regards,
Thierry
To be cynical, the Hy6 partners would of course like potential customers to believe that 48x48mm DMF backs are likely to come, and thus to prefer the Hy6 over 645-based alternatives, but this sort of talk about unannounced future larger square sensors could well be just marketing-driven obfuscation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear BJL,
I don't know where and when Sinar (or Leaf, if I can allow myself speaking for them), or even F&H have started a hype about this bigger 48x48 sensor coming: all these companies did was to mention the readiness in their respective Hy6/AFi brochures, which is a fact. I for myself have mentioned it once.
None of these company has started a talk about it, none of it has "played" on this to lure potential customers, at least not Sinar and myself.
I do not see here any "marketing-driven obfuscation" and wonder why talks/rumors/discussions by photographers in threads here and elsewhere are turned into being a company's marketing communication.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Regardless, I've yet to see an article on the HY6 that doesn't mention that it's ready for larger square sensors, so that information is coming from somewhere and those thoughts get transfered from reps, sales people, photographers and it continues.
I've seen survey's asking about square sensors and obviously someone is either planning to do it, or probably trying to decide if there is a market for it.
I doubt seriously if all those quotes could be attributed to Phase or Hasselblad and call it just a mention, or a sales point, but let's face it there is no reason to mention anything unless it's to boost sales.
The thing is, in the digital world, few of us that work with these cameras, softwares, backs, and computers really believe anything until it's on the street and ready to use, usually with all the bugs worked out.
Many of us here were early adopters and though learning and knowledge is power a lot of us did a great deal of free beta testing for the manufacturers, hoping they would get the product right, so the mention of a 48mm square sensor doesn't make me want to stand in line to be the first, but then again I'm not much for standing in line for anything.
If you, Phase, Leaf, or Hasselblad want's to get a professional's attention, then first start working on better previews and lcd's (not just bigger), open platforms that give us the choice to maximize our investment, faster lenses, in some cases wider lenses, easier workflow, lower cost storage, bug free software, high isos, or here's a novel thought how about a native 400 iso camera back that goes to a clean 1600 iso, that has build in nd filters to drop the iso down to 25, 50, or 100, without loss of quality.
As far as square goes, this is just personal opinion, but I loathe the thought of a square format camera. I don't shoot many album covers (are there still real album covers?), I don't hang a lot of stuff in galleries and I really don't want an intended horizontial shot of a face to be framed at the waist, anymore than I want a vertical ad to have the leg's of c-stands and flags in the frame.
JR
-
Hi James,
Regardless, I've yet to see an article on the HY6 that doesn't mention that it's ready for larger square sensors, so that information is coming from somewhere and those thoughts get transfered from reps, sales people, photographers and it continues.
I've seen survey's asking about square sensors and obviously someone is either planning to do it, or probably trying to decide if there is a market for it.
I doubt seriously if all those quotes could be attributed to Phase or Hasselblad and call it just a mention, or a sales point, but let's face it there is no reason to mention anything unless it's to boost sales.
The thing is, in the digital world, few of us that work with these cameras, softwares, backs, and computers really believe anything until it's on the street and ready to use, usually with all the bugs worked out.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=195366\")
I have not seen any specific article other than the official (Sinar) brochure mentioning this purposely and with insistance. THAT information, like you call it, is a FACT: this camera is simply ready for the future, whatever this future is or will be. It is certainly not a shame or being disrespectful to mention it with ONE single sentence in a brochure, is it?
Nobody I know from "my" distributors, nor our sales people is ever mentioning it, so far I could hear and experience up to now. I also doubt you could "accuse" Sinar, in the past and present, of purposely having created rumors about new products, of having spoken of things which do not exist or were not planed or well advanced in its development.
Unlike you James, I am with the belief that the subject of a bigger sensor has been debated and discussed here by many, but none of the mentioned manufacturers.
If you, Phase, Leaf, or Hasselblad want's to get a professional's attention, then first start working on better previews and lcd's (not just bigger), open platforms that give us the choice to maximize our investment, faster lenses, in some cases wider lenses, easier workflow, lower cost storage, bug free software, high isos, or here's a novel thought how about a native 400 iso camera back that goes to a clean 1600 iso, that has build in nd filters to drop the iso down to 25, 50, or 100, without loss of quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
- Please have a look at our new display: it is not only bigger, but improved in terms of contrast, color rendition, brightness.
- the Sinarbacks are open to all technically possible platforms, the opposite, means all platforms are not open to the Sinarbacks.
As for high ISO, I have mentioned it 4 times already here: go to the following link and check out the capability of the new eMotion 75 with new sensor board:
[a href=\"http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=6]http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=6[/url]
Best regards,
Thierry
-
Hi James,
I have not seen any specific article other than the official (Sinar) brochure mentioning this purposely and with insistance. THAT information, like you call it, is a FACT: this camera is simply ready for the future, whatever this future is or will be. It is certainly not a shame or being disrespectful to mention it with ONE single sentence in a brochure, is it?
Nobody I know from "my" distributors, nor our sales people is ever mentioning it, so far I could hear and experience up to now. I also doubt you could "accuse" Sinar, in the past and present, of purposely having created rumors about new products, of having spoken of things which do not exist or were not planed or well advanced in its development.
Unlike you James, I am with the belief that the subject of a bigger sensor has been debated and discussed here by many, but none of the mentioned manufacturers.
- Please have a look at our new display: it is not only bigger, but improved in terms of contrast, color rendition, brightness.
- the Sinarbacks are open to all technically possible platforms, the opposite, means all platforms are not open to the Sinarbacks.
As for high ISO, I have mentioned it 4 times already here: go to the following link and check out the capability of the new eMotion 75 with new sensor board:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=6 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=6)
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
theirry,
I suggest you get one of those rubber Ronald Regan masks and go into dealers that sell digital backs and start talking about "why a square format camera" and you'll hear a lot of "don't let this out but square sensors or coming".
Then buy one of those burner cell phones over on Canal street and start calling dealers worldwide asking the same questions.
You may have only mentioned it once, but it's out there.
In fact the rumor I keep hearing, (multiple times) and once again I qualify this as rumor, is that the reason Leaf didn't make a rotatable back for the HY6 is because they assumed square sensors were on the way.
Once again, don't kill the messanger, that's just what people have said.
Everybody gives blad a lot of grief for saying there camera is "full frame" but by the standards you just described, there is nothing wrong with explaining the possibilities as they see it.
As far as iso on the Sinar, don't have a clue but your still talking about using better electronics to help boost the iso, your not talking about new sensor technology.
What I mentioned was why not a native high iso sensor that has clip in nd filters between the back and the body. That way you'd get real clean high iso and the ability to shoot low iso when needed?
As far as the lcd's and previews go, how about some screen shots of the new Sinar lcd's next to a dslr?
JR
-
To each his own I guess. I for one would buy a larger square sensor. I like the square format.
-
James,
for once I agree to disagree with you: it does not happen that often.
I can assure you that we haven't (understand Sinar hasn't) "briefed" our dealers/distributors about new coming (square/bigger/larger/higher resolution, etc ...) sensors: it is not our style.
May be those dealers/distributors have been brainwashed by all the calls/talks?
I wish I could refer to some of the (numerous) PMs I have got asking me about this. They would all tell you that not only did I not give any such indication which could lead to the belief that it will come, but I even asked those people not to bet on it.
I also sincerely doubt that such a single sentence in a brochure could alone lead sensed and mature people to the belief that it is on the way.
I have nothing against Blad speaking or claiming about "full frame", and have never blamed them for this (I would not allow myself to do so). But I have my idea and my thoughts about this, and if asked I can even speak it out.
I got your suggestion about a native 400 ISO: there are different approaches, I guess, to get this. For the time being, Sinar has made it possible to have a very "decent" ISO 800 file, with the existing sensors, and I won't speculate about what the future will be, since I don't know.
Best regards,
Thierry
theirry,
I suggest you get one of those rubber Ronald Regan masks and go into dealers that sell digital backs and start talking about "why a square format camera" and you'll hear a lot of "don't let this out but square sensors or coming".
Then buy one of those burner cell phones over on Canal street and start calling dealers worldwide asking the same questions.
You may have only mentioned it once, but it's out there.
Everybody gives blad a lot of grief for saying there camera is "full frame" but by the standards you just described, there is nothing wrong with explaining the possibilities as they see it.
As far as iso on the Sinar, don't have a clue but your still talking about using better electronics to help boost the iso, your not talking about new sensor technology.
What I mentioned was why not a native high iso sensor that has clip in nd filters between the back and the body. That way you'd get real clean high iso and the ability to shoot low iso when needed?
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Would love to do it, James, but I don't have currently a dslr in my hands. If it happens that I cross one (which should not be that difficult!), I'll d it.
Thierry
theirry,
As far as the lcd's and previews go, how about some screen shots of the new Sinar lcd's next to a dslr?
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
As far as square goes, this is just personal opinion, but I loathe the thought of a square format camera. I don't shoot many album covers (are there still real album covers?), I don't hang a lot of stuff in galleries and I really don't want an intended horizontial shot of a face to be framed at the waist, anymore than I want a vertical ad to have the leg's of c-stands and flags in the frame.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
James,
We're back to the discussion of which aspect ratio works best for what end.
I find that a square camera tends to compose best when held perfectly horizontally while a rectangular SLR gives all these interesting handheld angles.
It's interesting how aspect ratio-and angles work together.
As female models get closer and closer to giant squids with those interminable matchstick legs, tentacle arms and no waist, it does get harder and harder to show all of them in a frame
Edmund
-
I'm curious to know if anyone here ever used the Dicomed BigShot 4000?
Full-format 6cm x 6cm CCD array with 4,096 x 4,096 pixel resolution.
48MB file capture.
Pixel color depth - 12-bit per color channel or 12-bit monochrome.
It was usable with the Hasselblad 553 ELX only, I believe.
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Would love to do it, James, but I don't have currently a dslr in my hands. If it happens that I cross one (which should not be that difficult!), I'll d it.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you guys produce an lcd AND a preview on par with the Canons or god help us the Nikons and the preview is usable for quick editing and shows color, tone, WB, noise reduction, etc. etc. then you will really have something.
Don't get me wrong, I hope your there, it just moves all of this along faster.
JR
-
I guess I had better hang on to my Mamiya 67, Linhof Master Technika Classic and my Ebony 810UE because it is a FACT that these are ready for FUTURE 6x7cm, 4"x5" and 8"x10" digital sensors respectively. Now why didn't their marketing departments think about stating that hyperbole, err, fact per Thierry?
Thierry for President of the United States. I am being utterly respectful.
-
Sean,
with the possibility of seeming disrespectful, your comment is stupid. I guess you did not improve since your last post.
President of the US? You are not without ignoring that I am French, are you?
Best regards,
Thierry
I guess I had better hang on to my Mamiya 67, Linhof Master Technika Classic and my Ebony 810UE because it is a FACT that these are ready for FUTURE 6x7cm, 4"x5" and 8"x10" digital sensors respectively. Now why didn't their marketing departments think about stating that hyperbole, err, fact per Thierry?
Thierry for President of the United States. I am being utterly respectful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Perhaps they read the first sentence of the Sinar web page touting the virtues of the Hy6.
"The Sinar Hy6 is currently the only medium format AF camera that not only covers the usual 6x4.5 format, but also the classic 6x6 format and thereby has still room for even larger CCDs."
Please don't try to fool us into thinking that Sinar and its partners have not deliberately tried to create an "expectation" in the medium format digital marketplace that a new class of larger, square sensors is around the corner, and this is a sound reason for buying a Hy6. It lacks integrity.
James,
for once I agree to disagree with you: it does not happen that often.
I can assure you that we haven't (understand Sinar hasn't) "briefed" our dealers/distributors about new coming (square/bigger/larger/higher resolution, etc ...) sensors: it is not our style.
May be those dealers/distributors have been brainwashed by all the calls/talks?
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Howard,
Let me first of all be precise: what you have quoted here below as being on the Sinar webpage is actually in the 3rd sub-page, after having clicked to "Products", then "Cameras", then "Sinar Hy6".
But still, I don't really understand what is wrong with this and why we should or could not write it, moreover why I am attacked this way for such a silly reason, and why you allow yourself to accuse a company or its employes of a lack of integrity. Well, it might be the same reason as it has been in the past, and I actually don't mind about it. There must be some frustration or other reason(s) behind this. Think simply a few seconds about what you have written and accused of.
You and most others are mature and able to discern what is fooling with somebody and what is a lack of integrity, I am sure of that. I am "sad" for my colleagues (don't worry, I am not crying) who I know do give the best out of them for exactly the opposite reason: having a reputation of seriousness and integrity.
I guess there is no point to argue with you. If my or our lack of integrity is so evident to you, simply ignore my posts and the information I am giving.
Best regards,
Thierry
Perhaps they read the first sentence of the Sinar web page touting the virtues of the Hy6.
"The Sinar Hy6 is currently the only medium format AF camera that not only covers the usual 6x4.5 format, but also the classic 6x6 format and thereby has still room for even larger CCDs."
Please don't try to fool us into thinking that Sinar and its partners have not deliberately tried to create an "expectation" in the medium format digital marketplace that a new class of larger, square sensors is around the corner, and this is a sound reason for buying a Hy6. It lacks integrity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I did use it, Kumar, a long long time ago, when I did run workshops with all the available digital backs at that time, in our Sinar studios. Some participants might remember.
Thierry
I'm curious to know if anyone here ever used the Dicomed BigShot 4000?
Full-format 6cm x 6cm CCD array with 4,096 x 4,096 pixel resolution.
48MB file capture.
Pixel color depth - 12-bit per color channel or 12-bit monochrome.
It was usable with the Hasselblad 553 ELX only, I believe.
Cheers,
Kumar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Perhaps they read the first sentence of the Sinar web page touting the virtues of the Hy6.
"The Sinar Hy6 is currently the only medium format AF camera that not only covers the usual 6x4.5 format, but also the classic 6x6 format and thereby has still room for even larger CCDs."
Please don't try to fool us into thinking that Sinar and its partners have not deliberately tried to create an "expectation" in the medium format digital marketplace that a new class of larger, square sensors is around the corner, and this is a sound reason for buying a Hy6. It lacks integrity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You must allow for the FACT that the Swiss may have a different definition of the word "integrity", you know, cultural and linguistic differences and all that. Then again, it just may be Thierry and his marketing department at Sinar.
I did mention sometime ago about the pot calling the kettle black. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
-
I think this thread has more than outlived its usefulness.
The Sinar literature doesn't say "you will soon be able to use larger sensors", just that the camera is future proof should larger sensors become available.
As we all know, the sensor manufacturers have to design, produce and sell the chips long before the back manufacturers can include one in a back, and there are no new chips announced. Until one is announced, this thread is a waste of bandwidth.
-
You are joking, right?
The Sinar literature doesn't say "you will soon be able to use larger sensors", just that the camera is future proof should larger sensors become available.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195530\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I have not seen one single intelligent post from you, but exclusively the readiness to jump in to attack myself, "my" company or others, same as hcubell: bringing this on the race and nationality level tells a lot about you.
And for your information, I shall repeat it once more: I am a French citizen, which means in this case that there are at least 2 countries sharing a different definition about the word "integrity", if you are right that the understanding of this word is based on cultural and linguistic backgrounds. I don't know which nationality YOU have, but it would not come up in my mind to check and use it to base my answer on such non-sense aimed exclusively at provocation and to denigrate a person and a company's reputation.
Best regards,
Thierry
You must allow for the FACT that the Swiss may have a different definition of the word "integrity", you know, cultural and linguistic differences and all that. Then again, it just may be Thierry and his marketing department at Sinar.
I did mention sometime ago about the pot calling the kettle black. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I doubt he is, but was rather thinking that you are.
Thierry
You are joking, right?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hard to believe that (supposedly) mature adults are behaving like this, in writing no less.
The pugilists here are behaving like spoiled toddlers. Time for a diaper change and a juice box, I'd say.
-
you are absolutely right, Mike.
The only point is that one apparently has the right to accuse others and companies here of lack of integrity based on non-sense, and then to shift it to a nationality issue. If it would not be a public forum I would simply ignore it, but IT IS a public forum.
But don't worry, I've said what I had to, and shall leave it there.
Best regards,
Thierry
Hard to believe that (supposedly) mature adults are behaving like this, in writing no less.
The pugilists here are behaving like spoiled toddlers. Time for a diaper change and a juice box, I'd say.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
this sensor already exists in Dalsa's drawer!
The question is if the backmakers decide to take it.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry, I have a friend who buys Ferraris and sends them to Pininfarina... for extra $$$ I'm sure.... they come up with custom made model, one of a kind Ferrari!!!
Now my question is, if he was to order one of these 48x48 sensors, who could put it in the box to work with Sinar Hy6, Leaf Hy6, Hasselblad or Mamya???
You can PM, if you don't feel comfortable answering here!!! At least you could check if and how much would cost for Sinar to do it!!!
If anybody knows who could do it, PHASE, LEAF, SINAR, MAMIYA????
I would appreciate it!!!
I don't think Hasselblad cares enough because their DB is already Full Frame (sorry I couldn't resist)
Could Mamiya be interested?
If a reputable company would do it, (think of tandem - Ferrari/Pininfarina) I'm sure I can find the funds to support it!!!
This way we can choose the best/bigger screen on the back too......
Regards
-
Double post
-
Dear Natasa,
I'm not sure if you're serious, but I shall PM you as if you were: allow me some time, I have to visit customers now.
Best regards,
Thierry
Now my question is, if he was to order one of these 48x48 sensors, who could put it in the box to work with Sinar Hy6, Leaf Hy6, Hasselblad or Mamya???
You can PM, if you don't feel comfortable answering here!!! At least you could check if and how much would cost for Sinar to do it!!!
Regards
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear Natasa,
I'm not sure if you're serious, but I shall PM you as if you were: allow me some time, I have to visit customers now.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']!!!V E R Y S E R I O U S!!![/span]
-
!!!WELL NOTED!!!
[span style=\'font-size:11pt;line-height:100%\']!!!V E R Y S E R I O U S!!![/span]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dear BJL,
I don't know where and when Sinar (or Leaf, if I can allow myself speaking for them), or even F&H have started a hype about this bigger 48x48 sensor coming: all these companies did was to mention the readiness in their respective Hy6/AFi brochures, which is a fact. I for myself have mentioned it once.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=195332\")
Thanks Thierry for confirming the main point of my post: that the quoted statement from F&H was only yet another statement of the obvious fact that a 48x48mm sensor would fit within the 56x56mm frame of 6x6 format, and not a claim that any such sensor is actually forthcoming for DMF.
My final paragraph was labeled as floating just one possible and somewhat cynical hypothesis as to why this obvious fact is stated repeatedly in Hy6 advertising, I am not claiming to know the actual reason for statements like this one of yours last June:
this sensor already exists in Dalsa's drawer!
The question is if the backmakers decide to take it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By the way, I remain skeptical that such a sensor suitable for DMF exists except possibly as a design. Dalsa does make an even larger square sensor, 50x50mm sensor, but only 4MP and for X-rays and such, not suitable for DMF: the [a href=\"http://www.dalsa.com/sensors/products/productdetails.asp?ProductID=IA-DJ-02084]IA-DJ-02084[/url]
-
Hi
Just spent time going over this thread. It is now a year later & Sinar has a new camera for wide angle work with movements. At the moment this new camera will only support Sinar & Leaf. Sort of makes sense to come out with a square 56x56 chip. There will be new announcements this year @ Photokina, Just a guess.
Thanks Denis