Largesense: Large format digital backs

[torger]

I recently came across this:

http://largesense.com/
http://largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

CMOS, live view, large sensors. Unfortunately not very high resolution, only 12 megapixels for 8x10", but still cool.

[landscapephoto]

Unfortunately not very high resolution.

Unfortunately, still vaporware at present.

[torger]

Unfortunately, still vaporware at present.

Well, that's unnecessarily negative.

This is a tiny company trying to do the impossible, relying on enthusiast interest to make it happen. They have come far, have products to demonstrate. Getting from prototype into production is a difficult step to take though, but as these are made to order rather than a big mass production I think the chance to succeed is quite good.

It's not the first 8x10 digital back though, Mitch Feinberg made a couple back in 2011 for his own work: http://aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/

hopefully these will be cheaper than custom-building one

Reading about it the design seems to be realistic. Not trying to make a custom sensor size, but getting what can be had. Not messing with making a LCD screen on the back, but instead making wifi and use the phone/tablet/pc for live view, via HTML5 (web gui).

[torger]

Finally found a price -- it's expected to be $100k for the 9x11" back, so it's not for the broad market :-).

Feinberg's 8x10" back was said to cost low six figures it would have been put into production, so $100k for this is not too bad. Still extremely niche of course.

[BJL]

I recently came across this:

http://largesense.com/
http://largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

CMOS, live view, large sensors. Unfortunately not very high resolution, only 12 megapixels for 8x10", but still cool.

The pixel size and resolution limit is almost certainly because that the sensors are fabricated with the TFT panel technology used for the displays in phones and such, as with Mitch Feinberg's custom 10"x8" sensors.  In this case it is 75 micron pixel spacing, or about 340PPI.  Phone screens are pushing to about 50 micron pixels (540PPI), so I can see 10"x8" reaching about 5400x4300, about 23MP.  I doubt that there will ever be a use for display panel fab equipment that can go much below 50 micron pixel size, and so I doubt it will ever be available for LF sensors, at least in the "moderate" c. $100,000 price range envisioned here.

Does 5400x4300 LF sound useful for anything, compared to alternatives like CMOS DMF backs?  Usability with camera movements?

P. S. The extremely high base ISO speed of 2100 indicates a very low well capacity relative to pixel size: it is about 40 times higher that the ISO 50 of recent no micro-lens DMF sensors, suggesting a well capacity per unit are about 40 times lower.  This 11"x9" sensor is "only" about 30 times greater in area than recent 53.7x40.4mm sensors, so if my well-capacity estimate is right, that high base ISO speed probably cancels out any DR advantage over recent "full frame" DMF sensors.

[Ken Doo]

Pretty cool if it ever comes to fruition.

ken

[torger]

Does 5400x4300 LF sound useful for anything, compared to alternatives like CMOS DMF backs?  Usability with camera movements?

I guess the main use would be for studio photography artists working with large format film currently, as a complement. Either for prototyping, like Mitch Feinberg, or for making real images but then I'd guess it would be using really old lenses to enhance a unique look (for portraits etc) and keep it soft so the low resolution doesn't become a clear problem.

Oh, of course I'd expect usability with movements be better than any other digital back, but it probably won't be much used for that, as wide angle architecture photography is pretty far-fetched.

Sharp typography in high quality books is 2400dpi or even more, so if screens eventually push for that type of quality we may come down to 10um in time. Turned to digital backs it will probably never be any "king of quality" though, but possibly adequate quality to make digital pictures with the format as a complement to film.

Those that shoot 8x10" today do it for more reasons than just resolution.

[Steve Hendrix]

I guess the main use would be for studio photography artists working with large format film currently, as a complement. Either for prototyping, like Mitch Feinberg, or for making real images but then I'd guess it would be using really old lenses to enhance a unique look (for portraits etc) and keep it soft so the low resolution doesn't become a clear problem.

Oh, of course I'd expect usability with movements be better than any other digital back, but it probably won't be much used for that, as wide angle architecture photography is pretty far-fetched.

Sharp typography in high quality books is 2400dpi or even more, so if screens eventually push for that type of quality we may come down to 10um in time. Turned to digital backs it will probably never be any "king of quality" though, but possibly adequate quality to make digital pictures with the format as a complement to film.

Those that shoot 8x10" today do it for more reasons than just resolution.

Be sure you check the pricing.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[torger]

Be sure you check the pricing.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Already did as noted above, $100k is the expected price. With that price and only monochrome and 12 megapixels it's not going to be a huge seller of course, but it's innovative and brave. Hopefully the future will hold technology developments that make large sensors with high resolution more feasible. The medium format digital tech cams in the form I want seems to have their days counted, so who knows in 10 years using classic large format cameras with huge sensor custom backs may be my preferred way to work. This particular back is not for me personally though...

[Theodoros]

LOL... 2100 ISO base sensitivity... what where they thinking of? 

[eronald]

LOL... 2100 ISO base sensitivity... what where they thinking of? 

I've heard that there are some stocks of surplus defense-quality largish CCD sensors with shielding being offered around - a friend in the custom camera trade got an offer - but nobody seems to have wanted to purchase them. CCD camera design is no fun ...

Edmund

[torger]

LOL... 2100 ISO base sensitivity... what where they thinking of? 

I assume this is basically a one-man company, and as such you can't design any sensor you want. The size 9x11" isn't exactly what he wanted but what was available, so the sensor was not originally designed for this application of course. X-Ray sensors come into mind, but I have no information on which sensor type it actually is.

It's a monochrome sensor by the way.

[torger]

I've heard that there are some stocks of surplus defense-quality largish CCD sensors with shielding being offered around - a friend in the custom camera trade got an offer - but nobody seems to have wanted to purchase them. CCD camera design is no fun ...

Edmund

Leica's new airborne mapping camera has a 391 megapixel CMOS designed by CMOSIS, so maybe CCD is on it's way out also in this niche:
http://leica-geosystems.com/products/airborne-systems/cameras-large-format/leica-dmciii

[BernardLanguillier]

Leica's new airborne mapping camera has a 391 megapixel CMOS designed by CMOSIS, so maybe CCD is on it's way out also in this niche:
http://leica-geosystems.com/products/airborne-systems/cameras-large-format/leica-dmciii

How large is that sensor?

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

Signed up for their newsletter a while ago and have received nothing since then. Still vaporware as far as I am concerned and even if it becomes real one day, at 100k, I can't imagine there will be too many takers for it, given how limited it is at everything except the sensor size.

[torger]

How large is that sensor?

I did not find any data on that unfortunately, and it's probably more than one sensor if I've understood the design correctly of these type of cameras. Instead of one lens they have several since the parallax error is insignificant anyway, and have one sensor for R, one for G, one for B and one for NIR.

Calculating from the resolution numbers and pixel size it should be 100x57mm or 3.9x2.2" so it's not huge. The pixel size is only 3.9um.

[BJL]

That very high base ISO speed means that the well capacity is surprisingly low, limiting highlight headroom. It cannot be due to far having far better light detecting ability, since mainstream sensors are already well over 50% when used as monochrome sensors with no CFA, so there is no room for even a one stop improvement.

[BJL]

Torger,
2400DPI is only needed for dithering, to get many shades of gray from black ink, and fine final gradations from dots of ink of just a few colors. Nowhere near that is needed in a TFT display than can vary the brightness of individual pixels.  This is the old PPI vs DPI distinction/confusion.

[BJL]

How large is that sensor?

I do not know about that one, but there are "wafer scale" CMOS sensors being made for X-Rays, so up to 200mm diagonal on the market, and with 300mm prototypes around. But X-Rays need high sensitivity far more than they need extremely high resolution, so the pixel pitch is 50 to 75 microns, giving around 10MP. Is

[Theodoros]

This one is of 78μm size... it nearly matches the characteristics for X-Rays... There is no IR filter either and there is no mention whether it is a Cmos or a CCD sensor... I guess if it can do HD video at that size, then it may well be Cmos...

Whatever it is, I will stick with my Sinarback 54H forever and if I ever change the CF-39MS, it will be for another hybrid MFDB that can do both single shot and multishot.