up to 6x7, 6x6, square format pocket camera, Bayer

[CurtisHight]

ONE
Looking out over the next ten to twenty years I wonder if 4x5 inch imaging sensors will be successfully commercially sold. Now, based on the new KAF-50100 sensor with 6 micron pixels a 645 sensor might yield about 64MP, a 6x6 cm sensor might yield about 86MP, and a 6x7 cm sensor might yield about 108 MP; and I wonder if a 108MP sensor would yield sufficient quality that large format users would move to it in sufficient numbers to make a 4x5 inch sensor commercially unviable. I wonder if it would be successful for Hasselblad to develop and introduce an “ArcBody” for field use, and a first-rate studio view camera, both built to accept medium format sensors up to 6x7 (with digital data flow from lens to back); I wonder if this would provide a compelling reason for many smaller format and large format users to move to medium format and Hasselblad? (We don’t yet have a shipping 645 sensor, but such a platform would give confidence to potential customers that their investment was prepared for a strong range of future developments. And the specific desirable features of this new ArcBody are another subject but I will mention the desirability of using a spacing tube so that the standard reflex lenses could be used on it.)

TWO
I hope that the time is near for Hasselblad to bring 6x6cm imaging to the H-series. This would allow backs with 645 and the smaller rectangular format sensors to be set in a vertical position, as well as offer all the other strengths of a 6x6 cm format camera.

THREE
I think a square format pocket camera could be successful for Hasselblad/Fuji. Take the same 6 micron sensor technology and move it to a 16MP sensor, place a great lens in front of it (while the 6x6cm equivalent of 40x160mm would be welcome, a 50mm equivalent would be acceptable), allow a lens shade to be used, allow RAW output into Phocus (maybe making Phocus an optional purchase for use with this camera), and possibly allow for GPS and external flash. 16MP in a pocket camera might be something that would draw away sales from higher priced models of smaller format makers, but set beside the 50MP plus offerings of Hasseblad it might be a great fit. (And of course, the camera could have settings for rectangular image ratios.)

FOUR
I read that Bayer sensors yield something like 70% resolution for the pixel count. I combine this with the issue of burgeoning storage needs and wonder if we should be asking camera manufacturers to allow RAW files to be written down so that they equal the resolution level attainable by the sensor. Hence, an 86MP 56mm x 56mm sensor would write a 60MP file. Now, maybe doing this in camera would be counterproductive to other functions, but it would certainly be desirable in the RAW converter.

[Graham Mitchell]

TWO
I hope that the time is near for Hasselblad to bring 6x6cm imaging to the H-series. This would allow backs with 645 and the smaller rectangular format sensors to be set in a vertical position, as well as offer all the other strengths of a 6x6 cm format camera.

Well then it wouldn't be an H camera any more. Hasselblad would need to design a new bodies and all new lenses.

Btw, the Hy6 camera already does all this and already exists.

FOUR
I read that Bayer sensors yield something like 70% resolution for the pixel count. I combine this with the issue of burgeoning storage needs and wonder if we should be asking camera manufacturers to allow RAW files to be written down so that they equal the resolution level attainable by the sensor. Hence, an 86MP 56mm x 56mm sensor would write a 60MP file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not so simple. As soon as you resample the data, you lose detail again, so then you'd have a 60MP file with less than 60MP worth of detail  Better to keep all the detail you have.

[Yoram from Berlin]

The question is whether digital can be expected to replace film in every format on the market. Is it reasonable to come up with a 4x5 sensor, and then an 8x10 sensor? I guess the only ones who can be expected to bring one to market are the camera manufacturers who have a vested interest in maintaining an installed base of users and seeing them transition to a digital medium... or the digi-back manufacturers who perceive a large enough market for photographers working in those large formats. It's already a small market (compared to dSLRs, video cameras or in-phone cams) and every year that dMF becomes more affordable and film harder to get, the LF market is shrinking. Don't underestimate the blow of Polaroid's passing to the LF world.

Just like Leica and their M8 digital Rangefinder, the fact is that there is very little demand for a camera like that. A small manufacturer is highly limited in the amount of development it can put into such technology. Due to the architecture of a Rangefinder camera - where the film/sensor plane is quite close to the back of the lens - sensor development is not the sole issue. There are other problems that need to be compensated for with software, such as diffraction, chromatic aberration, and vignetting. I don't know enough about LF cameras, but if they have specific issues beyond simple sensor size, the bar to digiback development gets raised that much higher.

Although prices will come down for MF digibacks, they will stay at a relatively high amount for quite some time - but look forward to better backs. If you look at other digital products such as dSLR, mobile phones, laptops and MP3 players, you can expect the price to drop a little, while the technical abilities of the products improve considerably. Don't expect to see $1,500 backs any time soon.

My two cents.

[rethmeier]

A 33 or 39 MP sensor out performs 4x5  already.

The only reason 10x8 existed in the old days ,was purely for retouching on the original.

I realize what I just stated above is open for major discussion,however I've been in the game since

1968, so I'm no rookie.

For reproduction multishot backs,shit on film and have or can have true color that never could have been realized with film.

At the end of the day,one have to ask,can it be reproduced with todays printing technologies?

They are behind!

Something to sleep on?

WR.

[ixpressraf]

A 33 or 39 MP sensor out performs 4x5  already.

The only reason 10x8 existed in the old days ,was purely for retouching on the original.

I realize what I just stated above is open for major discussion,however I've been in the game since

1968, so I'm no rookie.

For reproduction multishot backs,shit on film and have or can have true color that never could have been realized with film.

At the end of the day,one have to ask,can it be reproduced with todays printing technologies?

They are behind!

Something to sleep on?

WR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nothing beats multishot backs, yhat's for sure. I used to do my Art-reproductions for various gallaries with my eyelike 6MFscan, a multi and macrostepback. I never had results when printed in the time i shot 5/4 inch. Color is so correct that it is frightning sometimes. But strangely enough, now that i have upgraded my ixpress 22 to a cf22MS, i have put that wonderfull back for sale and nowbody is interested. It seems that most colleugues all are using multishot backs or that their clients do not demand such high quality ( you can never achieve that color and moire free reproduction in one shot). Now I gave up and hope to use the back on my digiflex for personal projects.

[shutay]

THREE
I think a square format pocket camera could be successful for Hasselblad/Fuji. Take the same 6 micron sensor technology and move it to a 16MP sensor, place a great lens in front of it (while the 6x6cm equivalent of 40x160mm would be welcome, a 50mm equivalent would be acceptable), allow a lens shade to be used, allow RAW output into Phocus (maybe making Phocus an optional purchase for use with this camera), and possibly allow for GPS and external flash. 16MP in a pocket camera might be something that would draw away sales from higher priced models of smaller format makers, but set beside the 50MP plus offerings of Hasseblad it might be a great fit. (And of course, the camera could have settings for rectangular image ratios.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oooh... I would really like this. It's one of the reasons I believe in the square 16mp sensors, thinking I might be able to use the Zeiss ZF lenses. To this day, I still go out with an 800g pre-WW2 6x6 folder camera loaded with film stuffed into my trouser pocket (it really is possible, you just need to tighten your belt and make sure your trousers have big pockets). I really wouldn't mind the digital treatment on this. Maybe I can create some sort of Alpa TC version of this to marry a Zeiss ZF lens with my digital back... but then I'd really like an accurate rangefinder focusing as well.

[Plekto]

A 16MP Foveon or DB type sensor would be ideal, IMO.  4000*4000, no antialiasing or filtering, full frame and big "fat" pixels. Low cost and to the point.  Drop it in a 35mm SLR type body.

[CurtisHight]

foto-z
I'm fully aware that an H-series 6x6 will require a new body and new lenses, however with a spacer tube these same lenses could be used on the 645 bodies so they could be a valuable extension for owner's of the 645 bodies.

I have a Grafit A4 system and I'm a fan of Sinar; I'm aware of the Hy6, I was not aware of the arTec until yesterday and it looks like it could be a great location view camera. My experience with Hasseblad's past and present gives me a richer context to express the expansive, focused, and integrated medium format system I'm envisioning, as expressed in the four products/concepts I addressed; and I'm a little more hopeful that they will bring it to fruition. If the backers of the Hy6 choose to fill this space in the market I'll be cheering for their success.

Shooting Bayer RAW and then down sampling to the resolution threshold is effectively what is taking place with the work flow for the Red cameras and I think it could work very well with still images. Indeed the "scaleable file size" of the P65+ may work something like this in-camera—pixel binning accomplishes multiple things: I want the downsampled image to remain a RAW file and be matched to the sensor resolution, with other benefits coming as they may.

rethmeier
I aware of the quality of 39MP sensors and multi-shot, but I still expect the market to create better products and photographers to make creative use of them. Beside this I'm thinking of camera handling dynamics: I often appreciated the large controls of my Hasseblad bodies, and I wouldn't have wanted the controls on my Flexbody to be any smaller. I think that the best of large format view cameras moved to a 645/66/67 system could be just the right combination of factors to yield the most effective products. (Iron Flatline, your comments were particularly good.)

shutay
I hope you'll get what you want, but I was thinking something more like a Canon PowerShot G9. Indeed, it has a 4000x3000 pixel sensor, a 6x zoom, external flash and generally glowing reviews; Fuji could follow this design pattern: making the sensor a square 4000x4000 pixels, adjusting the zoom range toward the wide end, caring that the lens resolves to the threshold of the sensor, caring that manual off-camera flash is available (rather than just auto as the G9 seems to be limited to), extending the self timer to one minute, and maybe adding geotagging and rectangular image ratios. Include the lens shade with the camera, put Hasseblad's name on it, allow Phocus to handle the RAW files and sell the software for $50 to those who want to use it (unless of course they already have the full package due to ownership of a digital back) and I think the camera will sell well even if priced at a premium over the G9.

[pss]

the problem is physics....the G9 has a tiny sensor mostly because that is the only way to get the correct distance/coverage between glass and sensor....
the leica m8 and the sigma sd9 are amazing because they somehow managed to fit a large sensor and still retain compact size and the distance to the glass....
in your old 6x6, the sensor (in that case film) was superthin and right up against the back wall...then there was the actual camera (room!) providing the distance to the glass.....the larger the sensor, the more distance is required to cover the sensor.....
so all you would have to do is somehow manage to make a hass/phase/leaf/sinar back as thin as a piece of film, forget about the screen and you would have one of those incredible fuji 645 folders as a digital p&s!  
oh and i am sure you would like to see all this done within a 2000$ pricerange? maybe too high? and why not have it do 25000asa....and maybe a time machine....

[Plekto]

I'd have no problem with the body being 1/2 an inch thicker to make it work.

[CurtisHight]

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, announced a couple days ago, is another expression of a compact camera, in addition to the Canon G9, that would be great if a square sensor was used.

[Plekto]

FOUR
I read that Bayer sensors yield something like 70% resolution for the pixel count.

That's per dimension as well, do to interpolation and dithering.(and the AA filters that need to be applied to counter it of course).   The technology is adequate but really needs to be replaced with something that works more like film did/does.  8MP is fine to replace 35mm for instance, if all of the pixels are full color locations and have no screens, filtering, AA, or so on applied.  Too bad nobody actually does this yet*.  I've pretty much given up on Foveon doing anything with their technology at this point - maybe when they go under and the tech gets bought by Sony or somebody.

*There are a couple of 6-12MP black and white digital backs that of course have none of these issues.  Gorgeous results for the money.  Now if they could only get the same thing for color...  

Oh - quick calculation - 2400dpi scan for 6x6 film(56x56mm/2.205 Inches) is roughly 28MP.  ~5290x5290 dpi.

The same with a Bayer sensor: 2400DPI*0.7=1680 effective pixels per inch.  You have to multiply the number of pixels by ~1.425 to re-equalize for the losses.  So 2400DPI is ~3200DPI on Bayer X 2.205 = ~7500*7500(7540 but let's keep the math simple - heh).  56MP.(ouch)  Thankfully there are 50-60MP DBs out now.

Even if you take into account the maximum theoretical possible results for a digital back at 0.75 net pixels per dimension, you'd end up with a factor of 1.33X more pixels per dimension.  So 2400x1.33x2.205=7038 Or 49MP.(slightly more reasonable I guess).

It's not that the technology it's great - it's fantastic.  It's that the sensor pattern and construction itself is a decades old kludge and needs to be replaced.  Getting back to your original point(s), yes, there is a huge need for a good film-like sensor in the 16-25mp range.

Oh - an interesting note - the Fuji sensor is closer to .8x due to the hexagonal layout and he fact that it's blending between the two images to get a single cleaner result.  That may not sound huge, but it results in: 2400X1.25=3000X2.205=6600 Just under 44MP for a DB using this technology.  IF SUCH A THING EXISTED.  Sigh.

For 35mm film?  ~15.6MP with a CCD/Bayer(0.7x), ~13.6MP with a DB type design, for the Fuji, 12MP(!yay!), and Foveon(why not...), 7.8MP(oh, so close at 4.7MP...NOT).    Obviously 20-25MP in a 35mm format/camera is silly overkill....  I'd rather have better quality and less pixels.

Now, if Fuji or Foveon could get of their butts and do something about larger formats...

[Robin Balas]

...
FOUR
I read that Bayer sensors yield something like 70% resolution for the pixel count. I combine this with the issue of burgeoning storage needs and wonder if we should be asking camera manufacturers to allow RAW files to be written down so that they equal the resolution level attainable by the sensor. Hence, an 86MP 56mm x 56mm sensor would write a 60MP file. Now, maybe doing this in camera would be counterproductive to other functions, but it would certainly be desirable in the RAW converter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are oversimplifying the issue and you're statement is incorrect as it stands. It also sounds like something Greame Natress wrote on the RED forums a while back when this was debated there. However the RED camera uses an OLPF, and most MFDB's doesn't do that. So for this forum your statement isn't completely correct.
A bare sensor without OLPF resolves true 100% monochromatic pixels with some ugly aliasing though. Adding a bayer color matrix doesn't take away the monochromatic performance or the aliasing, however it doesn't add 100% color resolution either - more like 50-70% linearly in real world subjects and a lot less in synthetic targets designed to show colour resolution. So the color resolution is different from the luminance resolution in all color bayer sensors. Further one could say that depending on the subject, the sensor could resolve 70%, less than 70% or possibly near 100%. Note that most MFDB's used by this forum members do not employ an OLPF so I do not discuss the effects of an OLPF.

Testing shows that near momochromatic color images will loose resolution if downsampled to 70% linearly of their original size. Some strong blue or red images will however not loose any resolution if downsampled to 70% or even 50%. So the answer is: it depends...

A general statement applies on this forum as well: If more people would base their knowledge and claims on their own empiric testing, the S/N ratio in this forums would go up considerately.
MHO.

[CurtisHight]

Nikon has announced the Coolpix P6000. It doesn't offer a square sensor but it does feature automatic geotagging: one more feature "we" have been hoping for that has now been announced for a compact camera. Hopefully Fuji will bring them all together in a square format camera.