Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JdeV on October 03, 2009, 05:48:43 am
-
Do we have any indication what the next generation of MF sensors is going to look like in terms of size and resolution?
What kind of stuff might realistically get announced at Photokina 2010?
This time a couple of years ago we knew that there were going to be 50-60 Mpixel sensors coming through.
e.g. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12532)
Is there any indication from Dalsa or Kodak or anyone else where things might go?
-
Do we have any indication what the next generation of MF sensors is going to look like in terms of size and resolution?
What kind of stuff might realistically get announced at Photokina 2010?
This time a couple of years ago we knew that there were going to be 50-60 Mpixel sensors coming through.
e.g. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12532)
Is there any indication from Dalsa or Kodak or anyone else where things might go?
^
Something between 60-80 Mp as CMOS sensor would be nice. Oh I forgot Dalsa and Kodak don't make them...
I fear the net generation will be a 80Mp sensor with more or less the same features.
ISO 50-400, no real long exposures, perhaps 0.5 more dynamic range, but overall nothing new.
Probably no live view, no real surprise. Perhaps Phase even dares to sell the same LCD again :-P
However as a P65 owner, there would need to be a big change. 60Mp are now enough for even 40x60 prints. So I think a 75 or even 90 Mp sensor would not really make a difference. What we really want and need are NEW features. Oh I forgot again, we would only need features other companies are offering for quite some years now.
-
Do we have any indication what the next generation of MF sensors is going to look like in terms of size and resolution?
What kind of stuff might realistically get announced at Photokina 2010?
Dalsa and Kodak are still rolling out their latest technology: another round of Full Frame type CCDs, this time with 6 micron cell size. Dalsa also has a new approach to microlenses that promises to eliminate the off-perpendicular sensitivity restrictions which have so far kept microlenses of the larger MF sensors. So Dalsa might be able to put microlenses on all future MF sensors, adding about one stop of sensitivity (ISO speed). RED is also talking about making a MF cameras with full 645 sized CMOS "Mysterium" sensors, and if I recall correctly also with 6 micron cell size. But RED
is the industry leader in ratio of products promised to products delivered so far.
Neither Kodak nor Dalsa is near going to a next generation beyond those 6 micron cell size products by 2010, and I have read no hints about their next generation plans. If you wish to speculate, Kodak has made one FF CCD sensor with 5.4 micron cell size, the 8MP one for Four Thirds models E-300 and E-500. Thanks to its microlenses, that sensor seems to outperform Kodak's current larger cell size sensors without microlenses in low light (anything higher than base ISO speed) but is not as good for per pixel signal to noise ratio ("per pixel dynamic range") at base ISO speed.
My predictions: as of Photokina 2010, there will be FF CCD sensors with 6 micron cell size in sensor sizes of 44x33mm, 45x30mm, 48x36mm/49x37mm, and nearly 645 (54x40mm or whatever); not much more than we have now.
-
Kodak once mentioned that they can go down to 5µm without compromising IQ - lenses that are capable to resolve such high frequencies (100lp/mm!!) with low aberration over large areas of the (quite large) frame are really rare. I don't expect any revolutions here. Interesting options to downsample to large files again or to do pixel binning, but no major breakthroughs regarding IQ.
CMOS offers interesting possibilities - but right now, when highest IQ is necessary, there's no other choice than full-frame CCDs (due to larger photosites).
Dalsa offers CMOS, RED offers marketing but they don't manufacture cameras, lenses or sensors - but they're not willing to reveal their suppliers, either. Only one thing is sure: it's 5.4µm-CMOS-sensor offers ordinary performance. Sensor-technology for 60fps creates extreme challenges and no pro would be happy to see such a quality in photography (just google-search for "red"-images with 4096x2048pixels size).
So be careful what you wish for...
-
Sensor-technology for 60fps creates extreme challenges and no pro would be happy to see such a quality in photography (just google-search for "red"-images with 4096x2048pixels size).
So be careful what you wish for...
I don't follow this. Would you mind clarifying for me?
-
Wouldn't sensor (and A/D converter) bit depth be more useful than more mpix at this stage?
-N
-
At the risk of sounding like a broken record... why do they insist on offering more and more megapixels? For every person here asking for more resolution there are ten asking for better high ISO performance. If Kodak and Dalsa never make the chips we want then we won't see the backs we really want either.
Still wishing for a 30MP 645 chip!
-
At the risk of sounding like a broken record... why do they insist on offering more and more megapixels?
Still wishing for a 30MP 645 chip!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: because is nothing a 30MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 60MP 645 sensor cannot, with appropriate processing (downsampling or NR processing to improve S/N ratio while reducing resolution to match that of the 30MP sensor, *if and when* the lower res. is enough), but there *is* something that a 60MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 30MP 645 sensor cannot: more resolution. Within reason, a somewhat higher pixel count simply gives more options in resolution/noise level/DR trade-offs.
-
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: because is nothing a 30MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 60MP 645 sensor cannot, with appropriate processing (downsampling or NR processing to improve S/N ratio while reducing resolution to match that of the 30MP sensor, *if and when* the lower res. is enough), but there *is* something that a 60MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 30MP 645 sensor cannot: more resolution. Within reason, a somewhat higher pixel count simply gives more options in resolution/noise level/DR trade-offs.
All else being equal, a larger photosite will yield a greater DR (and therefore better high ISO performance). So my point was that the sensor manufacturers should be concentrating on achieving this instead of ever more resolution.
-
Do we have any indication what the next generation of MF sensors is going to look like in terms of size and resolution?
To my eyes, the focus for the next generation should not be size/resolution.
It should be:
- DSLR level live view in back capability,
- Reduction of silly problems like color casts,
- Price reduction.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd like 2 frames per second.
Or for Hasselblad, 1 frame per .5 second.
-
Do we have any indication what the next generation of MF sensors is going to look like in terms of size and resolution?
What kind of stuff might realistically get announced at Photokina 2010?
This time a couple of years ago we knew that there were going to be 50-60 Mpixel sensors coming through.
e.g. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12532)
Is there any indication from Dalsa or Kodak or anyone else where things might go?
I've been impressed with the pixel binning feature on the P65+, I'm getting clean files at ISO 800 allied to a MF look. And I'm sure there's more that could be done with this technology. If we get to a 100MP back with pixel binning delivering clean 25MP files at ISO 1600, along with a live view facility on a better screen, then I'd upgrade. Otherwise I'm more than happy to stay with the P65+.
I know this has been said many times before without ever happening, but it does seem to me that we're approaching, if not the end game, then at least a plateau in MF digital development.
-
@aaanorton
RED currently offers one camera and many people are excited about their annoncement for future cameras, even with 645-sized sensors. These cameras use fast CMOS-sensors (so they have liveview and they're basically video-cameras). But this ability has a high price regarding IQ for still photography - a camera which is capable to shot 60fps video is hardly a good MFDB-replacement... Just take a look at Kodak and their current offerings:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acroba...ductSummary.pdf (http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/FullFrame/KAF-50100ProductSummary.pdf)
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acroba...ductSummary.pdf (http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Interline/KAI-02150ProductSummary.pdf)
The first one is a state-of-the art full-frame CCD, which basically means it has a very high fill-rate (large sensitive area) for high IQ (it's theoretical DR/contrast is 1:3200) but it liveview is problematic and it's slow. The second sensor is a state-of-the-art interline CCD. It has a lower fill-rate (more circuitry besides photodiodes - lower charge capacity and about half the DR) but is capable of video. With current technology, it's always the samge game - if it's called CCD, CMOS or Mysterium... You want liveview? You want video? You want internal NR for high-iso? Say goodbye to MDFB-IQ.
Technology progresses and it will be interesting to see how Leica will implement CMOS (there are rumors that they're working on a full-frame EVIL). When their CMOS-system is prefered by photographers over their previous CCD-offerings, MDFBs will most likely follow!?
-
@ georgl
Yes, I'm familiar with RED's offerings and have been following their imminent release announcements (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35785). Thanks for replying, the info on Kodak chips is interesting.
I get what you're saying and really have no arguments with any of it. I just don't see RED's potential easily dismissed. Ask a fashion photographer (or any people shooter) how they would feel about a 25-65 mpxl RAW file from a camera able to capture them in or near double digits, which can store them directly to an on-board SSD allowing virtually limitless shooting, has a quality EVF and live LCD and that can mount a variety of lenses from different manufacturers. Oh, and it can also shoot better-than-cinema quality RAW video footage at 50-350 frames per second. If someone offered me that option and it provided > 90% of the IQ from current MFDB, I'd jump without hesitation. I think many would.
I posted earlier in this thread that I'd like 2 fps from MFD. A totally reasonable request. I know lots of people who want that. We want that a whole lot more than we want 20 more megapixels. And we've been asking for it for 5+ years. RED may answer this request with a totally unreasonable response and I am truly excited about it.
I've also been excited (and still am) about Leica's S2. Mostly for the speed, though 1.5 fps now seems a little timid. I like everything they are doing with that camera and look forward to what they will bring in the future (cheers the Leica for true DNG writing!). I also think Phase made some great lemonade with the Mamiya lemons they got. Good for them! But all of the discussions we are, and have been, having regarding MFD seem so stale.
This is the most exciting time in MFD I can remember since pre-P25 (able to shoot untethered!). Gonna be an interesting year.
c!
-
Do we have any indication what the next generation of MF sensors is going to look like in terms of size and resolution?
What kind of stuff might realistically get announced at Photokina 2010?
This time a couple of years ago we knew that there were going to be 50-60 Mpixel sensors coming through.
e.g. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12532)
Is there any indication from Dalsa or Kodak or anyone else where things might go?
Shouldn't we let lens technology catch up first?
-
All else being equal, a larger photosite will yield a greater DR (and therefore better high ISO performance).
Do we have to go over this yet again?
If you get 30 million pixels from one sensor that has 30 million photosites, and then get 30 million pixels by downsampling or such from a sensor of the same size but with 60 million photosites of similar technology, and then measure the DR of these two 30MP files, the DR is likely to be about the same. Downsampling (and other processes) can give "super pixels" with a higher S/N ratio and higher DR than the individual photosites used to form them. The simple explanation is that when the signal from several photosites is combined, the combined signal is increased about in proportion to the number of photosites uses, but the combined noise grows roughly as the square root of the noise in the individual pixels, so the S/N ratio and DR increases roughly in proportion to the square root of the number of photosites used to get the "super-pixel". A factor of 1.4 in the above example, or half a stop.
My favorite example: the "photosites" of black and white film (clumps of silver halide crystals) have pathetically low S/N ratio, but aggregation of many billions of these can give quite good DR.
Please at least stop making arguments which ignore the increase in S/N ratio and DR that downsampling (and other options like spatial averaging) can produce.
P. S. Sometimes, the downsampling or spatial averaging can be done simply by the printing technology, or by the resolution limits of the viewer's eyes. When 30MP is enough to print at a PPI figure high enough to match the viewer's resolution limits (say 300PPI for a viewing distance of 12" or more?), then 60MP give the same print size at 1.4x higher PPI, 420PPI. This now exceeds the viewer's resolving power, so the tiny pixels get blurred together: spatial averaging again, this time by the rods and cones of the viewer's eyes. This increases the S/N ratio of the signal detected by those rods and cones.
-
If you get 30 million pixels from one sensor that has 30 million photosites, and then get 30 million pixels by downsampling or such from a sensor of the same size but with 60 million photosites of similar technology, and then measure the DR of these two 30MP files, the DR is likely to be about the same.
How many sensor manufacturers replace a current sensor with another that has larger photosites? None, right? It's always the other way around. So to compare a 30 mpxl sensor's DR with that of a 60 mpxl upgrade to the first sensor is to ignore foto-z's qualifier of "All else being equal". The 60 mpxl back didn't just happen. People had to make it. More importantly, people were paid to make it. And since they were paid, decisions had to be made: More pixels or improve the ones we got? More pixels or better bandwidth from the chip? Instead of talking about a 30 mpxl base, let's consider a 60 mpxl position. Is the answer to IQ concerns always the doubling of resolution? Should we hope for a down sampled 120 mpxl file to deliver the 800 iso DR we want at a 60 mpxl resolution? And the 1600 iso DR we really want at 30 mpxl? And if what we really want (no kidding here) is a 30-40 mpxl file (really!), should we continue to hope for IQ to be improved only through down sampling from successively larger and larger RAW files that we have to waste storage space on and production time copying, moving, backing up and archiving? I'm sure there some people over at Seagate Technologies that like this idea!
This becomes an exercise in marketing. A smooth progression of consecutively larger numbers is easier to market and sell. Plateaus on sales brochures look like turds.
Please keep in mind that I am not arguing with your technical assessment. I'm just questioning at what cost resolution.
Thanks,
c!
-
no more pixels please, stooooop . to do what ? 30 MP is enough in MF
25 ISO will be great
there a new sensor here >> http://www.scmos.com/ (http://www.scmos.com/)
-
Digital backs desperately need higher resolution LCD screens with live view directly on the back itself. Then on view cameras, we don't need anymore inaccurate sliding backs or tethering. Is the only reason they don't have live view because they use CCDs instead of CMOS?
-
Please at least stop making arguments which ignore the increase in S/N ratio and DR that downsampling (and other options like spatial averaging) can produce.
No-one is disputing that binning helps to achieve a higher S/N ratio, but it is of limited value. My point is that the sensor makers should be concentrating on techniques to lower sources of dark current and read noise, and to increase quantum efficiency. At the end of the day, it is the S/N ratio which matters and not the technology used to achieve it.
The formula for calculating the S/N ratio in a pixel binned system is
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/formula_copy1.jpg)
Where
M represents the number of binned pixels
P is the incident photon flux (photons/pixel/second)
Q(e) represents the CCD quantum efficiency
t is the integration time (seconds)
D is the dark current value (electrons/pixel/second)
N® represents read noise (electrons rms/pixel)
You can see that we get between 1-2 stops more S/N ratio with 2x2 pixel binning (depending on dominance of read noise). Nice, but it's not going to make any headlines, and to get a decent resolution after binning you would need 120MP+ on the sensor. Otherwise the DSLRs are in the lead.
-
No-one is disputing that binning helps to achieve a higher S/N ratio, but it is of limited value ...You can see that we get between 1-2 stops more S/N ratio with 2x2 pixel binning.
Agreed; and 1/2 to 1 stop for a 2:1 downsampling or binning. Also, for normal photographic exposure times, substantially less than one second, dark current is rather irrelevant so S/N ratio scales about
- proportional to sqrt(M) for well lit parts of the scene, where shot noise dominates and the result is approximately sqrt(M P Q_e t).
and
- proportional to M in deep shadows, where read noise dominates and the result is approximately M P Q_e t/N_r.
But if instead of binning from 60MP to 30MP (or in general M to 1 down-ressing), one just uses a 30MP sensor to start with (or more generally, reduce the pixel count by factor M, and so increase pixel area by a factor M), the result is about the same: again about half to one gain in S/N ratio in exchange for halving the final pixel count!
- In well lit parts of the image, shot noise again dominates: S/N ratio approximately sqrt(P Q_e t).
Reducing photosite count by factor M and so increasing photosite area by a factor of M has the effect of increasing P by about that factor of M, so has the same effect on S/N ratio as above: a factor of sqrt(M).
- In dimly lit parts of the scene where read noise dominates the S/N ratio is about P Q_e t/((N_r)^2).
It is tricker to work out the effect of photosite increase because you have to know how the read noise N_r varies with photosite size. For this you should note that the major source of read noise is probably amplifier noise, and with larger photosite size and well capacity, the amplifier has to be larger, and it is likely that the read noise level in electrons increases. For example, CCD's for digicams with small photosites have read noise of around 2-4 electrons, whereas the best large photosite CCD's from Kodak are at around 12 electrons. Also, the history of Kodak CCD's show read noise in electrons increasing with pixel size. What is more, the Kodak data I have seen has read noise scaling roughly with the square root of pixel area! This makes some sense in terms of what little I know about amplifier shot noise.
If that pattern of read noise N_r increasing as the square root of photosite are holds, then increasing pixel size by a factor M increases P by a factor M and also increases N_r by sqrt(M), so S/N ratio improves by factor sqrt(M). That would be worse that for binning!
If instead, amplifier noise does not increase at all, the improvement is a factor of M, as for binning.
In all these rough reckonings, I see no clear advantage for fewer, bigger photosites over binning when the lower resolution is sufficient. So I am inclined to trust Kodak, Dalsa and other industry players over half-baked theory in internet forums, including my own.
Of course if one NEVER needs the higher resolution, a lower res. sensor probably has some marginal advantages. But unfortunately for MF makers, high end 35mm systems will probably take over that market.
-
Are you sure that downsampling significantly increases DR? Reducing noise definitely helps but isn't the capacity/saturation a limiting factor?
@aaanorton
I'm sure that would be great but technology has to catch up first. We have no high-quality EVF (RED uses a standard 800x600 version), no fast sensors with the IQ of current full-frame CCDs and the RED has to use strong compression (similar to JPG2000) to capture these large images at this speed.
The Leica S2 achieves about 120MB/s - that's pretty much and increasing that speed would propably increase noise caused by the amplifiers!?
-
But if instead of binning from 60MP to 30MP (or in general M to 1 down-ressing), one just uses a 30MP sensor to start with (or more generally, reduce the pixel count by factor M, and so increase pixel area by a factor M), the result is about the same: again about half to one gain in S/N ratio in exchange for halving the final pixel count!
That will depend on specific dark current and read noise figures which I don't have, but you seem to be missing my point which I will restate. Rather than spending time and money on higher and higher MP counts with marginal S/N improvements through the compromised option of binning, the sensor designers should be working on chips with much lower noise (by several stops) so we finally get 16-bits of clean data, and excellent high ISO performance.
So I am inclined to trust Kodak, Dalsa and other industry players over half-baked theory in internet forums, including my own.
I am more sceptical. It wouldn't surprise me if the chip designers have never met a working photographer, and are caught up in the megapixel race.
-
Are you sure that downsampling significantly increases DR? Reducing noise definitely helps but isn't the capacity/saturation a limiting factor?
Binning effectively increases the capacity.
-
before increasing megapixel (aren't we at the max resolution for lenses right now ?), they have other things to work on...
live view as good as 5D MARK II
long exposure free of noise
sensor as big as possible
color cast free
focussing help
-
Rather than spending time and money on higher and higher MP counts with marginal S/N improvements through the compromised option of binning, the sensor designers should be working on chips with much lower noise (by several stops) so we finally get 16-bits of clean data, and excellent high ISO performance.
I do not disagree with you much actually: increasing resolution is for a great many of us a lower priority than other improvements. My point was only that more smaller pixels does little or no harm to noise levels, dynamic range and such if one compares fairly: equal sized final images, appropriately prepared (maybe just a touch of spatial averaging away of "unneeded" excess detail from the "excessively detailed" higher res. file).
I also suspect that photosite downsizing is relatively cheap and easy to do: mostly a consequence of feature size downsizing in each new generation of semiconductor fabrication equipment, which happens without sensor makers having to spend a cent on that R&D. So maybe sensor resolution keeps increasing in good part because it costs almost nothing to do it, and the market place (yes even the relatively serious and knowledgeable medium format market place) keeps rewarding this behavior by its willingness to pay higher prices for higher resolution options.
And so maybe these resolution improvements are fairly independent of work in other directions, like improved microlenses and further reducing amplifier noise.
As to what might be better priorities: the most solid good news is probably Dalsa's innovation which promises to make micro-lenses usable on all MF sensors, good for about a one stop gain in sensitivity (ISO speed).
But a lot of the progress that people hope for in MF probably requires moving away from CCD's (as they celebrate forty years and a Nobel Prize!), to something like CMOS sensors. Kodak just abandoned CMOS after many years of work on it; Dalsa has never scaled its CMOS up beyond small sensors; RED talks of a 645 live view capable CMOS sensor, but RED talks a lot more that it delivers so far. Fuji created a near 645 sized SuperCCD sensor, but it went nowhere. Could a large, modern sensor maker and seller like Sony or Panasonic be interested is stitching up a MF sized sensor? Both have demonstrated stitching abilities, needed to get beyond about 33x26mm.
Or will the rising tide of higher end 35mm format continue to squeeze MF, slowing ever more its ability to fund technological progress? After all, look how long MF lagged in getting auto-focus, in which it is still stuck at a single AF point!
-
RED talks of a 645 live view capable CMOS sensor, but RED talks a lot more that it delivers so far.
Actually, RED is talking about a 6x17 full cinema and stills DSMC (digital stills motion camera). There's no denying that they haven't delivered many cameras (just the Red ONE), but it is a fairly revolutionary camera in terms of specs and price point for its intended market. Maybe they'll do it maybe they won't; we'll know more this month when final specs and delivery dates are finally released. But isn't this the exact type of creative thinking that this market needs?
@ georgl
See above!
c!
-
Yes, binning rises capacity - but this has to be done during shooting, while any kind of downsampling in software leaves this problem unsolved, doesn't it?
-
Yes, binning rises capacity - but this has to be done during shooting, while any kind of downsampling in software leaves this problem unsolved, doesn't it?
Downsampling is also perfectly capable of increasing the overall signal to noise ratio, or DR. For example, of you have photosites with capacity 40,000e- and noise floor of 10e- (mostly amp. noise), pixels produced from a single photosite have DR of about 4000:1 which if converted 14 bit one has maximum level about 16,000, noise floor at about 4 bits RMS. If one downsamples 4:1 by adding levels, the maximum level is now about 64,000, and noise floor rises to about 8 levels (assuming independence of noise so that it combines in RMS fashion). So the downsample super-pixels have maximum signal level 16,000, noise floor, DR 2,000: one stop more. (Or if you average back down to 14 bits by dividing by four: maximum signal back to level 16,000, noise floor at level 2 RMS.)
By the way, photon shot noise definitely combines in RMS fashion, so there is as clear gain in that contribution to overall S/N ratio.
The key to getting an increase in "per pixel DR" by reducing pixel count is having dark noise (dark current, amp. noise etc.) that is somewhat uncorrelated between the raw pixels used to produce a downsampled pixel. Then there is some degree of cancellation of noise when signals are added, so RMS noise level increases less than signal strength. With partially correlated noise, the gain is not as much as in my above example, but it is still there.
-
But isn't this the exact type of creative thinking that this market needs?
If and only if they deliver. So far, RED has not delivered a single sensor bigger than about APS-C size; that is, all existing RED sensors fit the 33x26mm stepper size limit and so need no stitching or such to be fabricated.
For creative thinking, nice CGI images, and proposals of wonderful new photographic products without realization as actual products, I do not need the RED web site: I have all the self-styled geniuses in photography forums who are happy to tell us how to make a far better camera and that the camera and sensor makers are stupidly ignoring their great ideas.
-
Isn't maximum die size increasing?
Edmund
If and only if they deliver. So far, RED has not delivered a single sensor bigger than about APS-C size; that is, all existing RED sensors fit the 33x26mm stepper size limit and so need no stitching or such to be fabricated.
For creative thinking, nice CGI images, and proposals of wonderful new photographic products without realization as actual products, I do not need the RED web site: I have all the self-styled geniuses in photography forums who are happy to tell us how to make a far better camera and that the camera and sensor makers are stupidly ignoring their great ideas.
-
Isn't maximum die size increasing?
Edmund
Not that I can see.
As far as maximum field size in steppers, it has has been steady at 33x26mm for some years now for all major stepper makers, with one unhelpful exception. The exception is that some years ago, both Canon and Nikon introduced steppers with larger maximum field sizes. The Nikon is now discontinued, industry leader AMSL never bothered with field size larger than 33x26mm, leaving that one big Canon stepper, announced in December 2001: the FPA-5500iX http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?ac...mp;modelid=9165 (http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?act=OPDModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=2402&modelid=9165)
The Canon FPA-5500iX offers 50x50mm field size, but has a huge 500nm minimum feature size, and it is advertised mostly for early rough stages of fabrication and for making LCD panels. That huge feature size (the current state of the art is 45nm going on 32nm) makes it rather useless for camera sensors. Good CMOS photosites seem to need cell size about 20 or 30 times minimum feature size, giving a 10 to 15 micron minimum for that stepper. Kodak might well be using this to make its huge 50x50mm CCD's for Xray machines, but they have 24 micron cell size (only 4MP!).
As to die sizes:
- memory chips have no need to grow anywhere near 33x26mm.
- well over 99% of image sensors are considerably smaller than 33x26mm.
- IC's wobble up and down in size, going up as more cores and cache are added, and then down again with moves to a new smaller feature size. The latest Intel core i7 processors with four cores using 45nm process have a die size of 243sqmm, which coincidentally is the same as the nominal area of a 4/3" sensor, 18x13.5mm. It is way below the 858sqmm of 33x26mm. The next step for Intel will be downsizing to 32nm process, roughly halving die size.
So I see no signs of interest in increasing the maximum field size of steppers beyond 33x26mm.
-
Which leads us to the interesting question of how the current generation of Sony and Canon fullframe sensors are made.
I have a feeling that the Canon production tools department may have made a few internal samples of a special stepper, and Nikon may have done the same for Sony.
Edmund
Not that I can see.
So I see no signs of interest in increasing the maximum field size of steppers beyond 33x26mm.
-
Hi,
I have seen some article on the Sony sensor where it was visible that it is stitched.
Best regards
Erik
Which leads us to the interesting question of how the current generation of Sony and Canon fullframe sensors are made.
I have a feeling that the Canon production tools department may have made a few internal samples of a special stepper, and Nikon may have done the same for Sony.
Edmund
-
Which leads us to the interesting question of how the current generation of Sony and Canon fullframe sensors are made.
I have a feeling that the Canon production tools department may have made a few internal samples of a special stepper, and Nikon may have done the same for Sony.
I am curious about the basis for that feeling, as I am not aware of any evidence in that direction, and there is significant evidence suggesting otherwise: that the standard stitching method is used.
Canon has repeatedly said in whitepapers that it needs to use stitching to make its 36x24mm sensors, and that the 1D series sensors (about 29x19mm) are about the largest that can be made without stitching: Canon cites the currrent 33x26mm size limit in this context.
So with respect to Canon, the question is only "interesting" if you ignore what Canon has said.
I think I recall reading a Sony discussion of the technical challenges involved in making its new 36x24mm sensors which included the need for stitching for this sensor size.
I must also wonder why the impressive technological achievement of designing and making a special stepper would be concealed, even to the point of lying, rather than being boasted about in some website, press release or white paper.
it also seems very unlikely to me that Canon or Nikon would design and produce such a once-off stepper, requiring new optical components and such, for a single very low yield product. Steppers are usually made at least in dozens or hundreds to defray the R&D costs. Also, stitching is a well-established practice for producing relatively small volumes of large IC's: why would there be a exception, and indeed a "secret" exception, for this one case of large DSLR sensors?
And yes, 36x24mm sensors are small volume items. Steppers can have a throughput of about 130 300mm wafers per hour, so even if the yield for 36x24mm sensors were a pathetically low one per wafer (making the cost contribution of the wafer alone about $2000 per sensor, so yields must be better than this), one stepper could be producing almost 100,000 per month: far more than the estimated total production of all Canon, Nikon and Sony sensors in that format. So such a stepper would hav a capacity to make far more than any one company is actually fabricating.
It is thus far more likely that a single standard issue stepper working in stitching mode is all that each of Canon and Sony and whoever makes Nikon FX sensor need to make these 36x24mm sensors. Better yet, DSLR photosites are large enough that they do not need the latest generation steppers: something like 120nm process is probably fine, so older "hand-me-down" equipment can be used, for a further cost saving. That approach seems likely to be far cheaper than designing and building a custom stepper that would be used at well below full capacity.
-
In the future the "megapixel race" will stop.
I see two possibilities for sensor improvement:
1. Sophisticated sensor binning technologies.
Fuji EXR sensor is the best example at this moment. You can use the full resolution (12MP) or a lower resolution (6MP). In this second case the pixels are merged in pairs. There are two modes: 1. binning for wider dynamic range; 2. binning for lower noise.
This type of development bring more sense to additional increases in megapixels.
(http://www.dslrmagazine.com/images/stories/Digital/Fuji-EXR-up/Binning-nuevo-A.jpg)
2. Three-layer sensors.
The Foveon is the only working example right now. It is to be seen this technology can be scaled up to larger sensors at reasonable cost.
-
More CMOS tech improvements. Keep buying CCD folks. Those MFD companies need to support their CEO's
Sorry, I just have to slam cameras that cost $30k. I want one though..
CMOS link:
http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.c...es&ID=90916 (http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm?section=news&tpl=article&BrowsingType=Features&ID=90916)
-
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: because is nothing a 30MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 60MP 645 sensor cannot, with appropriate processing (downsampling or NR processing to improve S/N ratio while reducing resolution to match that of the 30MP sensor, *if and when* the lower res. is enough), but there *is* something that a 60MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 30MP 645 sensor cannot: more resolution. Within reason, a somewhat higher pixel count simply gives more options in resolution/noise level/DR trade-offs.
I am wondering if this is really true particularly with respect to diffraction / DOF concerns? I would also expect a moderate 30mpix pixel count back to have a faster frame rate than a 60mpix back with pixel binning algorithm.
-
I am wondering if this is really true particularly with respect to diffraction / DOF concerns?
Definitely with respect to those two. Processed down to the same resolution and displayed at the same size, both diffraction and OOF (DOF) effects will be the same for the same f-stop and focal length, because the diffraction blur spots and circles of confusion are the same size on the sensor, and so are the same size on the displayed image.
One related difference: equal diffraction spot size combined with higher resolution sampling of the higher pixel count sensor should reduce aliasing with sensors that lack an AA filter, and so help to reduce moiré. In DSP-speak, "oversampling is good".
I would also expect a moderate 30mpix pixel count back to have a faster frame rate than a 60mpix back with pixel binning algorithm.
Agreed: higher frame rates are possible the single greatest real reason for a camera company making a camera with a lower resolution sensor than it is capable of. That is probably why all the high speed PJ models from Canon and Nikon have fewer (and mostly bigger) photosites than their other high-end models. (Latest news: the "mere" 16MP of the Canon 1DMkIV and the even more humble 12MP of the Nikon D3S, each about US$5000.)
Actually true binning on the sensor might maintain fairly good speed, as only the binned lower pixel count has to be amplified and digitized. But that has to at least halve the linear resolution, 60MP -> 15MP. To get intermediate pixel counts like 30MP requires off-sensor down-ressing of the digital output, and so processing the whole 60MP through to A/D.
-
I've been impressed with the pixel binning feature on the P65+, I'm getting clean files at ISO 800 allied to a MF look. And I'm sure there's more that could be done with this technology. If we get to a 100MP back with pixel binning delivering clean 25MP files at ISO 1600, along with a live view facility on a better screen, then I'd upgrade. Otherwise I'm more than happy to stay with the P65+.
I know this has been said many times before without ever happening, but it does seem to me that we're approaching, if not the end game, then at least a plateau in MF digital development.
Hi Gary,
Are you finding the lenses are performing well enough for your P65+ back? My goal for a MF camera would be edge to edge un-compromised image quality. Do you have a wide angle lenses that is that good on a back of this resolution? Megapixels are great but if the image is not sharp or has CA then what's the point for an architectural or landscape photographer.
Thanks for any help.
-
Or will the rising tide of higher end 35mm format continue to squeeze MF, slowing ever more its ability to fund technological progress? After all, look how long MF lagged in getting auto-focus, in which it is still stuck at a single AF point!
If only the price for these cameras would fall fast enough, I think they would sell more than enough to cover their costs. Many professional photographers would love to buy a MF system but I think the prices are just out of line with the return on investment. I personally don't see the need for high ISO on a MF camera at all. But live view on a hi-res LCD and on a tethered computer is mandatory for me as all my clients expect it.
-
If only the price for these cameras would fall fast enough, I think they would sell more than enough to cover their costs.
If you mean through cutting retail prices by lowering margins: if it were that simple, MF makers would have figured it out a long time ago; their managers are not all brain dead, despite some forum cynicism.
If you mean cutting priced through cutting costs, that is also an utterly obvious goal ... I have to conclude that it is not at all easy to reduce the costs of these huge sensors, for reason that have been discussed a great deal.
By the way, there is no evidence that changing to CMOS sensors would reduce costs significantly; that is a misunderstanding of cost advantages that only apply to small, cheap "camera on a chip" CMOS sensor modules for phones, web-cams, and such. Note for example that Dalsa offers custom CMOS sensors, including the ability to make huge ones, and so did Kodak before discontinuing its CMOS division, yet no MF maker has taken that option.
-
If one would know the exact correlation between price drop and increase in sales, in any field, there would be a lot of billionaires.
Thierry
If you mean through cutting retail prices by lowering margins: if it were that simple, MF makers would have figured it out a long time ago; their managers are not all brain dead, despite some forum cynicism.
-
If only the price for these cameras would fall fast enough, I think they would sell more than enough to cover their costs. Many professional photographers would love to buy a MF system but I think the prices are just out of line with the return on investment. I personally don't see the need for high ISO on a MF camera at all. But live view on a hi-res LCD and on a tethered computer is mandatory for me as all my clients expect it.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the problem is probably the cost of the sensor. I can't imagine that the electronics or body add all that much, especially given that they are not having to support a high frame rate (which would require high speed electronics) or fancy auto focus. We know what sort of price the body, prism etc costs from the pre-digital age. And I presume the manufacturers buy the sensor from a third party, so the development costs will be spread over multiple customers, and priced in to the sensor. The issue is the large real estate. A 35mm sensor has a much higher reject rate compared to an APS-C one. And a MF sensor would be much worse. I'm sure someone could say what sort of price one might naively expect to pay for a sensor. I think the APS-C ones are down to $50-$100 a piece.
In the past MF had a key advantage over 35mm as the size of film grain was fixed for a given film speed e.g. Velvia 50. So increasing the film size was the route to higher quality. But digital can just increase the pixel density, subject to the lens resolution constraints. I guess this gets back to another thread on this forum about MF versus 35mm.
-
If one would know the exact correlation between price drop and increase in sales ...
And the one closest to knowing that correlation are surely not in the peanut gallery of internet forums ... unless the now-it-all posters telling camera companies how to run their businesses are all retired billionaire entrepreneurs ...
-
At the risk of stating the obvious, the problem is probably the cost of the sensor.
Yes, exacerbated by the poor and ever worse economies of scale in a MF market that has shrunk from a rather small 100,000 units a year or so late in the film era to maybe 10,000 a year for the whole MF industry with digital, while Canon and Nikon/Sony can each sell about 10,000 or more of their high end sensors every month (1DsMkIII+5DMkII, D3X+A900+A850.)
We know what sort of price the body, prism etc costs from the pre-digital age.
Yes, and MF body prices have gone way up since the film era (consider Mamiya 645AF then and now), indicating to me that lower volumes are forcing ever higher mark-ups to cover R&D costs ... Or that the total morons running all MF companies would have been far better off by keeping prices down where they were. Take your pick.
-
Not so at all, believe me: around 15% to 20%, maximum 30% of the total costs, depending on different variables (new product, end-of-life product, agreement on quantities, agreement on exclusivity, ... with manufacturer(s), etc ...).
R&D and software are the main costs, by far.
Gross margins are part of the enduser prices and are calculated according to business laws and to assure the survival of the companies, for those who still believe that the MF manufacturers are working with excessive margins.
Best regards,
Thierry
At the risk of stating the obvious, the problem is probably the cost of the sensor.
-
Not so at all, believe me: around 15% to 20%, maximum 30% of the total costs ...
R&D and software are the main costs, by far.
Do you mean that the price to MFDB makers are 15% to 30% of the total retail price? I have been told that the normal process of margins along the way mean that each $1 increase in component costs can add about $3 to retail, and if so, your percentages translate to sensor costs causing about 30% to 60% of retail price.
I can see that defraying R&D over unit sales only a few percent of what 35mm format DSLR's achieve and way under 1% of mainstream DLSR volume is a nasty cost multiplier too!
But if R&D dominates costs, not sensors, can you explain the big price differences between the Aptus-II models 5, 6 and 7 and 10? R&D costs should be similar for all models, with sensor differences then main difference, which makes me naively believe that sensor costs have a lot to do with the retail price.
-
Dear BJL,
What I was saying, to be clear, is that the cost of a sensor in the total costs of a manufacturer are those in my post above. Usually around 30% for a new product. The rest being mainly R&D and software costs + Parts. To these costs the manufacturer applies a gross margin which gives a "Export Price", the price the distributors are paying. This Gross Margin can obviously vary from one product to another (see answer to your last question below), but usually not from one distributor to another (or from one country to another), except for special deals (based mainly on quantities or special promotions in certain countries). I believe this is known and can be understood by all.
What happens after that can be very different, from one manufacturer to another, and I believe this is where there is so much confusion in pricing (not only with manufacturers of DMFBs): some manufacturers are working with MSRPs (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price) or RRPs (Recommended Retail Price) or List Prices. We all know that these prices have been created to have a standard worldwide, or at least in some regions, but we also know that there are huge differences in "final" retail prices (so-called "Enduser Price") despite the MSRPs, simply because these "Enduser Prices" cannot be the same everywhere. While many distributors are working with these recommended prices with their endusers, some simply cannot: the transport or shipping costs, the import taxes, the import duties, the luxury taxes, the storage fees at custom clearance, the insurances, etc ... are sometimes/often very different from one continent, country or region to another. This gives a "Landed Price" which can be very different from one country to another. All distributors have to work with these "Landed Costs", to which they apply their margin: most if not all of the distributors are working with the same and normal margins, but the "Landed Price" makes the difference. Some countries in Asia are a good example for how it can be different, and I could write a book about it (grey market, smuggling, etc ...).
To answer your last question: I cannot speak for Leaf and the Aptus products in particular. But I can speak for what I know. There are products which include less/more margin than others (Entry product, Top-of-Line product, products which are discounted, products which have reached the "Break-Even" (Total Costs = Sales).
Remark: in your last sentence (... R&D dominates costs ...) you forgot the word "software": these together represent the main costs. Software costs are not to be underestimated: think about the number of people working alone for the software part, they have to be paid somehow, given that most MFDB manufacturers are giving the software FOC. But no, it is not FOC, a software.
Best regards,
Thierry
Do you mean that the price to MFDB makers are 15% to 30% of the total retail price? I have been told that the normal process of margins along the way mean that each $1 increase in component costs can add about $3 to retail, and if so, your percentages translate to sensor costs causing about 30% to 60% of retail price.
I can see that defraying R&D over unit sales only a few percent of what 35mm format DSLR's achieve and way under 1% of mainstream DLSR volume is a nasty cost multiplier too!
But if R&D dominates costs, not sensors, can you explain the big price differences between the Aptus-II models 5, 6 and 7 and 10? R&D costs should be similar for all models, with sensor differences then main difference, which makes me naively believe that sensor costs have a lot to do with the retail price.
-
I'm not sure there is a disagreement here. BJL indicated that the number of units sold is low, which means that the overheads are spread over fewer units, pushing up the end user price. So the sensor is a significant part of the cost, but so is the cost of distribution, marketing, sales etc due to smaller numbers sold.
BTW Thierry, when you refer to 'software' do you mean the in camera firmware? Or do you mean the software installed on a PC/Mac to process the RAW files? If the latter, then surely that is pretty much a one off cost, and the associated overhead is thus less and less each year. And in fact much of the firmware (JPG creation) must be a one off cost too, since the basic algorithms are pretty much the same irrespective of pixel count. Or maybe I'm missing something.
-
If one would know the exact correlation between price drop and increase in sales, in any field, there would be a lot of billionaires.
Thierry
I like this line a lot!
Brgds/K
-
BTW Thierry, when you refer to 'software' do you mean the in camera firmware? Or do you mean the software installed on a PC/Mac to process the RAW files? If the latter, then surely that is pretty much a one off cost, and the associated overhead is thus less and less each year. And in fact much of the firmware (JPG creation) must be a one off cost too, since the basic algorithms are pretty much the same irrespective of pixel count. Or maybe I'm missing something.
What I know about the software is that this is pretty much an on-going process as well. This includes both firmware as well as processing software. A team of developers and a bunch of beta testers is constantly working on newer and improved versions of software. Surely the developers like to be paid as well.
-
I'm not sure there is a disagreement here. BJL indicated that the number of units sold is low, which means that the overheads are spread over fewer units, pushing up the end user price. So the sensor is a significant part of the cost, but so is the cost of distribution, marketing, sales etc due to smaller numbers sold.
I am not sure too, except that sensor costs used to be much more at the beginning of DMF.
Distribution, Marketing and Sales costs are usually not calculated in "manufacturing costs", but are in included in the gross margin.
BTW Thierry, when you refer to 'software' do you mean the in camera firmware? Or do you mean the software installed on a PC/Mac to process the RAW files? If the latter, then surely that is pretty much a one off cost, and the associated overhead is thus less and less each year. And in fact much of the firmware (JPG creation) must be a one off cost too, since the basic algorithms are pretty much the same irrespective of pixel count. Or maybe I'm missing something.
I was speaking about software/firmware, and all related to this: it is a "never-ending story", and it is an important part of the costs for a manufacturer.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
What I know about the software is that this is pretty much an on-going process as well. This includes both firmware as well as processing software. A team of developers and a bunch of beta testers is constantly working on newer and improved versions of software. Surely the developers like to be paid as well.
That's exactly it, Dustback
Thierry
-
I like this line a lot!
Brgds/K
... and I am still looking to find this correlation.
Best regards
Thierry
-
If one would know the exact correlation between price drop and increase in sales, in any field, there would be a lot of billionaires.
Thierry
I am sure Hasselblad, (or whoever they really are now), and Phase Mamiya have thought hard and long about this formula. But I wonder what percent of film MF users from the old days would jump right back to MF if the price was reasonable. I know I would, and most of my friends probably would too. Someone was saying the ratio went from 100,000 units to 10,000 units - wow. So if only one third of the old MF users would come back, (30,000), then their volume would triple. I would bet for at least one third to half, but the price would have to be back to where they used to be for that to happen. And that would require the economy to recover first.
I think we just need another Jim Jannard to go after the MF market. Although he seems to plan on it competing in the still world, his primary focus is on filmmaking. Time will tell.
Oh well, I better have another cup of coffee so I stop all this dreaming.
-
I am sure Hasselblad, (or whoever they really are now), and Phase Mamiya have thought hard and long about this formula. But I wonder what percent of film MF users from the old days would jump right back to MF if the price was reasonable. I know I would, and most of my friends probably would too. Someone was saying the ratio went from 100,000 units to 10,000 units - wow. So if only one third of the old MF users would come back, (30,000), then their volume would triple. I would bet for at least one third to half, but the price would have to be back to where they used to be for that to happen. And that would require the economy to recover first.
I think we just need another Jim Jannard to go after the MF market. Although he seems to plan on it competing in the still world, his primary focus is on filmmaking. Time will tell.
Oh well, I better have another cup of coffee so I stop all this dreaming.
That is exactly the point: nobody is sure of or can predict the sales increase factor for a given price reduction, respectively gross margin drop, being it given that it is a good product, that the market is stable (no financial or economic or political crisis, etc ...) AND that you have time enough to apply what you think will make you a "billionaire".
Best regards,
Thierry
-
The current CCDs cost about 3000-5000$ each if they're bought in quite large numbers (>1000): http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_ima...t2008-html.aspx (http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_imager_has_50_Mpixels-article-oprc03_oct2008-html.aspx)
The MF-systems propably could be cheaper, but they would still be much more expensive than 35mm-systems due to stricter testing.
"I think we just need another Jim Jannard to go after the MF market."
Great! We could call it "GREEN", it would have a large CMOS-sensor (let's say 36x48mm) made by Sony (but of course "GREEN" would never admit that and call it "Millenium") and be sold just for 5000$ - great sensor-size/price-ratio! But it would be manufactured in Singapore with low environmental standards by cheap (guest-)workers (<<1000$/month) instead of skilled craftsmen. The body will be made out of plastic/cheap metal, the camera overheats from time to time and it has no optical viewfinder, instead they use a 800x600-EVF! And then they rehouse old bronica-lenses and call them "GREEN"-lenses and sell them for twice the price. But what's really great about it: it has "GREEN-RAW" (so you cannot use LR, C1...)- it interpolates the 25megapixels to 100Megapixels @12bit and compresses it with JPG2000 in a 10:1-ratio to handy 10MB-files! That would be a revolution!
I think Phase and Hasselblad/Fuji should really invest R&D into their systems (at least Phase has some money) - custom ASICs, better screens and mabye a custom-designed CMOS when the technology finally means no trade-off in low-ISO-quality. But they shouldn't become a "standard 35mm-system" with a large sensor at any price - be careful what you wish for...
-
The current CCDs cost about 3000-5000$ each if they're bought in quite large numbers (>1000): http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_ima...t2008-html.aspx (http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_imager_has_50_Mpixels-article-oprc03_oct2008-html.aspx)
Thanks for that link. After all the speculation and vague claims, this is the first concrete pricing I have seen, so let me quote it:
US$3,500 for the new Kodak KAF-50100 48x36mm, 50MP TRUESENSE Full Frame CCD of the H4D-50 and such, in sufficiently large volume purchases.
Source: http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_ima...t2008-html.aspx (http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_imager_has_50_Mpixels-article-oprc03_oct2008-html.aspx)
-
AGREED!
In fact price has no elasticity. Say Leaf AFi II 10 sold at $40000, if the price was $10000, would you buy 4 outfits? Unlikely. But at $10000, Leaf has no profit at all.
Xin
I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000. Then factor in dealer rebate (40% on final price), local rep payroll, unsold stock, inhouse demo units, repair units etc, and the COST OF RUNNING A BUSINESS+PROFIT. and you end up with a final user prince of $6-8K.
A single craftsman, or a small craft firm, working on order and doing direct sales, could probably get buy selling the same product direct for $4K.
Edmund
-
Dear Edmund,
This is a very untrue claim, far from the reality.
Sorry, I have to correct it, to avoid any confusion among the readers here.
Best regards nevertheless,
Thierry
I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000.
Edmund
-
I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000. Then factor in dealer rebate (40% on final price), local rep payroll, unsold stock, inhouse demo units, repair units etc, and the COST OF RUNNING A BUSINESS+PROFIT. and you end up with a final user prince of $6-8K.
It does not matter what Leaf, Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya think the price should be. The market is speaking for them. Either make it cheaper or go out of business.
-
I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000.
Post #59 above gives a source for pricing of US$3,500 for volume purchase of a Kodak 49x37mm sensor with 6 micron cell size. How do you get from there to $1000 total cost to Leaf, even if the sensor is downsized a bit to 44x33mm (about 20% less area)? Using older sensor designs with bigger photosites does not significantly reduce sensor fab. costs, though Kodak and Dalsa probably sell those older sensor models at lower margins than the new 6 micron models.
There is a strange trend in these discussions of base-less optimism about the true costs of DMF gear, coupled with equally evidence-free cynicism about the stupidity and/or greed of DMF makers in their pricing policies, technological choices etc. I feel for Thierry, Steve and others associated with the industry, whose probably well-informed comments are so often dismissed as excuses and propaganda.
-
I feel for Thierry, Steve and others associated with the industry, whose probably well-informed comments are so often dismissed as excuses and propaganda.
Thanks BJL,
I simply wish to remind that I can't any longer be accused of propaganda or of having a biased speaking: I do not work for any manufacturer since a few months now, and as such simply contribute here only to give information and share experiences, as long as it does not harm my previous employer, beside learning also from other members.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
... I can't any longer be accused of propaganda or of having a biased speaking: I do not work for any manufacturer since a few months now, and as such simply contribute here only to give information and share experiences, as long as it does not harm my previous employer ...
Indeed, that makes you an especially valuable asset in these discussions ... even if I sometimes challenge you to support your claims and interpretations, because as a scientist, I do not totally believe anyone. (Even Einstein got some things badly wrong!)
-
Indeed, that makes you an especially valuable asset in these discussions ... even if I sometimes challenge you to support your claims and interpretations, because as a scientist, I do not totally believe anyone. (Even Einstein got some things badly wrong!)
BJL,
No problem to be challenged, that makes the discussions interesting and going forward, as long as the challenge comes with respect and sensed claims, without rant or cynicism or even insults.
In this case I will always try to explain it with words based on my experiences and to try to open the minds about the manufacturer's side of the things: no, it isn't as easy as often described and explained here (and elsewhere).
What is interesting here is the"old" idea that was floating around for years now, deep in the minds and considered as a fact: that sensor costs represent the major part in the cost of a MFDB. I tried to correct it (on this platform) already 3 years ago, a couple of times. I am glad "georgl" did find the current price of one of the most recent and newest sensor to eventually prove this.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
AGREED!
In fact price has no elasticity. Say Leaf AFi II 10 sold at $40000, if the price was $10000, would you buy 4 outfits? Unlikely. But at $10000, Leaf has no profit at all.
Xin
Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.
-
The current CCDs cost about 3000-5000$ each if they're bought in quite large numbers (>1000): http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_ima...t2008-html.aspx (http://www2.electronicproducts.com/CCD_imager_has_50_Mpixels-article-oprc03_oct2008-html.aspx)
The MF-systems propably could be cheaper, but they would still be much more expensive than 35mm-systems due to stricter testing.
"I think we just need another Jim Jannard to go after the MF market."
Great! We could call it "GREEN", it would have a large CMOS-sensor (let's say 36x48mm) made by Sony (but of course "GREEN" would never admit that and call it "Millenium") and be sold just for 5000$ - great sensor-size/price-ratio! But it would be manufactured in Singapore with low environmental standards by cheap (guest-)workers (<<1000$/month) instead of skilled craftsmen. The body will be made out of plastic/cheap metal, the camera overheats from time to time and it has no optical viewfinder, instead they use a 800x600-EVF! And then they rehouse old bronica-lenses and call them "GREEN"-lenses and sell them for twice the price. But what's really great about it: it has "GREEN-RAW" (so you cannot use LR, C1...)- it interpolates the 25megapixels to 100Megapixels @12bit and compresses it with JPG2000 in a 10:1-ratio to handy 10MB-files! That would be a revolution!
I think Phase and Hasselblad/Fuji should really invest R&D into their systems (at least Phase has some money) - custom ASICs, better screens and mabye a custom-designed CMOS when the technology finally means no trade-off in low-ISO-quality. But they shouldn't become a "standard 35mm-system" with a large sensor at any price - be careful what you wish for...
I take it you are a filmmaker that for some reason hates the RED camera? Not sure where you get your information from but they are doing very well and have more than a few loyal followers like Steven Soderbergh, Peter Jackson,.... but I guess they don't know what they are doing, right?
It's a fantastic camera that went through some growing pains but is now working very well and allowed a huge number of filmmakers to produce a look that was 'out of reach' expensive before it's introduction.
I totally agree with your last paragraph, and that is exactly what Jim did with his camera. But I am not sure what you mean by "standard 35mm system at any price?"
-
I think Leaf can make a back for less than $1000. Then factor in dealer rebate (40% on final price), local rep payroll, unsold stock, inhouse demo units, repair units etc, and the COST OF RUNNING A BUSINESS+PROFIT. and you end up with a final user prince of $6-8K.
A single craftsman, or a small craft firm, working on order and doing direct sales, could probably get buy selling the same product direct for $4K.
Edmund
40% Dealer margin in the photo industry? Not unless you are a filter or a camera strap. Even in the days when digital sales took a LOT of customer support the margins were no more than the 20% range. Today they are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller ......
-
Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.
The primary optimism I have for the market is that over time, Photographers have shown they are willing to go through quite a bit to get the equipment that tilts the room for them. I don't know about medium format revolutions, but in my eyes the core advantages of medium format compared to 35mm have been image quality and the look of the file. What holds medium format back now is the lack of sophistication in the camera and the inability of many photographers to afford the larger sensor products.
I do not believe 30% of the previous medium format market will ever return, regardless of how much the products evolve, mostly because of economics and how the market has changed since 100,000 shot medium format. Even if medium format provided high ISO, and in-camera sophistication to go along with their core image quality advantage, I imagine no more than 10%-15% of the market would return due to the fact that - commercially - they can get close enough for much less financial outlay.
But if medium format produces a compelling product that approaches the sophistication seen in 35mm competitors, they can succeed and grow, as the portion of the market that can afford and choose to afford that level of quality certainly has shown the ability and the inclination to switch.
I also feel that while medium format manufacturers have made their share of business mistakes, clearly they have struggled with developing in-camera functionality that approaches 35mm functionality. Whether this is due to CCD technology dependence, I don't know. But certainly some of it is - lack of high ISO and in-camera Live Video, etc. And scaling CMOS technology to medium format sizes remains a challenge. If it was so easy, what is keeping Canon or Nikon from doing the same thing? Perhaps they will , or perhaps they've already realized that while it's possible, the amount of resources to make it happen - in a near-term time span - will ensure that final prices would exceed the market's ability to purchase in numbers sufficient to reclaim their investment.
I do know that medium format manufacturers are not as stupid and ignorant as some think - they are looking at CMOS technology, they are not blindly married to CCD. Tthe most effective way to large sensors that perform is the march they must continue on, doesn't matter whether it is CCD or CMOS. Whichever gets them there quickest and easiest. Because that is a major part of the reason the photographers who choose to, still shoot medium format. Perhaps entry-priced products is an important strategy for medium format, but I believe the continued pursuit of larger sensor sizes - 6x7? - and core image quality, combined with enhanced in-camera capability, is just as important and I think, actually more critical.
Steve
-
Steve,
many good points. I go for Canon and Nikon not bothering with MF now for the same reason they did not in the film era, when it was a far large market sector: not enough potential ROI to spend big on entering MF. And I go for the "larger sensor sizes" being 56x42mm!
... Whether this is due to CCD technology dependence, I don't know. But certainly some of it is - lack of high ISO and in-camera Live Video, etc. ...
I do know that medium format manufacturers are not as stupid and ignorant as some think - they are looking at CMOS technology, they are not blindly married to CCD.
Live View and video might be a more important addition than high ISO, and does not necessarily require CMOS: interline CCD can do the job, with not too much DR loss to Full Frame CCD in this era of far smaller feature size fabrication (consider Sony's interline CCD's for DSLRs). And interline CCD with microlenses can do a whole lot better at high ISO that DMF has done so far (consider Sony's interline CCD's for DSLRs again!). And Kodak offers interline CCD, and can stitch it up it in large sizes.
So there are options that might be more rapidly attainable than CMOS, even if CMOS is in the more distant future.
-
What is interesting here is the"old" idea that was floating around for years now, deep in the minds and considered as a fact: that sensor costs represent the major part in the cost of a MFDB. I tried to correct it (on this platform) already 3 years ago, a couple of times. I am glad "georgl" did find the current price of one of the most recent and newest sensor to eventually prove this.
I'm certainly glad to have been corrected.
-
Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.
The problem is that people such as wedding photographers who were big consumers of MF film gear can get the desired end result from a 35mm DSLR. So much if not most of the old market has gone. Many MF makers have gone, and maybe more will until the number each makes allows prices to be reduced to a more competitive level. Or maybe MF will always be for niche work (huge prints, internet/software millionaires, etc).
-
I do know that medium format manufacturers are not as stupid and ignorant as some think - they are looking at CMOS technology, they are not blindly married to CCD. Tthe most effective way to large sensors that perform is the march they must continue on, doesn't matter whether it is CCD or CMOS.
Steve:
I want MF to succeed as much or more than the next guy. I shoot people, and I shoot fast, but I still prefer the way the MF lenses render focus, over anything I own in Canon.
But how can one tiny guy in Orange County come up with a way to make a large CMOS in his built-from-ground-up camera, when all the brains at Hasselblad, Phase, and Leaf can't? Or I guess I should say Dalsa and Kodak? How does this happen?
You are to be given credit for shipping this Leaf back and under ten grand, but with base ASA of something like 25, coupled with the fact that MF are slower than 35 lenses, how can this back be competitive in this economy? At some point, you can't drag around Profotos to light everything; you've simply got to be able to bump up the ASA to get you in the safe mirror-slap area, of at least 125th.
Are we not beginning to see a radical split in the market, where the landscape guys, car guys, tripod guys, studio guys are the only ones that can justify CCD/MF backs any longer?
In my opinion, there is no time for "the march to go on". The time to come to market is RIGHT NOW, in order to survive.
Again, how can that Oakley guy do what he's doing, when giant multinational corporations can't? Did someone just roll the dice, years ago, and say that "ASA 100 will be enough"?
-
Yes but the I think someone has to make a revolutionary move in this market eventually or there will be no market left.
It's going to only get more difficult for photographers to justify an average of five times the price for a MF system with so many compromises over a high end 35mm DSLR. If Canon and Nikon keep improving lenses as they seem to finally be doing, the differences will only keep getting smaller.
Sensors will get commoditized in due course; at that point Hasselblad will be back to selling cameras, with spare "digital magazines". Get a lo-rez video magazine or a hi-rez still magazine, or a magazine that can shoot fast etc.
Edmund
-
If'n I was Phase, this would be my Catalogue. The choices would be very small. Achieve lower price point by having fewer backs, and get the volume up:
1. The Terry Richardson 22: 22mp, two frames per second, usable ASA of up to 800. Price point: around ten grand.
2. The Crewdson/Misrach 60: A billion megapixels, one frame every two seconds, ASA doesn't matter 'cause you're on a Majestic Tripod. Price point: around thirty grand.
3. (Optional) The SallyMann/PaoloRoversi: 80 megapixels, one frame every two minutes, ASA doesn't matter 'cause you're on a Foba Stand, comes with a custom made f 0.005 lens mounted onto the handmade wooden Mamiya 645 body. Not for sale, available for rent only, in some dusty hardwood-floor, window-lit loft in SOHO. Daily rental around ten thousand. Kit includes nude model, espresso machine, clove cigarettes, B/W custom printer profile for Epson 7990. (Now THIS option would put them on the map, kinda like that old Polaroid 20x24 camera in Boston).
-
I entirely agree with you.
Eduardo
Sensors will get commoditized in due course; at that point Hasselblad will be back to selling cameras, with spare "digital magazines". Get a lo-rez video magazine or a hi-rez still magazine, or a magazine that can shoot fast etc.
Edmund
-
But how can one tiny guy in Orange County come up with a way to make a large CMOS in his built-from-ground-up camera, when all the brains at Hasselblad, Phase, and Leaf can't? Or I guess I should say Dalsa and Kodak? How does this happen?
First, note that Jim Jannard and RED have not yet delivered anything beyond cinema 35mm format, with the next step up probably to 24x36mm format, so still catching up with Canon, Nikon and Sony on CMOS size (and for all I know, someone like Sony or Dalsa is actually making these sensors for RED.) Let us see what he and RED actually deliver in medium format sizes, and at what price.
Two guesses though:
1. There is a lot more money to be made in the young and rapidly growing market for digital cinema cameras than in the shrinking sector of "still photography offering IQ greater than full 35mm format digital". If that is true, or just if that is the perception of the capital markets, then capital is far easier for RED to raise.
2. Jannard has a 2.8 billion dollars net worth, and a willingness to gamble with a big chunk of it guided by his enthusiasm for photography. (The dude owns a 1200/5.6)
On the other hand, Hasselblad (like Rollei) has been close to bankruptcy on and off over recent decades, and Mamiya more recently, and I do not think that any of the companies in the DMF game (H., Phase One, Mamiya, Leaf, Leica, etc.) are "huge multi-nationals": I have seen figures of a few hundred employees for several of them.
-
But how can one tiny guy in Orange County come up with a way to make a large CMOS in his built-from-ground-up camera, when all the brains at Hasselblad, Phase, and Leaf can't?
He hasn't. Words are cheap.
-
(The dude owns a 1200/5.6)
so he can keep an eye on his island, from home base ...
-
First, note that Jim Jannard and RED have not yet delivered anything beyond cinema 35mm format, with the next step up probably to 24x36mm format, so still catching up with Canon, Nikon and Sony on CMOS size
Excellent point. It doesn't make sense to compare theoretical future products with products that have actually shipped. One of the things I am guessing that we'll hear from RED in 4 days is that the Medium Format backs are significantly delayed (18-24 more months), but I hope I'm wrong.
(and for all I know, someone like Sony or Dalsa is actually making these sensors for RED.)
RED has been pretty specific that they have their own (obviously fabless) sensor design team. Perhaps they are lying, but some industry insiders (like Eric Fossum) have commented that they're doing genuine and remarkable image sensor design.
Let us see what he and RED actually deliver in medium format sizes, and at what price.
Agreed.
(The dude owns a 1200/5.6)
FWIW, he sold it last year at a tidy profit. (It was not long after that when B&H put a 1200mm f/5.6 on their web site.)
-
He hasn't. Words are cheap.
Time will tell. I just don't really understand his motives for moving beyond even the S35 (APS) sized sensor for movie work. That is his niche and he's doing well. He must believe the larger sensors are achievable to make those claims. But he will be overwhelmed with orders for Scarlet and Epic very soon, and don't see that he'll have any time or motivation to pursue a 645 camera.
-
To make my cynical "GREEN"-comparison a little bit more clear and to get rid of some of the myths regarding RED:
RED is a prosumer camcorder with a unique market position - it uses a Super35-sized (24mm wide) single sensor and a common bayonet usually known from professional systems but it's technological quality is closer to prosumer camcorders from Pansonic or Sony - although they use an entirely different technical approach to achieve this quality.
It's like a MFDB at a much lower price but with ergonomic/technical aspects of consumer-cameras - it doesn't fit in the scheme
Professional "cine-style"-cameras cost much more (50-150k$) due to extreme build-quality, service, optical viewfinders (ARRI), highly selected sensors (Panavision takes only one of 600 sensors from Sony!!!) but the main difference is their ability to record real, uncompressed RAW (compression works well for final images but not as an automatized process within the camera) created out of oversampled/"non-bayered" signals (that's the clue about "4k", it's interpolated - there is no current digital system capable of more than real 2k - photosites on sensor = pixels in the final images isn't appropiate in professional video). The RED uses strong internal compression (about 1:10) to handle the high data-rates.
RED uses an unknown CMOS-sensor, but none of it's technology or capabilities (resolution, color rendition, DR...) is surprising or unique - it's a good prosumer tool worth it's price to some people - but the only amazing thing is it's marketing. RED doesn't manufacture one single piece of equipment, their HQ is a distribution/marketing center.
Don't mix up technical with artistic quality, some of the greatest photographers used shitty equipment. In fact, just looking at Mr. Soderberghs two last movies makes clear why RED shouldn't be used for the big screen... Peter Jackson although decided against RED for his new film and choose 35mm instead.
The professional high-end-cinematography is quite stable and well-served by two (+ some tiny companies) legendary, engineer-driven companies giving cinematographers high-end-equipment which has little to do with the mass-market but is a nearly perfect tool for their demanding work. No marketing-talk, long lifetime, open prototype testing over years to get things right, choosing the right, not the cheap way...
Let's hope demanding photographers still get the same chance and aren't forced to use press-cameras in the future...
-
He hasn't. Words are cheap.
Actually this type of circuit can be designed with low manpower, like RAM, because basically you just need to design a cell and some amps.
I think I could probably still do such a design myself if I had to. It might take me a couple of years though
Edmund
-
may be Canon or Sony can be the next medoum format back mannufacurer by stiching 2 5D-II sensor togeher and make the exisintg medium format camera flexibility we all talked about?
-
RED is a prosumer camcorder...
Interesting. That's the first time I've ever seen someone take that position.
...it's technological quality is closer to prosumer camcorders from Pansonic or Sony
May I ask you to expound on these technological qualities in more detail? When I think of ways in which they compare and contrast, here is what I identify:
- Camcorder sensor size: Mostly 1/4", 1/3", 1/2", and maybe 2/3" (depending on your idea of prosumer). That's 4mm to 10mm wide. It does not allow for very much control over DOF, even at f/1.6 on 1/3". (DigiPrimes on 2/3" is sufficent DOF control for most movie work, but they probably wouldn't consider that prosumer).
- RED ONE Sensor size:24.4x12.2mm. That allows more control over depth of field as well as the use of a wider variety of lenses (some that are decidedly not prosumer, like the Master Primes).
- Camcorder resolution: the best prosumer camcorders (and even the $250,000 F35) only have 1920x1080 files. If you have the bare minimum amount of anti-aliasing (2.5 pixels per line pair, though I much prefer at least 3), that's only 432 lp/PH and 768 lp/PW. Of course, many of the prosumer camcorders allow their images to be contaminated by aliasing artifacts; if you count those artifacts toward resolution, you can get up to the maximum of 960 lp/PW. (Granted, most viewers actually like and prefer aliasing, but I still don't think it should be forced on everyone.)
- RED ONE Resolution: 144 l/mm *measured* resolution. That's 1750 lp/PW, over twice as much as an anti-aliased 1080p camera (768 lp/PW). Look at the proof: http://www.cinematography.net/natress-red-res.html (http://www.cinematography.net/natress-red-res.html)
- Camcorder compression: There's a bit of variety here, from 1440x1080 8-bit 4:2:0 MPEG-2 25 Mbps (3 MB/s) to 1920x1080 h.264 8-bit 4:2:0 17 Mbps (2 MB/s). The most expensive cinema/video cameras use HDCAM-SR, which is 1920x1080 10-bit 4:4:4 440 Mbps (55 MB/s).
- RED ONE compression: 4480x1920 raw wavelet-compressed 12-bit 42 MB/s. The number of pixels is over four times higher, bit depth is four times higher, and the bitrate is an order of magnitude higher. Furthermore, the quality is even superior to HDCAM-SR, without even considering the resolution advantage (i.e. downsampled to 1920x1080).
- Color accuracy: Less metamerism and better Delta-E measurements than any 3-chip camera.
- Frame rate: No camcorder that I know of can hit 120 FPS at 2K.
- Luma and chroma aliasing. Look at the zone plate above for proof that the RED ONE has low aliasing. The Genesis/F35 have far worse aliasing, it's bad enough that high end cinematographers notice and dislike the artifacts.
There are certainly some ways in which a prosumer camcorder is superior to the RED ONE, but I think the above difference place the RED ONE firmly in the realm of digital cinema.
Professional "cine-style"-cameras cost much more (50-150k$) [...], the main difference is their ability to record real, uncompressed RAW
Can you name even one full length feature film that was shot entirely on real, uncompressed raw? There might have been one or two (I've never heard of them), out of tens of thousands. Even 30-second commercials have a hard time justifying the astronomical costs associated with uncompressed data capture (over 2,600 Mbps for DALSA), which is one of the main reasons why DALSA's camera division died. A lot of feature films use highly processed non-RAW formats like HDCAM-SR, which already has the color matrix, black clip, noise reduction, tone curve, saturation, contrast, and other image modifications applied to the data and converted to 10-bit log. RED ONE, on the other hand, only has wavelet compression.
(that's the clue about "4k", it's interpolated - there is no current digital system capable of more than real 2k - photosites on sensor = pixels in the final images isn't appropiate in professional video).
I kindly disagree. RED ONE measures 3.2K just fine, and that is far higher than 2K. See the proof for yourself:
http://www.cinematography.net/natress-red-res.html (http://www.cinematography.net/natress-red-res.html)
Have you seen the zone plates of other cameras like the F35? Not only is their luma and chroma resolution far lower, but they have aliasing at lower spatial frequencies as well.
The RED uses strong internal compression (about 1:10) to handle the high data-rates.
HDCAM-SR uses 55 MB/s for a paltry 2 MP 10-bit, wheras RED ONE uses far superior technology to get 9 MP 12-bit into 44 MB/s. By the time you downsample down to 2 MP 12-bit for comparison with HDCAM-SR, you will not see *any* compression artifacts (if indeed it was possible to see any at 9 MP; most people do not).
RED uses an unknown CMOS-sensor, but none of it's technology or capabilities (resolution, color rendition, DR...) is surprising or unique
Funny, because Eric Fossum said RED ONE's capabilities were quite remarkable and indicated the future direction of sensor technology. Please don't be offended that I take his word over yours.
Peter Jackson although decided against RED for his new film and choose 35mm instead.
Well, some other directors/DPs found that it was sufficient:
http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/ (http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/)
Plus, I think their reels are just excellent:
http://red.cachefly.net/redreel/RedReel_h264_720.mov (http://red.cachefly.net/redreel/RedReel_h264_720.mov)
http://red.cachefly.net/RedReel500.mov (http://red.cachefly.net/RedReel500.mov)
Let's hope demanding photographers [...] aren't forced to use press-cameras in the future...
Agreed.
-
Excellent point. It doesn't make sense to compare theoretical future products with products that have actually shipped. One of the things I am guessing that we'll hear from RED in 4 days is that the Medium Format backs are significantly delayed (18-24 more months), but I hope I'm wrong.
I'm gonna say 6 - 12 months. Just because I choose to. But I'll wager you, Daniel, 1 PayPal buck to this end.
By the way, I was just on my way to check out your sensor comparison test over at REDUSER. Thanks for posting it!
Don't mix up technical with artistic quality, some of the greatest photographers used shitty equipment.
Peter Jackson although decided against RED for his new film and choose 35mm instead.
No offense, but doesn't either of these sentences negate the integrity of the other?
Thanks,
-c
-
Thanks.
I'm gonna say 6 - 12 months. Just because I choose to. But I'll wager you, Daniel, 1 PayPal buck to this end.
You're on.
-
To make my cynical "GREEN"-comparison a little bit more clear and to get rid of some of the myths regarding RED:
RED is a prosumer camcorder with a unique market position - it uses a Super35-sized (24mm wide) single sensor and a common bayonet usually known from professional systems but it's technological quality is closer to prosumer camcorders from Pansonic or Sony - although they use an entirely different technical approach to achieve this quality.
It's like a MFDB at a much lower price but with ergonomic/technical aspects of consumer-cameras - it doesn't fit in the scheme
Professional "cine-style"-cameras cost much more (50-150k$) due to extreme build-quality, service, optical viewfinders (ARRI), highly selected sensors (Panavision takes only one of 600 sensors from Sony!!!) but the main difference is their ability to record real, uncompressed RAW (compression works well for final images but not as an automatized process within the camera) created out of oversampled/"non-bayered" signals (that's the clue about "4k", it's interpolated - there is no current digital system capable of more than real 2k - photosites on sensor = pixels in the final images isn't appropiate in professional video). The RED uses strong internal compression (about 1:10) to handle the high data-rates.
RED uses an unknown CMOS-sensor, but none of it's technology or capabilities (resolution, color rendition, DR...) is surprising or unique - it's a good prosumer tool worth it's price to some people - but the only amazing thing is it's marketing. RED doesn't manufacture one single piece of equipment, their HQ is a distribution/marketing center.
Don't mix up technical with artistic quality, some of the greatest photographers used shitty equipment. In fact, just looking at Mr. Soderberghs two last movies makes clear why RED shouldn't be used for the big screen... Peter Jackson although decided against RED for his new film and choose 35mm instead.
The professional high-end-cinematography is quite stable and well-served by two (+ some tiny companies) legendary, engineer-driven companies giving cinematographers high-end-equipment which has little to do with the mass-market but is a nearly perfect tool for their demanding work. No marketing-talk, long lifetime, open prototype testing over years to get things right, choosing the right, not the cheap way...
Let's hope demanding photographers still get the same chance and aren't forced to use press-cameras in the future...
I am not sure how to politely say this but it doesn't sound like you have any clue about what you are saying. Next time RED is at a trade show such as NAB, stop by and watch their 4K projected sample reel all taken from stock footage and other real DPs shooting with their camera and you will be blown away from the quality. The RED certainly had issues, but it's being used quite often by many filmmakers with outstanding results. 35MM movie film, being very high quality color negative stock, will be hard to beat for latitude and detail and many DPs simply refuse to shoot digital out of insecurity.
RED's new models Epic and Scarlet with delivery dates to be announced in a few days will probably settle any and all arguments about both their technical and image quality.
-
Actually this type of circuit can be designed with low manpower, like RAM, because basically you just need to design a cell and some amps.
... and then you have to be able to read them all out fast enough without adding too much noise, which too-high clock rates can do to analog signals. After all, read speed limitations have held back the frame rate-pixel count combinations of DSLR's for years, being the most likely reason for even many top-of-the line DSLRs offering lower frame rates than even many moderately priced film SLR's. That used to be true even for the models intended specifically for high frame rate work, in particular the 5FPS D1H, and is still true with the mere 5FPS of the 1DsMkIII and D3X.
-
Like I said, the RED doesn't fit the scheme, therefore any comparison with other systems is a bit tricky. I think it's great that a halfway affordable 35mm-sized digital camcorder is available, many cinematographers (especially students, low-budget-work...) don't have to struggle with strange image converters to simulate 35mm-DoF anymore and REDRAW gives them more flexibility.
But many people (especially those with strong affinity to the internet and knowing RED only from there) have high expectations, they expect a "revolution" making previous technology seem outdated and obsolete because "RED has a professional camcorder with 4 times higher resolution (4k = 4 times 2k) and a ten times lower price tag than other camcorders" so when the first "still-photography"-REDs arrive we don't have to bother with overpriced, low-performance MFDBs, Nikons, Leicas or Canons because a billiioniare invested billions in a product to save the photographic world from greedy global-players...
This is simply not the case with the R1! It's a different concept but shows similar qualities (some aspects are better, some worse) to existing solutions in it's price-range - none of it's technology is unique, it's approach is.
What's the exact definition of "prosumer" vs. "professional" in this market? I fear there is none, but a few technical facts:
- it's sensor is a bayer-filtered CMOS-design with 5,4µm-pixel-pitch - nothing special about it (size, speed, sensitivity), just like many other designs on the market - go to DALSA or Cypress and they make you one to your needs.
- it's not capable of more than 2k (which is nearly 1080p size-wise) without interpolation, just like other cameras within it's price-range (in fact, there are only 4k-prototypes available)
- it's not capable of more than 60fps with HD (2k is using a small portion of the sensor and it's interpolated "HD" just like the tiny 2/3"-single-sensor cameras from P&S or Ikonoskop)
- it's build-quality is comparable to other cameras in it's price-range
So while it offers advantages over many 2/3"-cameras within it's price-range for certain applications (DoF, 60fps progressive) it's not a professional "digital cinema"-camera:
- no uncompressed output
- no optical viewfinder
- no professional build-quality (have you ever seen the skilled craftsmen of Zeiss and ARRI doing their job?)
In fact, the "digital cinema"-cameras from ARRI/Panavision aren't even supposed to be used for cinema, but mainly TV. I simply wanted to get the name "Peter Jackson" out of this game for this discussion. I'm worried that some great filmmakers "fell" for 1080p-video (even Cameron and Fincher) and constantly making weird comments about their technical choices.
I'm sure it's a nice camera and in the right hands it's capable of nice results (although I don't like the color rendition and limited DR of ANY digital camcorder, even the D21 or Genesis), but that's also the case with other digital cameras for a similar price - "4k" and all this "revolution"-talk is just a marketing phrase. They sell their "own" lenses instead of "overpriced" Cooke/Zeiss/Panavision (although they're designed and manufactured at different standards) - that's not a revolution, that's a loss of professional quality standards (when Zeiss/Cooke/Panavision were forced to compete in price with reducing quality - happened in other industries, too).
RED = 150k$ worth professional "digital cinema"-camera like ARRI/Panavision/F35 is simply a wrong equation - different standards, qualities, technical aspects - you get what you pay for. It's like comparing the D3X to the A900 or the 5dMk2 to the 1dsIII just because they're technical data sounds comparable at first sight. It's great that those "cheaper" solutions exist but we have to be careful that we don't ruin our quality standards - that's my primary fear.
We're a bit off-topic already, but the point is: based on the technical background of RED and the performance of the R1 we cannot assume any major "revolution" in the future from this company.
-
RED doesn't manufacture one single piece of equipment, their HQ is a distribution/marketing center.
Which just shows how little you know...
HQ does indeed have a warehouse for distribution. Marketing at RED is a single individual (Ted) and he doesn't work out of the HQ, but instead travels the world talking about RED, demoing stuff, handling the REDucation classes etc.
Also in the HQ is a small 4k cinema for showing demo reels and our own internal testing.
Most of the offices are electrical / electronic / mechanical design. There are also testing areas for cameras and sensors and lenses. There is a small R&D / design area.
There are manufacturing facilities there also - rapid prototyping for design visualization and CNC equipment for shot run or prototyping.
There is also a shop.
And there are the tech support people, right there alongside the engineers so that they can get the answers to any questions beyond their immediate expertise.
Graeme
-
- it's not capable of more than 2k (which is nearly 1080p size-wise) without interpolation, just like other cameras within it's price-range (in fact, there are only 4k-prototypes available)
All that matters is real world results. In the real world, R1 hits 3.2K resolution, as proven in the measurements linked above. That is far greater than 2K. Your emphasis on pre-interpolated "resolution" is mistaken.