Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Martin_Tokyo on October 13, 2006, 09:54:53 am
-
My Japanese friend came yesterday with a news of his friend....... that Canon is going to release a Medium Format Camera next Year.
Do you know something about that?
Martin
-
A friend of a friend of a friend??
Any more details?
-
A friend of a friend of a friend??[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Having played the game "Telephone" a time or two, I can easily imagine that the original rumor was that Canon is going to release a camera with medium format resolution--22 mp--next year.
-
My Japanese friend came yesterday with a news of his friend....... that Canon is going to release a Medium Format Camera next Year.
Do you know something about that?
Martin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Friends of friends. ... I do not believe that canon among in the MF arena, I do not believe that interest to sell alone some thousands of cameras, although if did it, would give a final MF blow... do not we forget that canon next to Sony, are the unique camera-makers with own digital technology.
-
not we forget that canon next to Sony, are the unique camera-makers with own digital technology.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...and Kodak and Samsung...
-
This belongs over at DPreview. Give us a break.
-
Yea, and pigs can fly?
-
This belongs over at DPreview. Give us a break.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes too true, this is an inclusive forum but is mostly self govourning.. in other words please do not visit this forum again, as Michael is too busy makin photographs to waste time removing rumour that is so radiculous so as to be idle time wasting.
You have to be harsh to be kind,
sorry
Ed
-
Yea, and pigs can fly?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=80239\")
Yes they can - first class !
[a href=\"http://www.pigs4ever.com/news/flying_pig1.htm]http://www.pigs4ever.com/news/flying_pig1.htm[/url]
Edmund
-
This could be true, Canon already max out the 1DsMII if they didn't, why don't we see a new offering? They are just a company that want to take over the world.
Ten years ago, if someone say digital will take over the film market, someone would say "When Pigs Could Fly"
-
Which goes to prove the adage that there's one born every minute...
-
i ususally don't like these kinds of rumours either, but i have heard (from a DMF rep) that canon will come out with a silghtly larger chip, about 36x30? (4:3) to accomodate the 22mipx they want with about the same pixel size as the 1DsmkII...these numbers are not real technical information, only guidelines as he explained the direction canon seems to be going....the chip won't be 16bit (i am sure the rep might be praying for that) but canon does not need that anyway, 12bit keeps the price down and the quality is plenty for most applications anyway...they will leave the crumbs for the DMF makers....as they do now...
with a chip/camera like that, they could really eat up the market that he ZD tried to go for...
it seems to be a logical step for me, i am sure they won't go to real MF, no need for that, but to make the chip just a little larger, bring it to the 4:3 format, maybe even use the same lenses? a 34x30 chip would have no problems with existing lenses?
anyway, this is what i heard from someone in the industry....canon makes their own chips, they have been the only ones to force full frame, they are a market leader, their sales are very strong, they can't even keep the 1DsmkII in stock, even the used canon 1ds market is strong...this seems to be a logical step...
and of course there is also the fovenon type chip that canon has been working on for years....i have no info on that...just re-heating that rumor...
-
pss, you would need to keep the diagonal of the capture area to no longer than the diagonal of 24x36, which is around 43mm, to keep within the expected image circle of existing lenses.
There would also be an issue with "flower"-type lens hoods, which expect the current aspect ratio. Coming out with new hoods would seem to be a minor problem, though.
Edit: If my math is correct, a 4:3 sensor with the same diagonal as standard 35mm is 34.6x26. That only gives you a 4% increase in sensor area.
-
pss, you would need to keep the diagonal of the capture area to no longer than the diagonal of 24x36, which is around 43mm, to keep within the expected image circle of existing lenses.
There would also be an issue with "flower"-type lens hoods, which expect the current aspect ratio. Coming out with new hoods would seem to be a minor problem, though.
Edit: If my math is correct, a 4:3 sensor with the same diagonal as standard 35mm is 34.6x26. That only gives you a 4% increase in sensor area.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i mentioned the lens issue when he told me about the new sensor...he reminded me of the eos-mount switch...canon is not afraid to take necessary steps...
reading these forums...how many cameras could canon sell with a 22mpix larger chip @ 8000$ and a GOOD 24mm @1500$?
i think that this camera would be a Q4 2007 release at best, but canon did not show anything at kina and won't show anything at photo east (which means they won't ship a new flagship for at least 6months) so....who knows?
i just wanted to mention all this, because it came from a reliable source and a step in that direction would make sense, especially since canon controls everything from the manufacture of the chip to the lenses and software....hasselblad anyone?
-
deja vu anyone?
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=10863 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10863)
personally I still think it is inevitable, but, whatever...
-
I have trouble believing Canon would go to the trouble of releasing a whole new platform for a sensor size increase of just 12.5%
Either they will stick to the 35mm market or try and take over 645 market. Just my opinion.
-
And your friend of a friend is also buying a new 5D for $800 online
-
to come on this rumor game also ( and allow you to blame me if you like to do so.... ):
i have heard from a big canon distributor before photokina the following things:
( he itself order some hundreds of 1ds2 before! photokina cause he knew for sure that there will no new model,- he expected a big run on the camera after photokina again and wanted to have enough in stock ).
1. no new 1ds2 at photokina ( go to openphotographyforum , there i posted that also 2 weeks before photokina ).
2. 1ds-mk2n next year at PMA. same updates than formerlywith the 1d-mk2, larger lcd etc.
3. canon goes to mf 2007 at pma or photokina,- which sensor size ever this will mean. sounds not unlogic to think in 30x36mm, although i think more in the actual size with 36x48mm and 33 mp,- they just need to stitch their actual sensor therefore.
for me the canon-mf thing has logic,- they made much more money beeing the technologic leader in 35mm digital than with the 1ds itself (same than formel1 for car manufactors ). and it becomes very hard to improve here the cameras more. even the 5d has in fact the same resolution, so also the nikon 2dx,- all other come closer and closer. hard to see here in35mm an visible improvement in terms of resolution without making significant better lenses.
so they would need new lenses in any case, it is not cheaper to develop them in 35mm than in mf,- mf could be a 2, lineup without putting the existing 35mm lineup to the 2. place.
i believe that rumor.
and the market could grow significant up again, many 1ds2 users would climb the mf way if there would be similar performance for a better price than now.
i know a p25 or p20 becomes cheap now,-
but compare honestly what performance deliver a 1ds2 or a 5d, and how problemless these canons do what they promise( no colorcasts, no magenta flare, really low hi-iso noise, fast shooting speed, great af, weather sealed, )........ it would be very tempting for many people to have similar features in a mf bodywith the canon simplicity and experience.
-
to come on this rumor game also ( and allow you to blame me if you like to do so.... ):
i have heard from a big canon distributor before photokina the following things:
( he itself order some hundreds of 1ds2 before! photokina cause he knew for sure that there will no new model,- he expected a big run on the camera after photokina again and wanted to have enough in stock ).
1. no new 1ds2 at photokina ( go to openphotographyforum , there i posted that also 2 weeks before photokina ).
2. 1ds-mk2n next year at PMA. same updates than formerlywith the 1d-mk2, larger lcd etc.
3. canon goes to mf 2007 at pma or photokina,- which sensor size ever this will mean. sounds not unlogic to think in 30x36mm, although i think more in the actual size with 36x48mm and 33 mp,- they just need to stitch their actual sensor therefore.
for me the canon-mf thing has logic,- they made much more money beeing the technologic leader in 35mm digital than with the 1ds itself (same than formel1 for car manufactors ). and it becomes very hard to improve here the cameras more. even the 5d has in fact the same resolution, so also the nikon 2dx,- all other come closer and closer. hard to see here in35mm an visible improvement in terms of resolution without making significant better lenses.
so they would need new lenses in any case, it is not cheaper to develop them in 35mm than in mf,- mf could be a 2, lineup without putting the existing 35mm lineup to the 2. place.
i believe that rumor.
and the market could grow significant up again, many 1ds2 users would climb the mf way if there would be similar performance for a better price than now.
i know a p25 or p20 becomes cheap now,-
but compare honestly what performance deliver a 1ds2 or a 5d, and how problemless these canons do what they promise( no colorcasts, no magenta flare, really low hi-iso noise, fast shooting speed, great af, weather sealed, )........ it would be very tempting for many people to have similar features in a mf bodywith the canon simplicity and experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon would be able to make a 1DsII with 16 bits - I wish they did.
Edmund
-
...and Kodak and Samsung...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
... and Panasonic and Fuji also make their own digicam and SLR sensors, and Nikon makes some of its SLR sensors (D2Hs) as well as being actively involved with Sony in the design of sensors for its SLR's.
Not that I buy this idea that partnerships between camera makers and sensor making electronics companies are at any significant disadvantgage to in-house operations: even Canon is happy to buy the great majority of its sensors from suppliers like Sony (tens of millions each year, for digicams.)
A useful increase in sensor size would require a new lens series, and to justify that huge R&D expense, the size increase would have to be at least a doubling of sensor area ("one stop"), to a size similar to the 33x44mm that is the smaller of the two current "digital medium format" options. It just does not seem that Canon, or any former 35mm film SLR maker, is looking in that direction at all. With total digital MF sales at only 10,000/year and so probably grossing less than any individual Canon DSLR, why bother?
-
Would it be possible to combine two full frame 35mm sensors (nominally 24x36mm) to get 48x36mm and use that double sensor in a new camera that would accept existing 35mm lenses as well as a series of new (“double full frame”) lenses?
Wouldn’t existing 35mm lenses produce a 43mm circular image on such a double sensor? That circular image could be cropped to square as well as the traditional 35mm in either portrait or landscape orientation and other aspect ratios – without rotating the camera body! (Would existing “full frame” 35mm lenses then be considered to have a 1.4 crop factor when used on the doubled sensor?)
By using two existing (or already developed) sensors, there should be some economies of scale as well as savings in developing a new, larger sensor.
Seems like a camera for the double sensor would be only an inch or so taller than existing full frame digital cameras.
It would not be necessary to purchase new lenses in order to get started with the new system but, of course, the new “double full frame” line of lenses would be very tempting!
-
the rep i spoke with made it very clear that here would be no MF sensor, anything close to what is being offered by DMF makers right now...the size of the mirror would make the camera body too big, the size he was talking about was more like 10-20% larger chip which would be able to handle the 20-25mpix canon want to achieve in the near future....
i am not making this stuff up, i am not writing what i want to see, only passing on what i heard...
-
The next rumour is, that Canon has bought Hasselblad, to implement their new medium and large format sensors. No need to design new lenses, except for a 24-105 f2.8 IS.
ps. this is a joke of course although I wouldn't be surprised if Canon would do such a thing, Sony also entered the DSLR market by overtaking Konica Minolta.
-
Wouldn’t existing 35mm lenses produce a 43mm circular image on such a double sensor? That circular image could be cropped to square as well as the traditional 35mm in either portrait or landscape orientation and other aspect ratios – without rotating the camera body! (Would existing “full frame” 35mm lenses then be considered to have a 1.4 crop factor when used on the doubled sensor?)
This sounds a bit like the Sinar modular system. The camera has to be modular to allow the user to swap out various lens mounts. The price would go up considerably and the sale volume would be tiny. This is not really Canon territory, and I don't see them bringing out a modular camera.
It is hard to compare a 24x36mm sensor with a 36x48mm sensor because the aspect ratio is different. You will get different crop factors depending on which dimension you use for the calculation.
Finally, why bother with two sets of lenses when you could just use the 645 format and get the max IQ out of each shot?
If Canon does anything at all (which I really doubt) it will be something like the Mamiya ZD. However they don't have the lenses, so unless they can use an existing lens mount it's just not going to happen. They would need a full lens selection to compete and that is simply too expensive for any likely return in such a small market.
-
Would it be possible to combine two full frame 35mm sensors (nominally 24x36mm) to get 48x36mm and use that double sensor in a new camera that would accept existing 35mm lenses as well as a series of new (“double full frame”) lenses?
...
By using two existing (or already developed) sensors, there should be some economies of scale as well as savings in developing a new, larger sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No.
Look at it this way: this is an obvious idea that has been floated in forums many times over the years, so if it worked, Kodak and Dalsa would have thought of it and done it years ago, greatly reducing the cost of their MF sensors.
I conclude that it cannot be done, at least not with good results.
(In fact I beleive that is has been tried, sort of, with a beam splitting mirror to spread the light over two sensors side-by-side but with a gap between them, asneeded to connect their wiring. The product did poorly, and the idea has not been tried again.)
-
No.
Look at it this way: this is an obvious idea that has been floated in forums many times over the years, so if it worked, Kodak and Dalsa would have thought of it and done it years ago, greatly reducing the cost of their MF sensors.
I conclude that it cannot be done, at least not with good results.
(In fact I beleive that is has been tried, sort of, with a beam splitting mirror to spread the light over two sensors side-by-side but with a gap between them, asneeded to connect their wiring. The product did poorly, and the idea has not been tried again.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
did you ever see a mf sensor? if so you easily can see that they are stitched.
-
did you ever see a mf sensor? if so you easily can see that they are stitched.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is done on the silicon wafer during each processing step. If you will, it's like printing several negatives across a big sheet of photo paper: Click, move paper, click, and so forth. You only develop and fix once regardless of the number of exposures onto the sheet. The comparison is appropriate: The process is called photolithography.
Edmund
-
This is done on the silicon wafer during each processing step. If you will, it's like printing several negatives across a big sheet of photo paper: Click, move paper, click, and so forth. You only develop and fix once regardless of the number of exposures onto the sheet. The comparison is appropriate: The process is called photolithography.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
these parts of the sensors can be read out by different electronic amplifiers. this is probably what leaf does with its new faster sensors. also the sensor stitch is which elads to the "centerfold issue " of the dalsa sensors,- although it can be removed electronically as sinar and brumbaer are doing,- leaf already hasnt found the code therefore....
-
these parts of the sensors can be read out by different electronic amplifiers. this is probably what leaf does with its new faster sensors. also the sensor stitch is which elads to the "centerfold issue " of the dalsa sensors,- although it can be removed electronically as sinar and brumbaer are doing,- leaf already hasnt found the code therefore....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rehnniar you should listen to Edmund the guy knows a thing or two about making sensors and silicon wafers.
There is no "stitching" done where you believe to see it on the sensor. Maybe Stephan H. can explain to you how his software removes the centrefold (not electronically).
Best regards
Yair
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']Creo UK Ltd., a subsidiary of Kodak.
---------------------------------------
Yair Shahar | Leaf EMEA | Regional Manager |
mob: +44 77 8992 8199 | yair.shahar@kodak.com | www.leaf-photography.com
Please notice my email address has changed to yair.shahar@kodak.com please update your contacts thanks!!!
[/span]
-
these parts of the sensors can be read out by different electronic amplifiers. this is probably what leaf does with its new faster sensors. also the sensor stitch is which elads to the "centerfold issue " of the dalsa sensors,- although it can be removed electronically as sinar and brumbaer are doing,- leaf already hasnt found the code therefore....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-----
Yair:
I actually wonder whether the chip couldn't be used in single-readout mode by changing the firmware. This would mean a slower readout, no problem for people who do architecture and wide angle work - they don't care about speed.
If it can be done with the current hardware design, this might be a quick and permanent fix for the centerfold problem - if not maybe it should be incorporated as an option in the next camera hardware iteration. It might even make economic sense as it would be able to "save" some chips with faulty or severely mismatched readouts and sell them as slower units.
could you pass this message on to the dev team please ?
------
Rainer,
You are right that pixels are moved to the closest edge for readout, but AFAIK this is done for speed and noise limitation, it has little to do with the mask stitching itself. However you are also right that the multiple readouts are probably what creates the centerfold issue.
This issue must be clearly known to the chip designers, because it's obvious that readout amps located at the periphery will mismatch on such a huge chip - if only because of external temperature gradients. Hence they must have considered that for chips in certain tolerances the mismatch can be compensated by software. Readout mismatch issues are not new, Canon (the original 1D) and Nikon have seen similar problems on some models.
I hope that at some point some expert will come in to explain the design tradeoffs; in the mean time, full technical documentation of the Aptus chips is available on the Dalsa site.
Edmund
-
-----
Yair:
I actually wonder whether the chip couldn't be used in single-readout mode by changing the firmware. This would mean a slower readout, no problem for people who do architecture and wide angle work - they don't care about speed.
If it can be done with the current hardware design, this might be a quick and permanent fix for the centerfold problem - if not maybe it should be incorporated as an option in the next camera hardware iteration. It might even make economic sense as it would be able to "save" some chips with faulty or severely mismatched readouts and sell them as slower units.
could you pass this message on to the dev team please ?
------
Rainer,
You are right that pixels are moved to the closest edge for readout, but AFAIK this is done for speed and noise limitation, it has little to do with the mask stitching itself. However you are also right that the multiple readouts are probably what creates the centerfold issue.
This issue must be clearly known to the chip designers, because it's obvious that readout amps located at the periphery will mismatch on such a huge chip - if only because of external temperature gradients. Hence they must have considered that for chips in certain tolerances the mismatch can be compensated by software. Readout mismatch issues are not new, Canon (the original 1D) and Nikon have seen similar problems on some models.
I hope that at some point some expert will come in to explain the design tradeoffs; in the mean time, full technical documentation of the Aptus chips is available on the Dalsa site.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alright I'll try to explain it one more time:
The centrefold issue has NOTHING to do with multiple readouts. If fact the readouts on the Dalsa sensors are located on the short side.
Using a single readout will for sure slow the capture rate but will not resolve this issue.
We currently have a working software solution for correcting this issue. I promised to post an official statement last week and I will do so as soon as it is ready for posting, should happen in the next 2-3 days.
Thanks
Yair
-
Alright I'll try to explain it one more time:
The centrefold issue has NOTHING to do with multiple readouts. If fact the readouts on the Dalsa sensors are located on the short side.
Using a single readout will for sure slow the capture rate but will not resolve this issue.
We currently have a working software solution for correcting this issue. I promised to post an official statement last week and I will do so as soon as it is ready for posting, should happen in the next 2-3 days.
Thanks
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80832\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry Yair,
I obviously misread the Dalsa docs. That's what you get for being out of practice
Edmund
-
Alright I'll try to explain it one more time:
The centrefold issue has NOTHING to do with multiple readouts. If fact the readouts on the Dalsa sensors are located on the short side.
Using a single readout will for sure slow the capture rate but will not resolve this issue.
We currently have a working software solution for correcting this issue. I promised to post an official statement last week and I will do so as soon as it is ready for posting, should happen in the next 2-3 days.
Thanks
Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80832\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
alright Yair, and what is then causing the centerfold issue, if it isn't the multipl readout? I am really curious to know this.
thanks,
Aon
-
alright Yair, and what is then causing the centerfold issue, if it isn't the multipl readout? I am really curious to know this.
thanks,
Aon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
it seems that nobody knows excatly where this problem comes from.
Aon
-
The sensor is a single "chip".
The sensor is designed as a portrait sensor, the number of "active pixels" is 4992 x 6668.
There are some additional pixels which are of no concern for this matter.
Panels
When you hold the sensor into the light and tilt it, you will see that the light is reflected unevenly. You will be able to make out 6 areas. 2 rows of 3 columns (portrait mode).
This has to do with the manufacturing process. Whatever the reason for having those areas is doesn't matter, important is that they exist. On page 9 of the data sheet the stitching effect is defined to be typical 1% and maximum 3%.
Readout
The sensor has 4 (not 2) readouts which are located in the corners (not sides).
When an image is taken, all pixels are captured simultaneously. So the data in the sensor (so to speak) is identical regardless of the number of readouts used.
Once captured the data can be read out using 1, 2 or 4 readouts.
If you use 1 readout, the first sensor line is copied into an output register and the pixels are shifted out one after the other, as soon as the register is empty (all pixels of the line are shifted out) the next line is loaded into the register and shifted out and so on.
If you use 2 readouts you can use the same register, but the register will shift out 2 pixels per clock, one on each "end". The left half of pixels from one readout, the other half from the second pin. Note that the right hand pixels are shifted in reverse order. Outside pixels first so to say.
Alternatively you can use 2 registers. The top half of lines (one after the other of course) will be loaded into the top register and the second half into the bottom register. Both registers will be shifted out at the same time.
The top register gets the top half of rows the bottom register the bottom half. Again lines are shifted out in the outside first order. So the top register will shift out lines 0, 1, ... the bottom will shift out lines 6667, 6666 ... (talking visible lines only).
With 4 readouts both variants are combined.
Please remember that the sensor data is identical regardless of the readout mode used.
So if there is a stitching error of 3% it will be there no matter how many readouts you use, but ...
If you use more than one readout, you will add an additional error for the separate signal paths.
I haven't found a specification how much the amplifiers of the readouts differ and of course I can't say how much the external amplifiers differ.
This might add up to the problem, but it's difficult to guess how much. An educated guess would be easier, if I'd know which readout variant is used (1 readout or 2 readouts / 1 register or 2 readouts/ 2 registers).
But what can be said is, that if the problem is related or at least increased by the readout mode, it would have to be the 2 readout / 2 registers mode (or 4 readout mode which I doubt is used).
It has two be 2 readouts because 1 readout doesn't add different errors to top and bottom halves and it would have to be 2 registers because the error shows usually as a difference in top and bottom half of the image (remember it's a portrait sensor) and to get different paths for top and bottom half you have to use separate readouts for the lines.
So the sensor is not stitched in the classical two parts sense but it is stitched in the sense of areas that differ.
Two sensor stitching
Any sensor has a frame of some sort, because the sensor can not be manufactured in a way that the sensor-pixels are placed directly up to any edge of the chip.
So you will always have a gap. The gap is very large compared to the size of a single pixel.
Assuming that nobody wants to live with a multi-pixel gap in the center of his images, he optical path will have to be split, so that one part of the light will hit one sensor the other part the other sensor.
Which sounds rather difficult especially if the solution has to work for wide angle and tele lenses alike. It doesn't make the design simpler that the "splitter" should not reduce the amount of light hitting the sensor.
Not to speak of the problems to make the sensors match in color and brightness rendition.
Regards
SH
-
The sensor is a single "chip".
The sensor is designed as a portrait sensor, the number of "active pixels" is 4992 x 6668.
Thanks for this precise and clear answer! It's appreciated
Aon
-
Thank you Stephan for the explanation, you've put it down in much better words than I could have done.
Yair
-
Hi Stephen and Yair,
Is there a configuration that would eliminate the centerfold effect with the current Dalsa Sensor? If there is, would there be trade-offs, like a slower capture rate?
-Eric
-
It's difficult to say.
I do not have enough data about the frequency and kind of this problem on a single sensor.
Does it exist all the time ?
Does it show all the time (which is not the same as existing) ?
Does it change with camera, lens, motiv, shifting or lightning and if it does in which way ?
What readout mode is currently used ?
That is the first set of questions that has to be answered. The answers will help to judge the complexity of an hardware solution.
Regards
SH