Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rcdurston on August 20, 2012, 04:29:57 am
-
Alright, I'm just a photographer, I'm not a pixel peeper or techie so don't jump down my throat for my simple minded question.
If Canon/Nikon can make low light cameras and sensors (or be it Sony's), why can they (any manufacturer) not make a medium format version that is a full frame sensor?
This is what I'm thinking; a low light CMOS, 6x7 sensor that is around 20-40mp for under $20k, live view would be nice but it doesn't have to do video.
My logic is that if Canon/Nikon can build a body with all the extra goodies in it (mount, titanium body, extra electronics etc etc), for under $5k why can they not simply cut a larger sensor out of the original wafer and throw it in a digital back for $20k?
Why are we locked into this 36x48 format or even 40x54?
thanks
be gentle please
R
-
Costs increase exponentially with larger chip sizes. I'm no expert on chip making, but my understanding is that you would need more or less custom-made machinery to make that large chips which would cost many many millions of dollars before even coming as far as to make the first chip. It is hard to make large chips. CMOS are much more complicated to make than CCDs so it becomes even more expensive. Probably not impossible, but there is no business case. The product would simply be too expensive.
-
the other option is to stitch 4 regular colour matched CMOS sensors
-
An even cheaper (startup-cost-wise) option is to use a single, smaller sensor (line-sensor or rectangular) and sweep it across the image circle using a motor or manually (shift-lense).
It seems that the mechanisms that made largish-sensor film photography rewarding (technically and economically) plays out different in the digital age.
-h
-
the other option is to stitch 4 regular colour matched CMOS sensors
Not possible with today's technology, at least not if you want to achieve a photographically acceptable result...
-
Too many things to make it commercially viable:
- FF 35 sensor is fairly easy to make, but still more costly than smaller ones. One thing going for it is a big market which seems to be even growing with new Nikon and Canon FF/FX models like D4, D800 1DX
- making a sensor 4 times larger is not just 4 times more expensive, but X times more expensive, as the number of failed samples versus good ones grows exponentially
- as the big sensor would be X times more expensive, and the large camera body with all the now required goodies would be Y times more expensive than a D800, the end result would be Z times more expensive.
- Hardly anybody would want to buy a camera which is Z times more expensive than D800, which would bring the manufacturing costs up by factor of W
Thus the camera would cost X*Y*W times more than D800 with no real gain in quality, and no camera maker is stupid enough to invest money in a project like that. There are customers who are willing to pay anything for a large, sensitive sensors, but they are few and probably already have them, but do not publish graphs and sample pictures here or anywhere...
-
...for under $5k why can they not simply cut a larger sensor out of the original wafer and throw it in a digital back for $20k?
So you have one component that costs $5K. And you think the final back will simply be 4X the price of that one piece and still lead to profit for the company? What about paying the employees? Not just the engineers, but all the other folks that are need to produce a product. Then there is packaging, storage, distribution. We have not even come to the back design and the components need to make the rest of the back. And at $20k, you have a small market. I suppose you want lenses for these as well.
I understand the desire for certain fantasy cameras. But the reality of production usually makes it impossible.
-
Market would be limited by:
- lack of any 6x7 autofocus lenses
- slow capture rate reading off a sensor of that size
- high cost due to sensor size economics (as explained in this thread)
As for low-light... if you're shooting in low light then the advantages of f/1-f/2 lenses, image stabilization, and small mirror/shutter systems are a big advantage.
The mirrors and focal plane shutters of 6x7 cameras are not going to allow for slow shutter speeds hand held. So you'd need leaf shutter lenses and a bit of a delay between mirror and leaf shutter firing.
Let me ask the more relevant question. Have you personally shot for an extended period of time with a FF 645 sensor (e.g. IQ160, Credo 60) and a fast lens? What is it you find lacking? I'd be shocked if the answer was image quality, resolution, or the ability to limit DOF. If the answer is high ISO performance then the answer is not to go bigger.
-
Let me ask the more relevant question. Have you personally shot for an extended period of time with a FF 645 sensor (e.g. IQ160, Credo 60) and a fast lens? What is it you find lacking? I'd be shocked if the answer was image quality, resolution, or the ability to limit DOF. If the answer is high ISO performance then the answer is not to go bigger.
What's missing....
Well the look of a 6x7 lens compared to a sub 645 lens.
Many keep on going on about how different MFD is, but with the high megapixel count and faster lenses with 35mm DSLR top of the line cameras the difference in look between a MFD camera and a D800 for example really isn't there anymore. On top of that dynamic range is higher with the latest DSLRs.
Vendors claim MF had shallower depth of field, but that's not true if you compare an 85mm 1.4
Back in the film days the difference was more significant as the difference in film grain was significant, but even them pros favored 6x7 MF cameras if they were looking for the cleanest negatives in MF.
I think the OP's questions are legitimate, Probably like many others he sees the difference between MFD and the latest and greatest DSLR cameras to not be worth the extra money and system limitations.
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/
What is it you find lacking?
Image wise ... the look of 6x7 of 6x8. Full range of tilt shift lenses... like pro cameras used to be in 4x5 and up until the Fuji gx680 came along.
Many talk about being more in control with MFD..... yea right without that tilt and shift on all lenses... something that was and should be a staple of pro photographers.
Now some reasons why Nikon or Canon won't make a 6x7 sensor.
1st it is more profitable for Canon and Nikon to concentrate on their 35mm systems and invest heavily there.
The cameras are already very very high quality so they have to invest heavily to compete and inovate.
2nd Nikon, Canon and even Carl Zeiss have preferred to diversify rather than work in the fading MFD sector.
3rd Not enough people want 6x7 with digital. The look they are after is a combination of larger format and film.
4th Pan and stitch systems like the giga pan produce large format looks creating virtual 8x10 digital sensors
for static subjects.
Why Phase One or Hasselblad are not or most likely are not developing a 6x7 sensor... or new 6x7 system.
Neither company make or can make sensors.
Their suppliers are mainly invested in military and scientific fields..... those fields could not give a damn
about the aesthetic look of larger image circles.
Enthusiast are less likely to buy big cameras... by this I mean the guy who buys a Ferrari and a red Hasselblad to go with it.
A 645 camera is still a reasonable size for an enthusiast to drag around.
Enthusiast with deep pockets are a significant part of MF sales.
-
Market would be limited by:
- lack of any 6x7 autofocus lenses
- slow capture rate reading off a sensor of that size
- high cost due to sensor size economics (as explained in this thread)
As for low-light... if you're shooting in low light then the advantages of f/1-f/2 lenses, image stabilization, and small mirror/shutter systems are a big advantage.
The mirrors and focal plane shutters of 6x7 cameras are not going to allow for slow shutter speeds hand held. So you'd need leaf shutter lenses and a bit of a delay between mirror and leaf shutter firing.
Let me ask the more relevant question. Have you personally shot for an extended period of time with a FF 645 sensor (e.g. IQ160, Credo 60) and a fast lens? What is it you find lacking? I'd be shocked if the answer was image quality, resolution, or the ability to limit DOF. If the answer is high ISO performance then the answer is not to go bigger.
Hi Doug
-I don't really care about 67 AF as I rarely use it now on a Canon and don't have it on any of my MF or LF cameras.
-capture rate again, wouldn't it be just twice as long as the existing sensors now that are half the size?
-as far as a the economics go, yes there might be some but it would be a limited camera and priced as so.
Remember I'm not looking for some crazy spec on the sensor, just what already exists for low light and not even any where near the resolution of 4x the 35mm sensor (21mpx4=84mp=too large of files to edit in reality)
I shoot mostly Canon digital but find myself shooting more and more 6x7 film again and scanning for the dof and image quality.
Yes, I'm putting myself out there on this and all you pixel peeps will start taking your shots but if you have ever shot 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 etc you will know/see the difference.
Doug if I had the money for an IQ160 or Credo and a fast lens, I probably still wouldn't be happy with the dof since it is still just over half the size of 6x7.
I guess what I'm really getting at is,why after all the years of digital have they not gone back to a standard film size for medium format and now created multiple size for digital.
I don't need the MP, I need the sensor size bigger.
-
I guess what I'm really getting at is,why after all the years of digital have they not gone back to a standard film size for medium format and now created multiple size for digital.
I don't need the MP, I need the sensor size bigger.
Cost. That is the reason. Creating a larger sensor is not as easy as creating a larger film.
-
Remember I'm not looking for some crazy spec on the sensor, just what already exists for low light and not even any where near the resolution of 4x the 35mm sensor (21mpx4=84mp=too large of files to edit in reality)
A 6x7 sensor is a crazy spec--the pixel resolution is secondary.
-
A 6x7 sensor is a crazy spec--the pixel resolution is secondary.
Exactly
give me a five year old sensor technology with relatively low MP but in a larger size
-
-I don't really care about 67 AF as I rarely use it now on a Canon and don't have it on any of my MF or LF cameras.
I'm with you. But the market for manual-focus-only is simply much smaller than auto-focus. Smaller market = higher required markups, due to less economy of scale.
-capture rate again, wouldn't it be just twice as long as the existing sensors now that are half the size?
Would depend on the design/resolution. It wouldn't necessarily be that much of a speed hit. Actually come to think of it I don't think this would be a major issue.
-as far as a the economics go, yes there might be some but it would be a limited camera and priced as so.
This sort of reminds me of an art director who expects a minimilist-style image will be drastically less expensive/time-consuming to produce than an ornate style. This simply isn't the case. Even eliminating all bells and whistles any new digital back requires tremendous R+D. With a market even smaller than the general medium format market the cost-per-back of that R+D would be very very high.
As reference there was one commercial attempt at a 6x6 back. The "BigShot" - it was very expensive and a pretty big flop.
Remember I'm not looking for some crazy spec on the [6x7] sensor, just what already exists for low light
In a very fundamental way, based on the way sensors are designed and fabricated the size itself is a crazy spec. Not impossible. But as pointed out, very difficult to see where the economies of the product would work.
21mpx4=84mp=too large of files to edit in reality
As a side note I edit 80mp raw files on a regular basis on a 4 year old laptop, alongside 16-22mp dSLR files; it's really not much slower. In the case that I don't need the resolution for the particular case I process e.g. a 50% resolution TIFF which keeps the retouching workflow snappy. When I need the resolution the 16 bit TIFF is a rather hefty file to retouch, but by definition it's worth it (if it wasn't worth it for a particular job I simply process a smaller TIFF from the full sized raw).
Until you've got a few hundred 80mp raw files on your computer I can completely understand where you'd think they would be insanely huge in practice. That's simply not the way Capture One works. Editing 80mp raw files is simply not 4 times harder/time-consuming than editing 20mp raw files.
I shoot mostly Canon digital but find myself shooting more and more 6x7 film again and scanning for the dof and image quality.
Yes, I'm putting myself out there on this and all you pixel peeps will start taking your shots but if you have ever shot 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 etc you will know/see the difference.
Doug if I had the money for an IQ160 or Credo and a fast lens, I probably still wouldn't be happy with the dof since it is still just over half the size of 6x7.
I don't think I'd count as one of those pixel peepers. I have great respect for the non measurable characteristics of cameras/lenses like the look and feel of the image, the color rending (sometimes accurate and pleasing color are diametrically opposed), and the balance of the body, ergonomics of shooting, and other non tangible/provable things about a camera system that increase the feeling of that camera functioning as an extension of your will rather than an obstacle to it.
From your writing it's not 100% clear to me if you've ever done any major shooting with 645 MFD, but it sounds like you have not. If not I'd really encourage you to try a kit like a P65+ with the Phase 150/2.8, or Hassy 100/2.2 or Hassy FE 110/2 before you assume that nothing smaller than 6x7 would make you happy. You know what they say about assumptions :-). You have your choice of 15mp, 20mp, 60mp, and 80mp 645 sensors* A Phase One 150/2.8 lens and a P65+ or IQ160/180 produces aesthetically beautiful narrow-DOF rendering with great IQ characteristics.
Of course you may try it and not find what you want. But you threw out a price of $20k for your imagined 6x7 back and I can tell you there are some great kits at that price already. They are not 6x7, but instead of assuming a specific numerical technical spec (6.0 cm by 7.0 cm) is what you need to achieve your vision I'd suggest stating your goals (e.g. beautiful look, shallow DOF, good transitions in and out of the plane of focus, clean rendering) and see if something will achieve that within your budget.
And re: the low-light element the P65+ looks very good at ISO1600 in sensor+ mode (IMO of course - I'd be happy to send you an example raw for you evaluate for your own needs/standards). Since you said resolution is not that important to you I think that would be a great option for you.
Unless of course this is an armchair discussion and you have no real intention/interest in such a camera beyond ideal conversation :P.
*The 15mp and 20mp refer to Sensor+ with an IQ160/P65+ or IQ180 respectively
-
Following Doug's suggestions I think that it is also worth trying one of the large-ish sensor backs on your 6x7 (assuming it's an RZ or an RB which can take a DB). You might find that it is actually closer to what you get from 6x7 film then you think or hear on the web...
There are thousands of e.g. RZ shooters out there who have started with a tiny 24x36 sensor 10-11 years ago and gradually grew up to a not-so-tiny 645 sensor...most of them have long forgotten about film and film workflow...
-
No Doug, its not just "idle".
I am interested in MFD but now with the D800 out ( I know, I know, its not MFD and is only close in file size), I'm just thinking as to why there isn't anything really groundbreaking out of the MFD arena. The most obvious to me would be a much larger sensor.
I guess I'll just keep scanning my RZ stuff when I need to for work and shoot my Canons for everything else.
Thanks to everyone for the input.
R
-
No Doug, its not just "idle".
I am interested in MFD but now with the D800 out ( I know, I know, its not MFD and is only close in file size),
D800 with fast f:1.4 to f:2 primes produces practically the same files that MF backs with f:2.8 and f:4 lenses do, with better DR and high ISO performance
to boot. The problem is that D800 is small, cheap, fast and has too many convenient features.
Get a D800 and use it only on manual exposure, single shot, manual focus. Be happy. Use the saved 20k$ on shooting trips to exotic places, exotic models, exotic whatever...
-
I guess I'll just keep scanning my RZ stuff when I need to for work and shoot my Canons for everything else.
R
Smart choice.
As an ex MFD owner and user IMHO a photographer is more creatively "empowered" with a combination of
large MF film and high end 35mm DSLR. You get two very different looks. With a High end DSLR and a MF digital you pretty much get a very similar look
with MFD having a very slight sharpness edge when printing very large and observing the prints very closely.
I think it is safe to say that Canon will be coming out with a higher MP count camera quite soon bringing Canon upto the MP count of the D800 or higher.
-
D800 with fast f:1.4 to f:2 primes produces practically the same files that MF backs with f:2.8 and f:4 lenses do, with better DR and high ISO performance
to boot. The problem is that D800 is small, cheap, fast and has too many convenient features.
Get a D800 and use it only on manual exposure, single shot, manual focus. Be happy. Use the saved 20k$ on shooting trips to exotic places, exotic models, exotic whatever...
+1
-
D800 with fast f:1.4 to f:2 primes produces practically the same files that MF backs with f:2.8 and f:4 lenses do, with better DR and high ISO performance
to boot. The problem is that D800 is small, cheap, fast and has too many convenient features.
-1
-
as to why there isn't anything really groundbreaking out of the MFD arena. The most obvious to me would be a much larger sensor.
I'm waiting for something groundbreaking in pricing strategy :-).
-
Oh, it can be interesting mentioning that bigger sensors has existed in past products; Dicomed Bigshot 4000 launched in 1996 had a 60x60mm sensor with 16.8 megapixels. The color version was $55,000:
http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9604cs.html
-
While we are on the "far-fetched" train: What about printing a large image sensor yourself, using your printer with specialized inc? Granted, a solar cell panel is not the same as a 100 megapixel 6x7 camera sensor, quantum efficiency (?) of < 1% may still not beat the D800, and most of us dont have a vacum chamber. Still...
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/printable-solar-cells-0711.html
My point being that if people are really willing to pay the price (that is a big if) in terms of cost, or "image quality per unit area", or "sensor robustness", I am sure that the present obstacles to large-sensor imaging (prohibitive costs before the first sensor is even manufactured, prohibitive number of flawed sensors) will someday be worked around.
-h
-
Dicomed went out of business in 1999, but he company that made the CCD (Loral Fairchild) is still in business and still makes the 60x60mm CCDs, and you can buy cameras from them, designed for scientific use of course.
And there's Spectral Instruments (http://www.specinst.com/) that also makes scientific cameras, here's one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gEu3T8DcrI 112 megapixels at 95x95mm, with excellent dynamic range thanks to extreme cooling. Could be cool mounted to a 4x5" view camera :-).
In 2010 Canon made a 202x205mm CMOS sensor which was later installed in a telescope. Pixel pitch on that is 160 um though so it is quite different from a normal photographic sensor.
-
Short answer: increasing cost penalties for large, low volume formats and decreasing IQ advantages for those larger formats have for a long been driving an overall trend of downsizing, and the transition from film to digital intensified this.
Doug Peterson had a lot of good points, including:
- lack of any 6x7 autofocus lenses
...
Have you personally shot for an extended period of time with a FF 645 sensor (e.g. IQ160, Credo 60) and a fast lens? What is it you find lacking? I'd be shocked if the answer was image quality, resolution, or the ability to limit DOF. If the answer is high ISO performance then the answer is not to go bigger.
Even before the transition from film to digital there was a down-sizing trend, in particular away from the larger medium format options like 6x7 and 6x6 to 645. The fact that AF was developed in medium format mostly for 645, with only one larger format AF system (Rollei's 6x6) and that one at best struggling, if not on its death bed, is just one indication of this. Why? I think because with modern film and even more so with digital sensors, any image quality advantages of formats larger than 645 are so small that they are of relevance to a very small proportion even of professional and fine-art amateur photography, so that the demand for such gear became very small, worsening economies of scale and leading to an ever increasing cost difference, while technological progress lead to ever decreasing image quality advantages. Together, a vicious spiral dragging down the economic viability of larger formats. (It has not been very kind to 645 or even 35mm format either, each of which has a far smaller market share in digital than it had with film.)
Also, as already explained already in this thread, low volume production of large sensors has far greater cost penalties than simply putting the same emulsion on a wider roll of film, or just making different sized images (6x7 vs 6x6 vs 6x4.5) on the same rolls of film.
-
hjulenissen and torger,
The big problem is not just making big sensors, but making them with photosites small enough to be of interest. There are many very big sensors available for uses like X-rays and astronomy, but they all have big pixel pitches like 15 microns and up ... often way up, like 160 microns. In 6x7 format, 15 microns gives about 4600x4000, unlikely to be competitive in IQ with what modern near 645 format sensors are giving.
The reason is that to get pixels small enough to even match film resolution requires using modern semi-conductor fabrication equipment all of which has standardized on a maximum field size of 26x33mm. Using these to make a sensor larger than about 24x31mm requires a complicated, low yield, expensive fabrication process of "on-wafer stitching". (as you probably both know, this is _not_ making smaller sensors and then joining them afterwards.)
On the other hand, for lower resolution scientific and manufacturing needs, there are cheaper options like an old, low resolution stepper by Canon with large 50x50mm field size, or butting together several sensors and ignoring the join lines (acceptable for X-rays) or using steppers designed for LCD fabrication which have very large formats but very low resolution. But the ability to make those large, very low resolution devices is not the slightest evidence that there will ever be higher resolution semi-conductor fabrication equipment capable of make a high quality MF sensor without on-chip stitching.
-
D800 with fast f:1.4 to f:2 primes produces practically the same files that MF backs with f:2.8 and f:4 lenses do, with better DR and high ISO performance
to boot.
The only part of what you wrote that I don't really wonder if its true is the part about high ISO, but if you are shooting wide open with fast glass do you need high ISO? I do wonder if a D800 can produce a similar look and sort of doubt that it could. I don't think the 5D2 comes all that close even with my leica 80/1.4 summilux fitted. As far as I know there is no substitution for sensor size in terms of look. I guess I will have to borrow a D800 and have a look at wide open shots. I can tell you that when we compared the D800E in studio using the same exact subject framing, the D800 was getting more DOF at f/10 than I was at f/16 on my AFi-ii 12. I was surprised, but this would lead me to conclude that with my 110/2 or 80/2, I'd be getting shallower DOF than a D800 with a 1.4 optic and maybe even with my AFi at f/2.8. Test it yourself. YMMV. Of course DOF is just one facet of the character of an image.
-
The constant word blaming the insane cost of big sensors is YIELD. I understand that it is impossible to manufacture a perfect wafer, meaning that you always get a wafer with several bad sections. So you start with a "big" wafer with numerous defects. Pixels at random, or row of pixels, I don't know.
Now, what if you start with a wafer with a small pixel size like the one used to create the D800 sensors. If cut to the size of 6X7, it would in theory have 163 megapixels. That is 163 million pixels counting good pixels and bad pixels. Obtaining a 6X7 sensor under current industry standards for number of bad pixels in it to be approved for sale, would make it prohibitive, if not impossible.
I understand that bad pixels are mapped out in factory, so this is not new. So, why not "mapped out" bad pixels of the "rejected" sensors by pixel binning creating a sensor with an output of half the sensors? The lower count by binning and mapping would totally disguise the bad pixels and still keep 80 million pixels of incredible tonality to spare.
Yield sensor would increase dramatically, right? So, what happens if I sell every (or most) piece of 56X70mm from this wafer as an 80 megapixel sensor? Suddenly, TRUE medium format digital sensors would be possible at earthly prices.
I'm sure a back with a true 6X7 sensor with 80 mp's would put to shame an IQ180 which is not even true 645. A strategy like this would invigorate the whole digital medium format market and will take it out of the endangered species list. imho.
Eduardo
-
If it was possible to allow any wafer defects by simply interpolating "bad pixels", then yes, I assume that the yield would increase dramatically.
I think that would necessitate a new way of reading those pixels, though (increased independence). Right now, many of the gates on the sensor seems to affect many pixels. Any error in any one of them might cause visible errors in larger parts of the output image. Other errors might cause power consumption or heat to sky-rocket (?). The success of recent Sony sensors from integrating ADC on the sensor seems to indicate that the way forward is to have _more_ logic on the image sensor itself.
-h
-
I do wonder if a D800 can produce a similar look and sort of doubt that it could.
If we approach this from the mathematical angle, the field of descriptive geometry, it really does not matter what size system we have, we can scale it up and down and the end result (the image) is mathematically always the same in every regard (when blown up to the same print size). Getting a similar look is thus a matter of having exactly equal lenses (they are not), using exactly correct apertures to achieve same DOF, and having exactly similar sensors giving same DR, color, pixel count etc. Calculating DOF is possible, but using matching lenses and sensors is not possible in real life. Then there is also the mental thing knowing which system was used to take the picture.
-
hjulenissen and torger,
The big problem is not just making big sensors, but making them with photosites small enough to be of interest.
...
I was referring to statements such as the one below. If people are willing to pay for a large sensor, even if that means high cost _and_ low quality per unit area, then the question only is "how high cost?" and "how low quality?" before one can predict if and when such a product might appear.
Even 24x36mm sensors from the large, mainstream manufacturers seems to (usually) be made from mature technology. I.e. lower sensel density than their crop models. Later introduction of new features (such as improvements in base-ISO DR). Current MF sensors seems to be made using really "old" technology.
Using these other technologies that you suggest, how large would an image sensor have to be before resolution (and other quality aspects) was acceptable (e.g. 50 Megapixel)? I think that printable sensors sounds like an exciting idea if it allows regular people to experiment with really large sensors, or replacing the film of their grandfathers 8x10. Not because it will ever have better fidelity than a D800, but because fiddling with such thing might produce interesting end-results and enlightened practitioners.
...As far as I know there is no substitution for sensor size in terms of look....
-
hjulenissen and torger,
Thanks for the info. The spectral instruments camera in my linked video seems to be a bit different though, it has an STA 1600 CCD 95x95mm with 9um pixel size 10560x10560 pixels resolution.
http://www.sta-inc.net/update-of-sta1600-10560-x-10560-high-resolution-ccd/
It seems to me that it does not have any gaps in it. It is indeed designed for astronomy applications though.
-
Hi,
Michael Reichmann had a video on LLVJ on Phase One, and they said that they frequently mapped out entire columns of pixels. I also think they said rejection rate was quite high, more then ten percent.
Alex Koslov posted an image from a 39 MP Hasselblad back where I would say it was pretty obvious a column of pixels were missing.
Best regards
Erik
If it was possible to allow any wafer defects by simply interpolating "bad pixels", then yes, I assume that the yield would increase dramatically.
I think that would necessitate a new way of reading those pixels, though (increased independence). Right now, many of the gates on the sensor seems to affect many pixels. Any error in any one of them might cause visible errors in larger parts of the output image. Other errors might cause power consumption or heat to sky-rocket (?). The success of recent Sony sensors from integrating ADC on the sensor seems to indicate that the way forward is to have _more_ logic on the image sensor itself.
-h
-
While there's been a lot of focus on pricing in this thread, I've always seen the exercise of creating larger sensors as similar to CPU production. Why does the next generation processor only go up so much? It's become quite incremental. Where computing power has expanded is by adding cores, but for imaging sensors, this is not without challenges. So - in addition to price, I see the challenge as a technical one (not un-related to price), successfully manufacturing a large sensor that produces the same level of quality (or higher would be nice, but it cannot be lower) as today's medium format CCD sensors.
The short answer to the OP is that Nikon and Canon only have to create a 36mm x 24mm sensor size. Over the year's there has been speculation that either would look into medium format, but I've been pessimistic on that prospect because I think - despite the capabilities of Canon/Nikon/Sony - that creating a larger sensor system would not be a slamdunk technically for anyone. That said, today I could see that possibility more than ever, as smaller and more nimble cameras (including their own) cut into DSLR marketshare.
It's my hope that sensor sizes continue to increase - even if it's incrementally - because at least for now, that remains a very distinct potential difference between 35mm and medium format. And we're currently at 645 full frame.....
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
"And we're currently at 645 full frame....."
Steve, who's producing this? The largest I've read about is 54x40, or there-abouts.
-
The p65+, iq160, iq180, credo 60, credo 80 and Aptus-ii 12 are all full frame 645 as defined by being the same size as the exposed area of film or the view through the viewfinder of a Mamiya/phase 645 body.
Perhaps you were under the impression 645 format film was 6.0x4.5cm? It was not.
-
"And we're currently at 645 full frame....."
Steve, who's producing this? The largest I've read about is 54x40, or there-abouts.
What Doug said. The effective capture area (minus a few microns) is as close to full frame 645 as possible. Assuming a 10% - 15% increase in the imaging area (the past 3 generations) we might expect 60mm x 44mm in the next generation, and that would exceed the digital capture dimensions for a 645 camera.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
What Doug said. The effective capture area (minus a few microns) is as close to full frame 645 as possible. Assuming a 10% - 15% increase in the imaging area (the past 3 generations) we might expect 60mm x 44mm in the next generation, and that would exceed the digital capture dimensions for a 645 camera.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Would that require a new camera? 645 film frames were never 645. 120 roll film is 60mm wide and there are frame numbers and other junk pre exposed on the edges.
I think the actual long side size is 54mm. Would the lenses have enough coverage for 60mm without problems in the corners....
-
Would that require a new camera? 645 film frames were never 645. 120 roll film is 60mm wide and there are frame numbers and other junk pre exposed on the edges.
I think the actual long side size is 54mm. Would the lenses have enough coverage for 60mm without problems in the corners....
Might require a new camera. Nothing wrong with that. It would make Eric happy. My hope is that indeed it does require a new camera, because I hope the future holds more sensor size expansion, and in that case, a new camera is essential.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
It would make Eric happy.
56x56 would probably make Eric even happier :)
-
56x56 would probably make Eric even happier :)
Well - he wouldn't be alone there!
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I guess larger sensors would be all about a subtle difference in look for short depth of field photography.
Resolution- and photon-wise I don't think we need larger than we already have, maybe we can even go smaller as sensors get more and more sensitive and optical design/manufacturing improves.
-
While there's been a lot of focus on pricing in this thread, I've always seen the exercise of creating larger sensors as similar to CPU production. Why does the next generation processor only go up so much? It's become quite incremental. Where computing power has expanded is by adding cores, but for imaging sensors, this is not without challenges. So - in addition to price, I see the challenge as a technical one (not un-related to price), successfully manufacturing a large sensor that produces the same level of quality (or higher would be nice, but it cannot be lower) as today's medium format CCD sensors.
(http://www.sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/~SiGe/Moore%27s%20Law_files/MPU-density.png)
Moores law is about the number of transistors that can fit economically into one economic chip: this growth has been a factor of 2x per 18-24 months since the 1960s.
Moores law does not claim that physically larger cpus will be less expensive (nor is this seen in practice, I believe).
CPUs moving into multi-core was (I believe) largely because they hit a clock-wall (increasing the amount of work done per unit time for a single thread became increasingly difficult), and because applications and programming languages finally hit a point where they could actually exploit multi-core (there is a chicken-and-egg debate).
-h
-
Today, the question is distorted. There is virtually no camera above the 6/4,5cm. You can find the Mamiya RZ in a small forgotten corner of Mamiya-Leaf sites. Is it still assembled? How long will the remaining stocks be available?
In addition, the lack of autofocus limit its use. But, this is a great machine ...
The Hy6/AFi could certainly support a back size 6/6. But he also went to heaven (or hell, it depends of the point of view).
Sinar, even at the time of Feuerthalen, was limited to 645 with the "m" (also good for the trash shortly, following the fall of Sinar AG).
It also remebers the large and heavy Fuji 680 , well forgotten today. But it was a very specific camera. It is greatly missed by many photographers who had the chance to use it at the end of the analog era.
Which manufacturer will invest in a larger format, when it should develop a range of camera and autofocus lenses for a niche market?
The only possibility is the use of technical camera such as Sinar, Arca, Linhof, etc. ... This is not a big deal!
But this is my personal choice: a good big Sinar camera with the best available back for 95% of my professional work. I would appreciate a bigger size for the back, but it remains a dream.
PdF
-
Thanks for the info. The spectral instruments camera in my linked video seems to be a bit different though, it has an STA 1600 CCD 95x95mm with 9um pixel size 10560x10560 pixels resolution.
http://www.sta-inc.net/update-of-sta1600-10560-x-10560-high-resolution-ccd/
It seems to me that it does not have any gaps in it. It is indeed designed for astronomy applications though.
Torger,
Thanks for the link. Yes, as has been indicated already in this thread, the ultimate barrier is economic viability, not the technological impossibility of making large, high quality sensors. From what I know, wafer scale sensors like these are made by the "on-wafer stitching" process that I mentioned. In fact Teledyne-Dalsa also offers them in CMOS as well as CCDs, and mentions a bit about its stitching process at http://www.teledynedalsa.com/sensors/products/custom.aspx
These sizes require moving the stepper dozens of times and aligning it to sub-micron accuracy after each move, to etch the sensor in chunks each no bigger than the industry-wide stepper field size limit of 26x33mm. This leads to both a slow process to process each wafer and a high rate of rejected wafers, and so extremely high cost. Given the multi-million dollar cost of the "cameras" (large telescopes) that use those big STA sensors, the price of each sensor could easily be many hundreds of thousands of dollars and still be economically viable.
In fact, the combination of
- the existence of such large sensors and of multiple companies that have been seeking customers for them for some years, and
- the failure of any company to produce a digital back with a 56x46mm ("6x6") or 70x46mm ("7x6") or larger sensor
points strongly to cost/demand/sales volume trade-offs as the barrier.
And one more time (not to torger in particular):
Moore's Law progress is irrelevant to improving the affordability of larger sensors, and indeed is driven largely by the ability to get the job done with ever smaller devices. In other words, the main trend that Moore's Law drives in photography is ever smaller sensors with ever higher resolution.
-
Well it looks like something similar can be made, now how long before it trickles down to the affordable is the question?
Here (http://www.eoshd.com/content/9424/new-70mm-panavision-nasa-digital-cinema-camera-sighted-at-film-festival)
-
Well it looks like something similar can be made, now how long before it trickles down to the affordable is the question?
Here (http://www.eoshd.com/content/9424/new-70mm-panavision-nasa-digital-cinema-camera-sighted-at-film-festival)
Digital cinema technology is surprisingly far ahead of the still camera world. Any camera worth it's salt - such as the Alexa, Delta, and Sony F65 (and presumably the new F55 as well) all have a rock solid 14 stops of dynamic range, and the new Dragon sensor upgrade for Epics has 20 stops of DR, with a projected ~17 stops usable:
(http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1357064610.jpg)
...On a 19mp sensor about 30x15mm in size. What the hell are stills camera manufacturers doing?
P.S. This is not just due to advances in CMOS technology, the Aaton Delta uses a CCD sensor. I've played around with a couple of files from the Delta and it's highlights never end.
-
Well it looks like something similar can be made, now how long before it trickles down to the affordable is the question?
Here (http://www.eoshd.com/content/9424/new-70mm-panavision-nasa-digital-cinema-camera-sighted-at-film-festival)
As I said in the post above yours, the barrier is entirely cost, not technical possibility. Cine cameras can be rented out for $3000 a day or more, and sell for as much as $200,000, so sensors costing $100,000 each could be economically viable in a high end digital cine-camera. And even then, it might only by about 8MP, which is what 4K is, so rather useless for high end still photography. The relatively low output resolution needs also give a lot of latitude to increase dynamic range.
-
...The relatively low output resolution needs also give a lot of latitude to increase dynamic range.
On a per-sensel level, or on a per-image-level? That sentence seems to support those that claims that "the images from my D800/5Dmk3/... is noisy and low-dynamic-range due to the small sensels. If only Canon/Nikon/... had chosen to stick to 8MP/16MP/32MP instead, my images would look a lot better".
I was under the impression that such claims were disputed by the experts: for a given sensor area, state-of-the-art still-image sensors could probably only
negligibly improved by increasing the sensel size (decreasing the resolution), even if a low (spatial) resolution output was sufficient?
If you are talking about quoted DR per output pixel for a given sensor area, then increasing the sensel size (or downscaling) should improve DR. But then a 24 MP APS-C DSLR should be able to more or less match an equally sized 2k/4k digital movie camera by downscaling appropriately?
-h
-
Hi,
On a video camera, resolution is given. So there is little to gain from smaller pixels. Larger pixels are advantageous for DR, much more than for shot noise.
Best regards
Erik
On a per-sensel level, or on a per-image-level? That sentence seems to support those that claims that "the images from my D800/5Dmk3/... is noisy and low-dynamic-range due to the small sensels. If only Canon/Nikon/... had chosen to stick to 8MP/16MP/32MP instead, my images would look a lot better".
I was under the impression that such claims were disputed by the experts: for a given sensor area, state-of-the-art still-image sensors could probably only
negligibly improved by increasing the sensel size (decreasing the resolution), even if a low (spatial) resolution output was sufficient?
If you are talking about quoted DR per output pixel for a given sensor area, then increasing the sensel size (or downscaling) should improve DR. But then a 24 MP APS-C DSLR should be able to more or less match an equally sized 2k/4k digital movie camera by downscaling appropriately?
-h
-
Hi,
On a video camera, resolution is given.
Or a choice between 480i/p, 576i/p, 720p, 1080i/p, 2k, 4k, 8k (?)
So there is little to gain from smaller pixels.
Well, you certainly have more control over your filter in a digital lanczos-type downsampling, than you do in a bayer/olpf sensor operating at the native output resolution.
Larger pixels are advantageous for DR, much more than for shot noise.
So your opinion is that my Canon 7D (18MP APS-C) would have had more DR if it had an 8MP native sensor (process technology being equal) than it does today, downscaled to that same 8 MP?
-h
-
Digital cinema technology is surprisingly far ahead of the still camera world. Any camera worth it's salt - such as the Alexa, Delta, and Sony F65 (and presumably the new F55 as well) all have a rock solid 14 stops of dynamic range, and the new Dragon sensor upgrade for Epics has 20 stops of DR, with a projected ~17 stops usable:
(http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1357064610.jpg)
...On a 19mp sensor about 30x15mm in size. What the hell are stills camera manufacturers doing?
P.S. This is not just due to advances in CMOS technology, the Aaton Delta uses a CCD sensor. I've played around with a couple of files from the Delta and it's highlights never end.
This.
Also like to add that as much as the 1DX cost me 5 grand, I would of paid 10 grand for it if the dynamic range was good enough. That's another 5k for the sensor alone. I'm sure I'm not alone.
-
Somebody is going to have to do something besides wave their hands around the Dragon sensor to explain why it gives a supposed 18-20 stops of dynamic range. All the cine websites are just quoting PR materials. I haven't been able to find a credible explanation. Doesn't this surpass the ideal sensor at 100% QE and 0% noise?
-
Somebody is going to have to do something besides wave their hands around the Dragon sensor to explain why it gives a supposed 18-20 stops of dynamic range. All the cine websites are just quoting PR materials. I haven't been able to find a credible explanation. Doesn't this surpass the ideal sensor at 100% QE and 0% noise?
Not sure what you mean? Audio, for example, is already far ahead of visual technology, given 24-bit AD converters that provide massive dynamic range for capturing and processing. But visual technology is only just reaching 16-bit quantization, and now we have a sensor who's analog properties exceed that of what can properly be digitized. We're not surpassing anything, only just reaching a new milestone in sensor and A/D design.
In order to actually capture all that DR, the Dragon most likely uses what has already been in use for scientific sensors and the Arri Alexa - dual gain amps. The way it works is - you have two ADC's per readout channel, one running at a lower native gain level (say, ISO100) for the highlights, and another running at a higher gain (say, ISO400) for the shadows, the two signals are then summed like an HDR in-camera. This is not the same as making an HDR by changing the ISO level, because the AD component needs to operate at those levels natively rather than being pushed, and still get maximum DR; the aforementioned film cameras all have native gain ranging ISO800~1600.
-
I don't mean this personally towards you, but towards the marketing and PR materials that Red is putting out.
Not sure what you mean? Audio, for example, is already far ahead of visual technology, given 24-bit AD converters that provide massive dynamic range for capturing and processing. But visual technology is only just reaching 16-bit quantization, and now we have a sensor who's analog properties exceed that of what can properly be digitized. We're not surpassing anything, only just reaching a new milestone in sensor and A/D design.
Audio sampling and photon capture are not directly commensurable. The best that audio has managed to do is approximately 21 bits (according to Dan Lavry) while advertising 24. But they are using an electron stream, rather than converting photoelectrons. And there is no parity in signal levels between these two phenomena.
If your point is that A-D converters can convert 21 bits very well, that is true. But in photographic applications, there are not that many electrons to go around. And there is read error, and shot noise in addition. Erik or Emil would know better, but it otherwise seems Red is claiming a sensor that uses or exceeds single electron ADUs!
In order to actually capture all that DR, the Dragon most likely uses what has already been in use for scientific sensors and the Arri Alexa - dual gain amps. The way it works is - you have two ADC's per readout channel, one running at a lower native gain level (say, ISO100) for the shadows, and another running at a higher gain (say, ISO400) for the highlights, the two signals are then summed like an HDR in-camera. Since highlights tend to be clean even at higher gain levels, there is little penalty in deriving them from a higher-gain signal. This is not the same as making an HDR by changing the ISO level, because the AD component needs to operate at those levels natively rather than being pushed, and still get maximum DR; the aforementioned film cameras all have native gain ranging ISO800~1600.
But gain does not multiply out the amount of information. And it introduces noise. And you can't do HDR with gain, only pseudo-HDR.
The pseudo-step wedge is suggestive, but not genuinely informative. I'd like to see a frame from the Dragon that has that much DR. I'd really like a detailed technical explanation. Perhaps there is some innovation going on here, but it needs an explanation.
-
Hi,
I presumed 1080i/p or 2K.
I presume that DSLRs are not using Lanczos-type downsampling. DSLR video has much less resolution than high end video, you can check out the Zacuto Tests. As I recall they resolve around 760 lines vertically.
Regarding DR, yes a 7D with 8 MP would have 0.5 EV more DR the way DxO measures. The reason is that signal would be doubled (twice the full well capacity) but readout noise would be the same. Would you give up 8 MP for 0.5 EV dynamic range?
If you subsample in software readout noise will increase when you add two samples.
This is quite visible on DxO mark's plots of DR and tonal range on the P65+. The P65+ switches to sensor+ at high ISO which bins four pixels in hardware. You see that DR is bumped up in the plots in screen mode while tonal range is virtually unaffected.
Best regards
Erik
Or a choice between 480i/p, 576i/p, 720p, 1080i/p, 2k, 4k, 8k (?) Well, you certainly have more control over your filter in a digital lanczos-type downsampling, than you do in a bayer/olpf sensor operating at the native output resolution.So your opinion is that my Canon 7D (18MP APS-C) would have had more DR if it had an 8MP native sensor (process technology being equal) than it does today, downscaled to that same 8 MP?
-h
-
Hi Luke,
Thanks for sharing info.
Arri uses a CMOS sensor in the Alexa and as far as I recall had superior DR in the Zacuto tests 2011.
I read about RED using some kind of HDR, found this on the Wiki: RED EPIC-X can capture HDRx images with a user selectable 1-3 stops of additional highlight latitude in the 'x' channel.
Here is RED's explanation:
"HOW DOES HDRX WORK?
In a single camera, HDRx simultaneously shoots two image tracks of whatever resolution and frame rate you have chosen. The primary track (A-track) is your normal exposure. The secondary track (X-track) is a "highlight protection" exposure that you determine in the menu settings. You select the amount of highlight protection you need in stops… 2,3,4,5, or 6. Each stop represents a stop less exposure in shutter speed. Example… if you select 2 and your primary exposure is 1/48th sec, the X-track will be two stops less exposure at 1/192 sec. The ISO and aperture remain the same for both exposures.
During recording, the two tracks are "motion-conjoined", meaning there is no gap in time between the two separate exposures. If they were two alternating standard exposures, there would be a time gap between the two tracks that would show up as an undesirable motion artifact. Both tracks (A & X) are stored in a single R3D. Since there are two exposures, the camera is recording double the amount of frames. For example, if you are shooting 24fps, the camera is recording 2-24fps tracks, the data equivalent of 48fps.* After combining the two tracks for playback you see only one 24fps motion stream."
So they say two frames combined using different exposures.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hey Erik, this makes a lot more sense. Kolor-Pikker did not mention dual exposures, and I definitely did not see how gain settings were going to make the difference.
We've anticipated things like HDR-x for some time now, but thought that it would first be implemented on a still camera platform. But I also see that to make it work, you need a wicked fast global shutter and readout.
I think the highlight protection is what makes a big difference for the film industry. Film highlights have a long shoulder. So yes, now you can get that level of assurance in a digital capture using more than one exposure.
As for the dynamic range improvements in a single exposure, I think that there will be room for expansion at the top, but comparatively little at the bottom in the shadows. But the business of expanding effective well capacity is very different from the business of lowering read noise and raising quantum efficiency.
-
Hi,
I presumed 1080i/p or 2K.
Sony are talking about 4k consumer video cameras. Just like still-image-cams, it seems that spatial resolution is deemed benefitial by customers.
I presume that DSLRs are not using Lanczos-type downsampling. DSLR video has much less resolution than high end video, you can check out the Zacuto Tests. As I recall they resolve around 760 lines vertically.
Previous generation DSLRs (such as my 7D and the 5Dmk2) used line-skipping. Indeed a very poor downsampling method. I thought that the 5Dmk3 improved upon this by actually reading all sensels in video mode (presumably using some digital downsampling to convert to 1080). I thought that Panasonic m4/3 cameras did something similar? My point was that if you want a 1080p (or 720p or 4k) stream with the best possible spatial response, you buy a lot of freedom in shaping the spatial response if your sensor is sampling at a higher resolution than the output format. Say, 4k (Bayer) sensor for a 2k output, using whatever downsampling is deemed optimal.
A "physical downsampling" (using a relatively low resolution sensor) means integrating light over some effective area, defined by sensel active sensing area, micro-lenses, OLPF and the CFA. "Negative light" is impossible, thus the effective filtering kernel contains only positive contributions, on top of being highly imflexible. If you use a higher-resolution sensor, the digital processing is only a question of choosing any imaginable filter kernel and implementing it at sufficiently low cost. (of course, you would have to find a high-res sensor/analog stage that satisfy cost/quality expectations.)
I am guessing that the surprisingly high live broadcast quality I am seeing in SD (576@50i) from my national broadcaster is in part due to "overspecifying" every part of the signal chain until the 576i sampling is the main cause of image degradation (they encode h264 at something like 2x the rate of the crappy commercial low-end channels).
-h
-
Audio sampling and photon capture are not directly commensurable. The best that audio has managed to do is approximately 21 bits (according to Dan Lavry) while advertising 24. But they are using an electron stream, rather than converting photoelectrons. And there is no parity in signal levels between these two phenomena.
Ah, well I didn't know that, the extent of my knowledge on this subject is that a voltage generated from either a photosite or microphone membrane gets digitized and that's it lol.
If your point is that A-D converters can convert 21 bits very well, that is true. But in photographic applications, there are not that many electrons to go around. And there is read error, and shot noise in addition. Erik or Emil would know better, but it otherwise seems Red is claiming a sensor that uses or exceeds single electron ADUs!
There are problems audio faces too, the limit of dynamic range capture in audio, even assuming perfect equipment performance, is limited by the room noise of even an extremely quiet studio.
But gain does not multiply out the amount of information. And it introduces noise. And you can't do HDR with gain, only pseudo-HDR.
The pseudo-step wedge is suggestive, but not genuinely informative. I'd like to see a frame from the Dragon that has that much DR. I'd really like a detailed technical explanation. Perhaps there is some innovation going on here, but it needs an explanation.
Honestly I'm not sure how it works myself exactly, just trying to figure it out from deduction, since this is a technology previously limited to labs. If anything, here it is from the horse's mouth: http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/technology/arri_imaging_technology/alexas_sensor.html
Edit: It looks like I forgot the specifics, it says the exact opposite, the highlights are derived from the lower gain signal, and the shadows from the high gain. Sorry bout that, I'll change my previous post.
But as I've said before, it's only pseudo-HDR if the different gain levels are derived from one converter, not two converters calibrated to different gain levels. The Native ISO of cinema cameras is around 800-1250 but they still manage to get such extreme amounts of DR, this means that DR is not tied in any way to a camera's gain.
As for HDRx, the Red team says that the Dragon makes HDRx obsolete, and it likely won't be supported by Dragon. There are some members who still want the feature in because it makes still extraction easier, though.
-
Hi Kolor-Pikker,
If you see my exchange with Erik just before this, we figured out that there are two separate exposures being made to produce HDR-x. And that solves the puzzle. The sensor doesn't deliver that many bits in a single exposure, but in a combination of two. And the added dynamic range comes from the highlight end and not the shadow end.
As I said, it's easier to expand dynamic range into the highlights by effectively expanding the full-well capacity of the sensor than it is to expand dynamic range in the shadows by increasing quantum efficiency and reducing read noise. Even in the Nikon D4, the physical full well capacity is doubled over its predecessor in a single exposure, making for a base of ISO100 and a wider dynamic range. Multiple exposures are another way of doing this.
-
And if you read the last line of my post, then you'll see that the puzzle isn't solved because the Dragon is not blending two exposures via HDRx, which is being dropped from the camera entirely as a feature. HDRx already exists on the Epic, but it has it's own problems, since the shutter speed between the two exposures is different, and may create ghosting during motion. It was a neat work-around while it lasted.
This sensor is claimed to capture 20 stops natively, which I don't particularly dismiss, but the real question is how they're reading that data off of the sensor. With a 16-bit ADC you're technically limited to 16 stops of dynamic range, so how are they getting another 4?
-
Thanks for the correction. And I apologize if you weren't referring to shadow DR in the first place, but highlight DR.
I would still guess that any additional dynamic range is being added at the highlight end through effective increase in well capacity. With several sensors yielding over 50% quantum efficiency, there isn't more than a theoretical stop to be gained at the low end. And with the noise floor as low as it is, we aren't /that/ far from counting photons singly.
But the additional headroom would still be great news for filmmakers. As they say, like "film DR." Lots of room at the top.
-
Hi,
They probably use on chip converters like Sony.
The main problem I see with 20 stops is that it would need very large pixels, having a full well capacity of about 1e6 electron charges. A normal camera sensor pixel is usually in the 30000 - 60000 range, so the pixels would need to be much larger then still camera pixels like 20 microns. Would they fit on the chip?
Or could they have extra pixels with ND filters?
Best regards
Erik
And if you read the last line of my post, then you'll see that the puzzle isn't solved because the Dragon is not blending two exposures via HDRx, which is being dropped from the camera entirely as a feature. HDRx already exists on the Epic, but it has it's own problems, since the shutter speed between the two exposures is different, and may create ghosting during motion. It was a neat work-around while it lasted.
This sensor is claimed to capture 20 stops natively, which I don't particularly dismiss, but the real question is how they're reading that data off of the sensor. With a 16-bit ADC you're technically limited to 16 stops of dynamic range, so how are they getting another 4?
-
They probably use on chip converters like Sony.
The main problem I see with 20 stops is that it would need very large pixels, having a full well capacity of about 1e6 electron charges. A normal camera sensor pixel is usually in the 30000 - 60000 range, so the pixels would need to be much larger then still camera pixels like 20 microns. Would they fit on the chip?
The D4 captures 120k photoelectrons at ISO100, which gives one more stop of headroom. But there might be other ways to increase "effective capacity."
I'm interested to see if they use on-chip converters and how well that works. These things run very hot. Using live view on the D800 almost doubles the amount of thermal noise to my eye.
-
Don't on-chip converters reduce pixel fill-factor?
(http://johnbrawley.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/fill-factor.jpg)
The Aaton delta uses full frame CCDs for just this purpose, and as such, has massive highlight headroom.
-
Hi,
They say so. Here are real world SEM pictures of a pair of CMOS sensels.
The main problem with CCD seems to be readout noise to get 20 stops of DR you need to have a Full Well Capacity (FWC) of 1000000, and a readout noise of 1 electron charge.
CCDs used in MFDBs used to have readout noise like 12-17 EC.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the FWC figures given by "sensorgen" as they give different values for cameras using the same chip. Sony Alpha and Nikon D3X both uses a very similar sensor by Sony. Sensorgen gives FWC = 48975 for the Nikon and FWC = 26843 for the Sony. But, chip geometry is the same. Nikon D3X makes much better use of the Exmoor sensor, but I'm pretty sure the FWC is same on both.
Best regards
Erik
Don't on-chip converters reduce pixel fill-factor?
(http://johnbrawley.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/fill-factor.jpg)
The Aaton delta uses full frame CCDs for just this purpose, and as such, has massive highlight headroom.
-
If I am correct in memory, the CCDs used on many MFDBs are interline, which is why some backs use microlenses; if they had used full-frame photogates instead, microlenses would make no sense as the fill-factor would already be 100%
In any case, I'm downloading some Raw files from the Aaton to see how the claimed DR handles on my own computer, at $90k for just the camera, it had better be good ;D
-
These people are all morons >:(
Look, for 100k a guy got two 4x5 sensors custom made, so the answer is yes.
ask these guys
http://www.specinst.com/
-
I didn't read all the replies, but I remember a photographer who had a custom sensor made. I remember it being very large, but maybe BW. I forget the details. maybe mentioned already, I'll have to read this thread later :-)
-
Hi,
One thing to keep in mind is that features essentially come free. The expensive thing is sensor surface area. Megapixels are free, square inches are expensive. Designing a 20-40 MP sensor at 6x7 would be much more expensive than just upscaling an existing sensor. A sensor based on the one used in the Sony A7s would fill the bill for you, that would come in at around 50 MP.
Keep in mind that such a sensor would really need an OLP-filter. The larger the pixels the more artefacts will they produce.
Sensor costs scale much higher than sensor area. Doubling sensor area may raise cost 4-8 times (I guess), and producing in small series is more expensive than producing in large series.
Another expensive development is the signal processing chip, Bionz, Expeed, Digic and it's programming. Deactivating the motion stuff is in all probability just changing a byte from true to false, but it may or may not reduce licensing costs.
Well, it seems that Sony can make large sensors at a reasonable cost, it may just happen that your dream comes true. But, in all honesty, I wouldn't bet on it.
Best regards
Erik
Alright, I'm just a photographer, I'm not a pixel peeper or techie so don't jump down my throat for my simple minded question.
If Canon/Nikon can make low light cameras and sensors (or be it Sony's), why can they (any manufacturer) not make a medium format version that is a full frame sensor?
This is what I'm thinking; a low light CMOS, 6x7 sensor that is around 20-40mp for under $20k, live view would be nice but it doesn't have to do video.
My logic is that if Canon/Nikon can build a body with all the extra goodies in it (mount, titanium body, extra electronics etc etc), for under $5k why can they not simply cut a larger sensor out of the original wafer and throw it in a digital back for $20k?
Why are we locked into this 36x48 format or even 40x54?
thanks
be gentle please
R
-
who would have guessed a brand new 50mp medium sensor was going to sell for 8k, attached to a quite wonderful MF body with a storied Photographic heritage no less? I mean, the Pentax 645D is now 4800... and that is not a lot of money for a weather-sealed MF digital camera loaded with features for making life easier. I wouldn't have guessed a 65% drop in price for the 645D in 3 years. The 5d MII hasn't dropped that far yet! So long as you have competition in the marketplace, and we as consumers support game-changing technologies, it will happen, sooner than you think. Sony Sigma and Pentax prove that it is a pretty cool thing that there's no monopoly in the camera game.
When the D800 came out did you think, "I'll just wait until Sony makes a mirrorless full frame camera using the same sensor in two years." I didn't. You would think at least Hasselblad would have guessed it and used those as the basis for their rich man's NEX line, and not the 7n or whatever.
Hang on to your hats people, it's going to be a bumpy ride! That spectravision company makes seamless ccd combination sensors can make seamless ones, and in 2008 some LF shooter had a 4x5 sensor custom made for 50k. These poo poo-ers have a very consumer-based idea of where the tech is. I'm sure there are a number of players in the sensor game who wouldn't kick you out if you offered 20k. You may have to use a color wheel to make color photographs, but they would look awesome.
-
I didn't read all the replies, but I remember a photographer who had a custom sensor made. I remember it being very large, but maybe BW. I forget the details.
It was a pair 10" x 8" sensors of very low resolution, using LCD panel fabrication technology which works at these large sizes. The buyer uses these for test shots in lieu of polaroids, before taking the final images on 10" x 8" film.
But cost is the only barrier: wafer-sized CMOS sensors are already offered on a custom-order basis. The new Pentax 645 with its 44x33mm CMS sensor has a "sensor cost increment" of about $6000 (on the basis that the rest of the body is comparable to a $2000 Pentax 645 AF film camera) compared to sensor cost increment of about $1000-$1200 for the least expensive 36x24mm bodies and roughly $200 or less for APC-C format.
-
The main problem I see with 20 stops is that it would need very large pixels,
Bigger problem is the fact that no lens can resolve more than about 14 stops of DR, hugely complicated cinema lenses probably even less due to internal reflections.
-
Bigger problem is the fact that no lens can resolve more than about 14 stops of DR
What are you basing this claim on?
-h
-
What are you basing this claim on?
-h
Read it on the Internet, of course! ;D
I believe it myself.
-
Bigger problem is the fact that no lens can resolve more than about 14 stops of DR, hugely complicated cinema lenses probably even less due to internal reflections.
What are you basing this claim on?
Read it on the Internet, of course! ;D
I believe it myself.
Here is something that I read on the internet about dynamic range limits due to veiling flare (or glare) from lenses, with many references to earlier data. It suggests that even 14 stops is optimistic with typical scenes, but that with a completely stationary camera and subject, there might be techniques to overcome it, like one involving taking multiple images though a "mesh" mask that is carefully moved between frames, and then deconvolution processing based on analysis of the "glare spread function".
https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/glare_removal/glare_removal.pdf
P. S. An earlier paper with more flare/glare quantification:
http://www.mccannimaging.com/Retinex/Publications_files/07HDR2Exp.pdf
-
If I am correct in memory, the CCDs used on many MFDBs are interline, which is why some backs use microlenses; if they had used full-frame photogates instead, microlenses would make no sense as the fill-factor would already be 100%
Think you've got this backwards...I'm not aware of ANY digital back ever made using an interline CCD...those where popular in compact cameras and are still popular in small industrial cameras...
DB's use full frame chips.
BR
Yair
-
Here is something that I read on the internet about dynamic range limits due to veiling flare (or glare) from lenses, with many references to earlier data.
Thanks. I also found this:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3737215
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39269250
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55288242
"Based on simulations, the Canon 20D can record nearly 20 stops of dynamic range using HDR imaging if only a point light source is present. If half of the field of view is covered by an extended source, then only 9 stops of dynamic range can be recorded by the 20D..."
-h
-
If I am correct in memory, the CCDs used on many MFDBs are interline, which is why some backs use microlenses; if they had used full-frame photogates instead, microlenses would make no sense as the fill-factor would already be 100%
Actually, full frame type CCD's also often use micro-lenses, because within the photo-site, one part is more sensitive than others, and so it helps to steer the light towards that. Kodak pioneered this and, it roughly doubles quantum efficiency (from a bit over 20% to a bit over 40%) when comparing two versions of the same sensor differing only in one having micro-lenses.
-
After seeing the title of this thread I thought you technophiles might enjoy this image. Here's a shot of a new single crystal x-ray system. The sensor is a 10x10cm CMOS (large flat square area on the left). It's only 1 MP, but has very large pixels and well capacity. :D
Tom
Product link: http://www.bruker.com/products/x-ray-diffraction-and-elemental-analysis/single-crystal-x-ray-diffraction/sc-xrd-components/sc-xrd-components/overview/sc-xrd-components/detectors.html
Edit: Sigma Merrill added for scale, it's not part of the system.
-
After seeing the title of this thread I thought you technophiles might enjoy this image. Here's a shot of a new single crystal x-ray system. The sensor is a 10x10cm CMOS (large flat square area on the left). It's only 1 MP, but has very large pixels and well capacity.
I am fascinated by this sort of extreme photographic tech., and having read about many of these ultra-large sensor cameras on manufacturers' web-sites, I note one universal rule: they never mention the price!
-
I'm sure it's quite pricey, this is the first, AFAIK, CMOS for x-ray, previously externally cooled CCD sensors were used. This sensor is cooled as well, but by an internal system. The sensor can be purchased as an upgrade for existing systems; if I get a price I'll let you know.
-
I've worked in an X-ray crystallography lab (macromolecular protein structure determination), though it was before CCDs were widely adopted. I believe these devices are way up in the six figure range. Way up. They need to withstand the brightest X-ray beams in the world as produced by particle accelerators.
-
I am fascinated by this sort of extreme photographic tech., and having read about many of these ultra-large sensor cameras on manufacturers' web-sites, I note one universal rule: they never mention the price!
Heh, probably amongst the "if you have to ask..." range of sage advice.
-
I've worked in an X-ray crystallography lab (macromolecular protein structure determination), though it was before CCDs were widely adopted. ..........
Luke:
You would be astounded at the capability of newer systems. What took four days now takes two hours. The instrument shown has a shutterless design. i.e., it, in essence, records a video as angles are changing.
Tom
-
You would be astounded at the capability of newer systems. What took four days now takes two hours. The instrument shown has a shutterless design. i.e., it, in essence, records a video as angles are changing.
Tom, I've heard word of such -- amazing! That would reduce so much of the hard work in the number of crystals that have to be made, and saves on scarce time on the beam line. Now if only funding for basic biomedical research could return to mid 1990s levels, we could make such progress.
-
of course it's possible. If technology can make a 645 digital sensor, it wouldn't' cost that much more to make it 6x7.
For all the "reasons no" here, more the reason to make one. Instead of 6x7, it should be 6x6 so existing medium format cameras can take advantage of it (hasseblad, HY6, etc.).
-
of course it's possible. If technology can make a 645 digital sensor, it wouldn't' cost that much more to make it 6x7.
Yes of course it is technologically possible; that has been said many times. The question is cost, which involves not only the unit cost but how much demand there would be, since very low demand greatly increases the mark-up over unit manufacturing cost needed in order to defray the overhead of creating such sensor and a back using it.
For all the "reasons no" here, more the reason to make one.
I just do not understand that at all.
Instead of 6x7, it should be 6x6 so existing medium format cameras can take advantage of it (hasseblad, HY6, etc.).
That is sadly ironical, coming just a few days after the announcement of the liquidation auction of the factory and tools used to make Rolleiflex cameras like the Hy6, so the last 6x6 format camera is out of production.
http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2015/03/end-rolleiflex/
http://www.proventura.de/insolvenzversteigerung-des-kameraherstellers-dhw-fototechnik-gmbh-ehem.-franke--heidecke-gmbh-salzdahlumer-str.-196-38126-braunschweig/auction/2669/
(The 6x6 format Hasselblad V series was discontinued some time ago.)
So the reality is that all medium format camera still in production are in 645 format (or smaller), and that is the target to which any new MF sensor development will be aimed.
Well, there is one MF camera in a format large than 645 that is not yet officially discontinued: the Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID. That is still available, but described as a "legacy product": http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/legacy_RZ80.asp and I fairly sure that this is just a matter of slowly selling remaining stock of a camera that is no longer in production.
-
Hi,
It seems that there are quite a few photographers interesting spending 100 k$US or so on a camera wit 6x6 sensor. So it should be possible to start a Kickstarter project to finance such a development.
Personally, I am neither interested in 6x6 sensor nor in contributing to such a project.
Best regards
Erik
Yes of course it is technologically possible; that has been said many times. The question is cost, which involves not only the unit cost but how much demand there would be, since very low demand greatly increases the mark-up over unit manufacturing cost needed in order to defray the overhead of creating such sensor and a back using it.
I just do not understand that at all.
That is sadly ironical, coming just a few days after the announcement of the liquidation auction of the factory and tools used to make Rolleiflex cameras like the Hy6, so the last 6x6 format camera is out of production.
http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2015/03/end-rolleiflex/
http://www.proventura.de/insolvenzversteigerung-des-kameraherstellers-dhw-fototechnik-gmbh-ehem.-franke--heidecke-gmbh-salzdahlumer-str.-196-38126-braunschweig/auction/2669/
(The 6x6 format Hasselblad V series was discontinued some time ago.)
So the reality is that all medium format camera still in production are in 645 format (or smaller), and that is the target to which any new MF sensor development will be aimed.
Well, there is one MF camera in a format large than 645 that is not yet officially discontinued: the Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID. That is still available, but described as a "legacy product": http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/legacy_RZ80.asp and I fairly sure that this is just a matter of slowly selling remaining stock of a camera that is no longer in production.
-
It seems that there are quite a few photographers interesting spending 100 k$US or so on a camera wit 6x6 sensor.
There are quite a few photographers stating online their enthusiasm for a camera with a 6x6 sensor, but
- a lot of them combine this with expectation of a price far less than US$100,000, and
- even if any accept that price estimate (I do not recall any of these "6x6D" enthusiasts mentioning a price that high), statements of enthusiasm are one thing; realistic willingness and ability to pay such a high price are something quite different.
-
Hi,
Realistically, I would think it is very difficult to make a large sensor camera. To begin with you need a sensor of the right size. Designing a large sensor for a small market is prohibitively expensive, I would think. Than there is manufacturing with all necessary masks. More realistic to find a commercial sensor, but larger sensor are probably made for astronomic observation and aerospace.
Cost is essentially related to sensor surface and growing over proportionally with increasing size due to increased rejection rate. So large sensor -> expensive sensor. And, BTW, small series sensor -> expensive sensor.
Designing the supporting electronics is not child's play. Electronic design for a CCD based camera with good image quality is hard. With modern CMOS the sensor itself is doing all the hard work. Even simple CCD based camera probably needs a display and histograms, so some significant computer programming is needed.
The mechanical manufacturing part may not be very hard. You need a good basic design and it may be relatively easy to build some series using CNC.
After that comes precision assembly.
Now that we have some digital backs, we need to integrate them with camera electronics if such electronics are at hand.
Once we have the cameras we need to get them to customers, so we need distribution channels.
To me all this seems to be a bit unrealistic. High cost, high risk and probable failure.
Best regards
Erik
There are quite a few photographers stating online their enthusiasm for a camera with a 6x6 sensor, but
- a lot of them combine this with expectation of a price far less than US$100,000, and
- even if any accept that price estimate (I do not recall any of these "6x6D" enthusiasts mentioning a price that high), statements of enthusiasm are one thing; realistic willingness and ability to pay such a high price are something quite different.
-
Erik,
Where do you get your $100k figure for a 6x6cm back? That seems a tad too high to me, and trust me I've been really looking into this lately.
-
...
Designing the supporting electronics is not child's play. Electronic design for a CCD based camera with good image quality is hard. With modern CMOS the sensor itself is doing all the hard work. Even simple CCD based camera probably needs a display and histograms, so some significant computer programming is needed.
...
I assume that Canon and Nikon have a large amount of software developers doing all kinds of stuff. They need a smooth, user-friendly, (semi-) cross-platform software base that they can sell in the millions. This means support for quirky languages, country-specific tax laws, being able to run on the very cheapest processor etc.
The camera dreamed of here would be a very different kind of beast, I think. More like a industrial camera featuring some generic embedded x86/arm platform, a large battery/fan(?), running linux and relying upon general open-source components to do as much as possible. If you aim to sell <1000 cameras (at a hefty price and, hopefully, large profit), you make sure that fixed spending is kept low, even if that means per-unit spending increase.
I am not so sure that there is so much "significant programming" before one could have a product that some might consider purchasing. But aiming for a more polished, complex, user-friendly product means spending ever more resources (development, study-groups etc) on software and mechanical design for ever smaller returns. Canikon probably have refined that game to a form of art, and you would need some serious funding to beat them at their own game (especially now that the camera market seems to struggle).
I assume that the camera itself would have only basic exposure controls and readout of histogram, perhaps a crude LCD preview. The main output would be raw files that are developed by e.g. open-source raw development software that is not maintained by the camera developers. This raw development software might be offline, realtime-connected to the camera (on your computer/tablet) or even run locally in the camera.
Or an off-the-shelf tablet could be an integrated part of the product, ensuring that the camera would only have to have basic sensor supporting electronics and the capability to transmit digitized image data to the tablet. Subsequently, user-interaction and image processing could be implemented using high-level languages, libraries and UI familiarity offered on tablets, where there is a large pool of talented developers familiar with the tools.
Examples:
A medical ultrasound probe that connects to your smartphone:
http://www.mobisante.com/products/product-overview/
(http://www.mobisante.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/product-mobile-device-img.png)
A digital stomp-box developed (according to the myth) by one guy in a couple of years, beating competitors on a highly specific audio dsp task:
(http://www.neo-instruments.de/images/vent_pic/ventilator_back_fade.jpg)
http://www.neo-instruments.de/en/ventilator/ventilator-overview
Now, none of these address the specific challenge of integrating sensors and camera mechanics in a good way. That would be problems to be solved by competent people in such a project. But I guess the general task of integrating such an effort in a box with some user interaction can be done with moderate time spent.
-h
-
Simple guess,
based on prices of existing backs. If you have better figure please share it.Existing full frame 645 backs are in the price range 30-45 k$, I think. I guess sensor costs would be significantly higher, especially if development was involved. Also, I would assume low sales volume.
Another point that existing MFD manufacturers seem to have been established at 645 format, so I wouldn't expect them going into larger formats that don't fit their cameras.
A new vendor may sell to a significant 6x6 market, and perhaps have lower margins than Phase or Hasselblad.
It is interesting to note that the Hasselblad FV50c is much cheaper than Hasselblads H-series back using the same technology. And the Hasselblad H-series is cheaper than IQ-250.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Where do you get your $100k figure for a 6x6cm back? That seems a tad too high to me, and trust me I've been really looking into this lately.
-
Erik,
Where do you get your $100k figure for a 6x6cm back? That seems a tad too high to me, and trust me I've been really looking into this lately.
What does your research show about likely retail pricing?
What I see is that the lowest price for a back with a relatively puny 54x40mm sensor is around US$27,000 for a Leaf Credo 60, and that back has the relatively large target of use with Phase One/Mamiya bodies plus all the legacy MF systems that it can be adapted to. The 6x7 format is almost twice the area (56x70mm) so optimistically, unit manufacturing costs would double, and probably far more due to the way sensor yields decline with increasing size (both fatal defects int silicon and the increased risk of failure in the increased number of stitches that must be done on the wafer). For a hint of the scaling of price with size, observe the pricing trends from 24x16mm ("APC-C") to 36x24mm to 44x33mm to 54x40mm.
Apart from unit costs, the retail mark-up must amplified due to the predictably far lower sales volume of a sensor and back that can only be used with mostly discontinued and entirely manual focus bodies (RX67 etc.) plus view cameras, so US$100,000 seems like a reasonable rough estimate to me.
On the other hand, if you are willing to accept very low resolution (plus stunning dynamic range!), like 50nm pixels at best, then "wafer-scale" sensors in both CCD and CMOS are now available from various sources as special orders, and work continues on them for the sake of medical imaging and such:
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/custom/sensors/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-0221/6/12/C12064
-
BJL,
I'd like to be able to offer a high quality digital TLR in the $13k range. Still looking for investors….
Eric
-
Hi,
That would be a very nice price.
Best regards
Erik
BJL,
I'd like to be able to offer a high quality digital TLR in the $13k range. Still looking for investors….
Eric
-
I recently got a quote for a custom large format sensor Dalsa 250 MP CCD camera, for about $160,000.
17,216 x 15,556 pixels, 90mm x 84mm 5.6 micron pixels size. Didn't follow up to see if it is even possible for field use.
http://www.ifp.uni-stuttgart.de/publications/phowo11/100Neumann.pdf (http://www.ifp.uni-stuttgart.de/publications/phowo11/100Neumann.pdf)
http://www.ziimaging.com/en/zi-dmc-iie-250_32.htm (http://www.ziimaging.com/en/zi-dmc-iie-250_32.htm)
-
I recently got a quote for a custom large format sensor Dalsa 250 MP CCD camera, for about $160,000.
17,216 x 15,556 pixels, 90mm x 84mm 5.6 micron pixels size. Didn't follow up to see if it is even possible for field use.
Price seems quite reasonable for the sensor size (and with four other smaller sensors as a bonus), but:
Weight: 65Kg
and that does not include the power supply needed for:
Power consumption: 280W
so, not so good for field use.
-
Price seems quite reasonable for the sensor size (and with four other smaller sensors as a bonus), but:
Weight: 65Kg
and that does not include the power supply needed for:
Power consumption: 280W
so, not so good for field use.
The $160k is just for the 250 MP sensor mounted in a separate custom camera, weight, size, and power requirements I do not know. The link I provided shows it being used in a aerial surveillance system that probably sells for around a million. The first attachment gives some details about the 250 MP sensor, it does exist now and shows a real dollar value to what that costs are for going big.
-
I am sure Sony can stitch two Sony CMOS 33x44mm 50mp sensors together and make it work. A 66x88mm 100mp sensor would be amazing. With live view one can basically design and make a pretty compact camera that takes a wide range of existing 6x7 lenses. Eliminating the optical viewfinder makes camera design much more simple. Basically all the technology is out there to make this camera today.
-
The $160k is just for the 250 MP sensor mounted in a separate custom camera, weight, size, and power requirements I do not know. The link I provided shows it being used in a aerial surveillance system that probably sells for around a million. The first attachment gives some details about the 250 MP sensor, it does exist now and shows a real dollar value to what that costs are for going big.
Aha: a million for the whole enchilada is more in line with what I would have guessed.
Anyway, thanks for the $160K figure; it gives us some guidance, and probably an upper bound on what a 6x7 digital camera would cost.
-
I am sure Sony can stitch two Sony CMOS 33x44mm 50mp sensors together and make it work.
For what people would want in a 6x7 "artistic" medium format camera (as opposed to a scientific or technical tool) it does _not_ work to glue multiple sensors together side by side. This "butting" is already done for other purposes, like X-rays, machine vision, telescopes and aerial photography, but there are visible join lines many pixels wide, which would ruin "artistic" photography.
The "stitching" already used to make bigger sensors like 36x24mm and 44x33mm is done during etching of the sensors onto the wafer, and is a high-cost, low-yield process, with "cost per usable sensor" rising rapidly as sensor size go up and so more pieces much be stitched.
-
For what people would want in a 6x7 "artistic" medium format camera (as opposed to a scientific or technical tool) it does _not_ work to glue multiple sensors together side by side. This "butting" is already done for other purposes, like X-rays, machine vision, telescopes and aerial photography, but there are visible join lines many pixels wide, which would ruin "artistic" photography.
The "stitching" already used to make bigger sensors like 36x24mm and 44x33mm is done during etching of the sensors onto the wafer, and is a high-cost, low-yield process, with "cost per usable sensor" rising rapidly as sensor size go up and so more pieces much be stitched.
I am not an engineer obviously.
Th point is the tech is out there to make it work without much trouble. Obviously it is not gonna be cheap. But a lot of people would accept twice the sensor size for four times the cost. Don't know the cost of the Sony sensor but it can't be that high given the 645z is priced at under 10k.
Takes someone like Jim Jannard to pull it off though. Someone with the vision, the will and the money to do it.
-
I am not an engineer obviously.
The point is the tech is out there to make it work without much trouble. Obviously it is not gonna be cheap.
There is no doubt that it is technologically possible to make very large sensors, up to the size that fills an entire wafer, so 200mm or even 300mm on the diagonal. Companies like Teledyne-Dalsa offer such sensors on custom order to customers who are willing to pay the price, in both CCD and CMOS now.
But the approach that you proposed is almost certainly not suitable for an imagined 6x7 sensor for a medium format camera; it has been tried repeatedly, and works for some needs but fails for that usage. If you disagree, please tell me why -- bearing in mind your first sentence above.