Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on January 26, 2014, 01:57:51 am
-
Hi,
Phase One got a head start with the IQ 250. The small size of the sensor and the high price was a bit of a chock, I guess.
One reason for Phase One being first to market has probably been that they had a good live view solution in the existing backs, and 3.5 years of cooperation with Sony?
I guess that we see some competition coming, like Pentax and Leica. And Hasselblad, of course. I presume that Hasselblad development resources are not entirely spent on Stellar, Lunar and Solar? It may even be that Sony makes it's own back. Probable ? No. Feasible? Yes.
I guess that 2014 will be an interesting year for MF. With some companies going ahead and perhaps some phasing out.
Best regards
Erik
-
Based on a conversation I had with some Ricoh guys at CES, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Pentax announce the 645D successor at CP+ in a little under 3 weeks time.
-
I look forward to a Pentax announcement a $10K.
Maybe Pentax can take the working horse position that used to belong to Hassy.
Edmund
-
I look forward to a Pentax announcement a $10K.
Maybe Pentax can take the working horse position that used to belong to Hassy.
Edmund
Will be interesting to see what they do. The 645D isn't for me (I'm wedded to my ALPA system), but it is astonishing value at just $7K for the body (the Phase DF+ - body only - is listed at $6K...).
I think we can expect to see a lot of the sort of innovation introduced with the K3 in the new 645D (but probably not video of course).
-
Hi,
Nice to hear about the Pentax. What I feel, but I may be wrong, is that Pentax needs to start making lenses for the 645DII or whatever they will call it.
Another small observation is that the new Sony sensor is pretty small, so it fits well into cameras designed around "cropped" sensor like the Pentax 645D and the Leica S.
In my humble opinion, making a smaller pitch sensor like 4.7 micron or even 3.9 micron would have made some more sense. Small pixels are obviously less sharp at actual pixels than larger ones, perhaps reducing the "bragging factor" but they actually resolve more detail. I have little doubt that an 89 MP image from a 3.9 micron 44x33 sensor downscaled to 50 MP will be much better than a 50 MP picture from a 44x33 sensor. I would guess that fine detail, like hair would be much smoother.
Best regards
Erik
Will be interesting to see what they do. The 645D isn't for me (I'm wedded to my ALPA system), but it is astonishing value at just $7K for the body (the Phase DF+ - body only - is listed at $6K...).
I think we can expect to see a lot of the sort of innovation introduced with the K3 in the new 645D (but probably not video of course).
-
Pentax already provides both great value and performance, a 645D is not much more expensive than a Canon 1DX. I wonder how well they sell, and which photographers that buy. If I was not into tech cameras it might be a real alternative for me. ~44x33 DSLRs are just too similar to 24x36 DSLRs to be interesting for me though. It's a bit painful that making the back detachable so I can use it adds $20K or so to the price.
Imagine if Pentax or even Sony came up with the idea to make a digital back, sub $10K backs with latest technology, that would be something. However they would not do such a thing without their own system to attach it to so it's nothing but a vain dream. We're stuck with the expensive low volume business models of Phase, Hassy and Sinar :-/
-
Hi,
I wouldn't rule out Sony making a back. They have sensor, electronics, ASIC, Display and even manufacturing capability.
Best regards
Erik
Pentax already provides both great value and performance, a 645D is not much more expensive than a Canon 1DX. I wonder how well they sell, and which photographers that buy. If I was not into tech cameras it might be a real alternative for me. ~44x33 DSLRs are just too similar to 24x36 DSLRs to be interesting for me though. It's a bit painful that making the back detachable so I can use it adds $20K or so to the price.
Imagine if Pentax or even Sony came up with the idea to make a digital back, sub $10K backs with latest technology, that would be something. However they would not do such a thing without their own system to attach it to so it's nothing but a vain dream. We're stuck with the expensive low volume business models of Phase, Hassy and Sinar :-/
-
Hi,
I wouldn't rule out Sony making a back. They have sensor, electronics, ASIC, Display and even manufacturing capability.
Best regards
Erik
But to put on what?
-
If Sony is making anything with their new sensor size I think the most likely is a luxurious RX1, like "RXm" or something, ie a fixed lens 44x33mm compact with excellent Zeiss optics aimed at amateurs as a travel / walk around camera, price maybe $6-8K. I think such a product could work. Sizing up the RX1 is probably not too complicated, ie for quite low development effort they can make a camera which don't need to sell in very huge numbers to go around. Making it a system with interchangeable lenses is a whole different thing. An RXm could be a one-off camera (if it sells badly, don't make another one), while a system needs long term planning and investment.
A digital back you can attach to anything (Sinar style) does not make sense coming from Sony. That's something a small player with a real passion for medium format photograhpy could do. Sinar is the closest in mindset, but they're into the very narrow tethered-only studio view cam territory. Getting digital back supporting electronics (screen, live view etc) up to a level that Phase One has and any large DSLR manufacturer like Sony/Canon/Nikon can do at a whim is not easy for a small player.
Sinar had backs for field use before (75LV etc), but their back displays were the worst on the market and I guess they chose to just drop that segment rather than trying to get up to speed, just too much development effort.
Hasselblad has a similar problem now, their digital back platform is not strong enough to provide a live view of the quality Phase One can do, ie 20-30FPS easy to move around etc so it can actually be used for focusing and framing in almost any light condition. That's why their 50c will not have live view on the back. Remains to be seen how long time it will take for them to modernize their platform so they can provide a digital back user interface that a CMOS sensor deserves.
-
What is more important than a Cmos sensor IMO, is the entrance of a big Japanese maker in MF sensor making… If I remember well, last time that other than Kodak or Dalsa sensor was used, it was Fuji with a huge sensor designed for the GX680…
I believe that big Japanese makers would never enter such a market if they didn't see future into it… Also, given that Hasselblad and Fuji are "partners" with respect to the H system, it's a surprise to me that H5D-50c will be using the same sensor of Sony as with IQ250+. I think that Fuji keeps an open eye to the MF market and it shouldn't be long until we see something from them.
Never the less, the entrance of a new comer in MF sensor maker, can only mean that MF market is judged to expand while many where in fear that it could collapse… I can't help to think how Leica and Sinar will "bridge" the two lines as I posted a while ago: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85784.0 I expect a new (interchangeable back) camera to be introduced soon from them and a new series of self contained backs… If customer choices widen and competition increases, it can only be good for the future of MF...
-
If Sony is making anything with their new sensor size I think the most likely is a luxurious RX1, like "RXm" or something, ie a fixed lens 44x33mm compact with excellent Zeiss optics aimed at amateurs as a travel / walk around camera, price maybe $6-8K. I think such a product could work. Sizing up the RX1 is probably not too complicated, ie for quite low development effort they can make a camera which don't need to sell in very huge numbers to go around. Making it a system with interchangeable lenses is a whole different thing. An RXm could be a one-off camera (if it sells badly, don't make another one), while a system needs long term planning and investment.
Genius.
-
But to put on what?
A 70mm digital cinema camera, perhaps?
-
A 70mm digital cinema camera, perhaps?
yeah! …a cinema camera that would cost 200k, one would have to throw all his lenses away, have only a batch of maybe 10 dedicated lenses, develop "new" style of direction for (almost) NO DOF when one "moves" inside the frame, eliminate camera operators to maybe 4 people worldwide and use 50mp to take …8 (!) eight out of it, to use in 4k raw video… S35 (and APS-C for starters) is more than enough for video… sensor size increase is the last thing that video will ever need.
-
Two thoughts:
1. A 1.3x crop MF chips is not really worth it over an otherwise identical FF 35mm chip in any measurable way. The decreased usability and increase cost make this a tenuous value proposition for most. I know this bc I sold my beloved 645D system for the D800e (and a lot of change) after testing it.
2. There is ZERO actual demand for chips bigger than the 60/80MP Dalsa chips.
3. Getting to the full 60/80MP chip real estate, in *true* 16BIT does become worthwhile in many professional-level applications.
8) 8)
- N.
-
Two thoughts:
1. A 1.3x crop MF chips is not really worth it over an otherwise identical FF 35mm chip in any measurable way. The decreased usability and increase cost make this a tenuous value proposition for most. I know this bc I sold my beloved 645D system for the D800e (and a lot of change) after testing it.
- N.
sorry Nick. No. Just no.
not for my style of shooting. I just finished a studio session and shot some frames with the D800 just for fun alongside the credo 40. There is no comparison. At least, not in portraiture.
-
2. There is ZERO actual demand for chips bigger than the 60/80MP Dalsa chips.
I think a 56x56mm sensor for Hy6, tech (and V) could work commercially, maybe with 7-8um pixels (49-64 megapixels). Problem is that Hassy and Phase don't have any reason to make such a back as their cameras don't work with that format.
-
It would seem to me that the largest hindrance to Sony, Nikon, Canon, or similar "mass market" company releasing a 50MP camera is the lack of lenses capable of this resolution. Even the D800E outpaces most Nikon lenses. (To wit, the value and need of the Zeiss Otus.) So, for one of these companies to release a 50MP camera means either designing the camera from the start to use MF lenses or lenses like the Otus, or bringing out another line of lenses. The latter is very expensive and time consuming. (Indeed, this is a major issue for Sony even now with the A7R -- the lack of "native" lenses with sufficient resolving power. And this doesn't even address the issue of "draw".)
-
I think a 56x56mm sensor for Hy6, tech (and V) could work commercially, maybe with 7-8um pixels (49-64 megapixels). Problem is that Hassy and Phase don't have any reason to make such a back as their cameras don't work with that format.
If the Hy6 wants to survive as a digital platform DHW IMO needs to search a partner other than Leaf. For the reasons that you mention Phase One is unlikely to invest a lot in such a back. They already dropped the unique rotating sensor solution for AFi/V mounts. It is just not important to them. They are currently also the only option for the Hy6 so if you want a current back you have no other option than Phase One.
-
Hi,
Sorry, I am not familiar with cinema.
Can you explain the benefits of 70mm, for those of us who are shootings stills?
Best regards
Erik
A 70mm digital cinema camera, perhaps?
-
Hi,
Not at all! Ideally a sensor should outresolve the lens. If the lens outresolves the sensor you will get artifacts like moiré, false colours and jagged lines. An actual pixels image will be awful, but downscale that image and it will be beautiful.
Sony could make a back for Hasselblad V series of cameras, just a very simple and basic one. Such a back would sell to a lot of Hasselblad owners, if the sensor was big enough and the price was low enough.
Best regards
Erik
It would seem to me that the largest hindrance to Sony, Nikon, Canon, or similar "mass market" company releasing a 50MP camera is the lack of lenses capable of this resolution. Even the D800E outpaces most Nikon lenses. (To wit, the value and need of the Zeiss Otus.) So, for one of these companies to release a 50MP camera means either designing the camera from the start to use MF lenses or lenses like the Otus, or bringing out another line of lenses. The latter is very expensive and time consuming. (Indeed, this is a major issue for Sony even now with the A7R -- the lack of "native" lenses with sufficient resolving power. And this doesn't even address the issue of "draw".)
-
2. There is ZERO actual demand for chips bigger than the 60/80MP Dalsa chips.
Where on earth do you get these silly assertions from?
There's lots of folks out there who would buy a 100mp back. Me for one.
Just because something isn't needed for your photography, does not mean it isn't needed by someone else's!
-
I think a 56x56mm sensor for Hy6, tech (and V) could work commercially, maybe with 7-8um pixels (49-64 megapixels). Problem is that Hassy and Phase don't have any reason to make such a back as their cameras don't work with that format.
I like your idea! :-) If you include the V, the Hy6, RZ, tech, aerial, reproduction markets its not that small of a group. Who knows maybe they'd consider it? But my guess is they have less control of the sensor pitch than anything else - so it might come through with higher pixel count which is okay with me.
-
Hi,
Sorry, I am not familiar with cinema.
Can you explain the benefits of 70mm, for those of us who are shootings stills?
Best regards
Erik
70mm (just a pseudo-term like Super 35mm) is somewhat equivalent to 6x7 medium format. E.g., IMAX is 70.41 × 52.63 mm. Other than IMAX, "70mm" is also shot on 65mm film (Todd-AO 48.56 x 20.73 mm) - and projected back on 70mm.
There are movies being shot in IMAX and 65mm even today - The Dark Knight Rises, Samsara, The Master, etc. Not small movies. Obviously, there are cinematographers and filmmakers enamored with the "medium format look" and want to translate that into cinema. The lenses used are 'cinevised' versions of Hasselblad, Mamiya and Schneider lenses. What is stopping more productions are the cost and weight of film (and the camera, by consequence).
As you can see, the Todd-AO sensor size is not that big. It is pretty close to what medium format cameras have today. In fact, it is damn close to what Sony has just released.
A thought experiment:
What if Sony put down money to make a digital 70mm film (they produce movies) shot on their own medium format digital camera (they make cameras and computers) and then distributed that globally (they distribute movies globally) to cinemas (they are fighting a battle for digital projection), Blu-ray (they co-invented it) and the Internet (Luckily the only place they have no clue about) - to be seen on Sony 4K televisions? If the demand has been created by someone else, they will quickly push large sensor cameras into the market.
What makes me think they will? They introduced a 35mm full frame VG900 camcorder (but no Cinealta camera). They invented a completely new mount - E, and have also adapted it to heavy cinema cameras (called the FZ mount). The Sony A7R must have been in their sights when they did so. If they have agreed to a few MFDB sensor orders (that surely is in the lower four figures, optimistically), what is in their sights for tomorrow?
For years Leica have marketed the 'superiority' of their cameras. They did this by using the scarcity principle - low volumes at a large cost. What this does is create a huge market of people who lust after their cameras but can't afford them. Sony is the type of company that goes after such a market.
Suddenly Sony comes out with an A7R that rivals the best any of them (Leica, Canon, Nikon) have to offer. They started by selling some of them sensors. In the MFDB world, Phase One and Hasselblad have marketed the 'superiority' of the format (which is mainly the size of the sensor) for years. Sony has now started selling them sensors...
Sony never tries to invent a market. They just wait for it to mature and then 'arrives'. They don't care about any particular segment, they want to dominate the entire market from end to end. Let's see the pattern here:
- Michael says a million visitors come every month to LuLa. Why would they come, if they are not interested in MFDB? Assuming only 25% of them are real humans, that's about 250,000 per month. That's not a small market.
- Steve Hendrix and Doug Peterson have consistently maintained that MFDB is selling quite well. Obviously, the combined marketing efforts of the industry as a whole are working. This is why Leica and Pentax showed interest.
- Why did Nikon feel the need for a 40 MP DSLR, if not for the demands of MFDB fans for cheaper '40 MP'?
- Every time there's a MFDB discussion, the topic turns to 'I wish it were cheaper'. What the MFDB manufacturers and their marketing have created is a huge market of people that lust for MFDB but can't afford it.
- Now Sony has shown interest. They are the masters of 'good enough products for cheap'.
The good news, one hopes, is, a 70mm cinema camera. That will definitely pique a lot of filmmakers' interests (in numbers greater than the total size of the MFDB market). These filmmakers won't demand still cameras of the same size, because the digital 70mm camera will shoot 8K (40 MP) frames at 24 fps. And just in time for the 2020 8K broadcast by NHK.
This will also put Sony ahead of Red and Arri, and back at the top of digital cinema pantheon. One camera to rule them all.
Just a hunch. Anybody see any benefits?
-
Not at all! Ideally a sensor should outresolve the lens. If the lens outresolves the sensor you will get artifacts like moiré, false colours and jagged lines. An actual pixels image will be awful, but downscale that image and it will be beautiful.
I think that we are in agreement, but your words could be interpreted in a direction that I disagree with.
Downscaling does not make an image "better". Rendering it at smaller sizes and/or increasing the viewing distance may hide small artifacts, though.
Ideally, we want to maintain the highest possible resolution end-to-end in our scene reproduction activity (all else being equal). The total degradation of the scene by all of the components (among other things) tells us how up-close it is possible to view the end-result.
-h
-
Where on earth do you get these silly assertions from?
There's lots of folks out there who would buy a 100mp back. Me for one.
Just because something isn't needed for your photography, does not mean it isn't needed by someone else's!
The number of people who would plunk down $60 or $80K for that (which is what the economies of scale would demand) is countable on fingers and toes, and roughly equals the number of people who would complain unrelentingly about the poor corner-quality of their wonder-back ;D
But we all gotta dream! (for me it was a digital Mamyia 6 -- would have killed a man with my bare hands for one)
- N.
-
2. There is ZERO actual demand for chips bigger than the 60/80MP Dalsa chips.
Just as a reference point, I'm very sure that if/when P1 announced a 160MP sensor we'd sell a few in the first hour.
In addition to the "usual" (architecture, interior, landscape) who desire massive prints there are also the niches of aerial, scientific, industrial, cultural heritage, film scanning, and more.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think I'll ever be recommending a 160mp sensor for portrait work or fashion. But just because YOU have zero demand for higher resolution doesn't mean there isn't more than enough demand for such a sensor to justify it's creation.
-
There's already are huge sensor cameras on the market, for mapping that is. Integraph's DMC II250 uses a 250 megapixel Dalsa sensor of 96x82mm size (plus four 42 megapixel sensors of smaller size with own lenses to make a multispectral capture). I'm assuming it makes Phase One's digital backs seem cheap ;D
-
The resolution that we have right now, I feel, is more than enough, as do many other APs I speak to. What concerns me is how poorly the high resolution backs handle lens cast. I would like to see a 50 MP full frame CCD that has the same capabilities as the IQ260. This, I feel, would be the perfect compromise between high res and large enough pixels to handle LCCs. Many APs I have spoken to also agree with me on this; no one really wants to deal with those uber big lenses Rodenstock keeps on releasing. (You can not even leave the Roddie 32mm on the camera due to the weight, what is up with that? And why did they not just design it to mount on a stronger Copal 1, which is only marginally bigger than the 0?)
Unfortunately, Phase One does not seem to really be concerned with tech cameras. Not counting the dealers and techs I speak to, who have all voiced concerns about the SK wides with the new backs, the hand full of times I have spoken to someone that works for P1, they smooth it over and just say that the software handles that. I am not sure if this is just marketing hype or that they just do not know?
I shoot with a P45+ right now and love it. Maybe I will upgrade to an IQ260 in 2 or 3 years, but after that ... not sure. If they continue with this pointless MP race, than the IQ260 will probably be the highest res I would ever want to go to.
-
I guess a not too small pixel size in combination with back illumination process would greatly improve the angular response.
(http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo//News/Press/200806/08-069E/images/no_flash.gif)
as far as I know only cell phone sensor with extremely small pixels are manufactured with a back-illuminated layout today. Not sure what the reason is, but I'm assuming it's hard to make large sensors back-illuminated.
Angular response is however not the reason sensors got back illuminated, it was to improve sensitivity (ie quantum efficiency I assume) especially with extremely small pixels as found in cell-phone sensors. There's not the same gain for larger pixels as found in 135 and medium format sensors so it's not sure that technology will find its way to larger sensors, at least not for the same reasons.
I'm also one of the users that think that improved angular response is the single most desired feature of future medium format sensors, and if that will cause a halt in the megapixel race, I'm fine with that. With back illumination it might be possible to combine small pixel size with wide angular response though, I don't know. Today it seems hard.
-
Hi,
The Sony RX 100II has a back side illuminated sensor, it is 1" size.
Best regards
Erik
I guess a not too small pixel size in combination with back illumination process would greatly improve the angular response.
(http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo//News/Press/200806/08-069E/images/no_flash.gif)
as far as I know only cell phone sensor with extremely small pixels are manufactured with a back-illuminated layout today. Not sure what the reason is, but I'm assuming it's hard to make large sensors back-illuminated.
Angular response is however not the reason sensors got back illuminated, it was to improve sensitivity (ie quantum efficiency I assume) especially with extremely small pixels as found in cell-phone sensors. There's not the same gain for larger pixels as found in 135 and medium format sensors so it's not sure that technology will find its way to larger sensors, at least not for the same reasons.
I'm also one of the users that think that improved angular response is the single most desired feature of future medium format sensors, and if that will cause a halt in the megapixel race, I'm fine with that. With back illumination it might be possible to combine small pixel size with wide angular response though, I don't know. Today it seems hard.
-
Two thoughts:
2. There is ZERO actual demand for chips bigger than the 60/80MP Dalsa chips.
Nick, not ZERO, as I myself would be interested in one - 56x56. If they made a sensor to fit 4x5, I would also be interested. I think the larger formats have a look that is hard to replicate with 35mm.
-
Hi,
Thanks for explanation!
If you feel that a large sensor is needed to achieve IMAX quality I can see that there is a significant market for large sensor video cameras. Such cameras could be very expensive and still be a bargain.
From what I have seen from stills, my 24 MP full frame camera is a good match for my Pentax 67 using Velvia, so I feel 24x36 would do, but larger is mostly better.
So you think 8K is around the corner?
Best regards
Erik
70mm (just a pseudo-term like Super 35mm) is somewhat equivalent to 6x7 medium format. E.g., IMAX is 70.41 × 52.63 mm. Other than IMAX, "70mm" is also shot on 65mm film (Todd-AO 48.56 x 20.73 mm) - and projected back on 70mm.
There are movies being shot in IMAX and 65mm even today - The Dark Knight Rises, Samsara, The Master, etc. Not small movies. Obviously, there are cinematographers and filmmakers enamored with the "medium format look" and want to translate that into cinema. The lenses used are 'cinevised' versions of Hasselblad, Mamiya and Schneider lenses. What is stopping more productions are the cost and weight of film (and the camera, by consequence).
As you can see, the Todd-AO sensor size is not that big. It is pretty close to what medium format cameras have today. In fact, it is damn close to what Sony has just released.
A thought experiment:
What if Sony put down money to make a digital 70mm film (they produce movies) shot on their own medium format digital camera (they make cameras and computers) and then distributed that globally (they distribute movies globally) to cinemas (they are fighting a battle for digital projection), Blu-ray (they co-invented it) and the Internet (Luckily the only place they have no clue about) - to be seen on Sony 4K televisions? If the demand has been created by someone else, they will quickly push large sensor cameras into the market.
What makes me think they will? They introduced a 35mm full frame VG900 camcorder (but no Cinealta camera). They invented a completely new mount - E, and have also adapted it to heavy cinema cameras (called the FZ mount). The Sony A7R must have been in their sights when they did so. If they have agreed to a few MFDB sensor orders (that surely is in the lower four figures, optimistically), what is in their sights for tomorrow?
For years Leica have marketed the 'superiority' of their cameras. They did this by using the scarcity principle - low volumes at a large cost. What this does is create a huge market of people who lust after their cameras but can't afford them. Sony is the type of company that goes after such a market.
Suddenly Sony comes out with an A7R that rivals the best any of them (Leica, Canon, Nikon) have to offer. They started by selling some of them sensors. In the MFDB world, Phase One and Hasselblad have marketed the 'superiority' of the format (which is mainly the size of the sensor) for years. Sony has now started selling them sensors...
Sony never tries to invent a market. They just wait for it to mature and then 'arrives'. They don't care about any particular segment, they want to dominate the entire market from end to end. Let's see the pattern here:
- Michael says a million visitors come every month to LuLa. Why would they come, if they are not interested in MFDB? Assuming only 25% of them are real humans, that's about 250,000 per month. That's not a small market.
- Steve Hendrix and Doug Peterson have consistently maintained that MFDB is selling quite well. Obviously, the combined marketing efforts of the industry as a whole are working. This is why Leica and Pentax showed interest.
- Why did Nikon feel the need for a 40 MP DSLR, if not for the demands of MFDB fans for cheaper '40 MP'?
- Every time there's a MFDB discussion, the topic turns to 'I wish it were cheaper'. What the MFDB manufacturers and their marketing have created is a huge market of people that lust for MFDB but can't afford it.
- Now Sony has shown interest. They are the masters of 'good enough products for cheap'.
The good news, one hopes, is, a 70mm cinema camera. That will definitely pique a lot of filmmakers' interests (in numbers greater than the total size of the MFDB market). These filmmakers won't demand still cameras of the same size, because the digital 70mm camera will shoot 8K (40 MP) frames at 24 fps. And just in time for the 2020 8K broadcast by NHK.
This will also put Sony ahead of Red and Arri, and back at the top of digital cinema pantheon. One camera to rule them all.
Just a hunch. Anybody see any benefits?
-
Any MF camera with an exchangable back. Also technical cameras.
Best regards
Erik
But to put on what?
-
Hi,
The enclosed image illustrates pretty well what I mean. The images were shot at around 3.5 using a 150 mm lens, with three different cameras.
- Left Hasselblad 555ELD, with a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 (probably f/8) with a P45+ back (6.8 my pixel pitch)
- Center Sony Alpha 99, SAL 70-400/4-5.6 at 150 mm and f/8 (6 my pixel pitch)
- Right Sony Alpha 77, SAL 70-400/4-5.6 at 150 and f/8 (3.9 my pixel pitch)
The three different images obviously cover very different FOV (Field Of View), but the test is intended to demonstrate the potential benefit of small pixels.
The Sony image were downscaled to the same image size the P45+ has. It could be stated that the right image shows what a 130-160 MP medium format camera would be capable of.
Best regards
Erik
I think that we are in agreement, but your words could be interpreted in a direction that I disagree with.
Downscaling does not make an image "better". Rendering it at smaller sizes and/or increasing the viewing distance may hide small artifacts, though.
Ideally, we want to maintain the highest possible resolution end-to-end in our scene reproduction activity (all else being equal). The total degradation of the scene by all of the components (among other things) tells us how up-close it is possible to view the end-result.
-h
-
Hi,
The enclosed image illustrates pretty well what I mean. The images were shot at around 3.5 using a 150 mm lens, with three different cameras.
- Left Hasselblad 555ELD, with a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 (probably f/8) with a P45+ back (6.8 my pixel pitch)
- Center Sony Alpha 99, SAL 70-400/4-5.6 at 150 mm and f/8 (6 my pixel pitch)
- Right Sony Alpha 77, SAL 70-400/4-5.6 at 150 and f/8 (3.9 my pixel pitch)
The three different images obviously cover very different FOV (Field Of View), but the test is intended to demonstrate the potential benefit of small pixels.
The Sony image were downscaled to the same image size the P45+ has. It could be stated that the right image shows what a 130-160 MP medium format camera would be capable of.
Best regards
Erik
There is moire with your P45+ Erik… and some less so with your A99…
-
Oh yes,
There is always moiré on the P45+ at medium apertures if there is pixel level fine detail in the picture. The Sony Alpha 99 (6 my) has some, the Alpha 77 (3.9 my) has virtually none.
Moiré and large pixels go hand in hand, stopping down to f/16 eliminates moiré on the P45+ but it also reduces sharpness. The sample below is a good example of this (left f/8, right f/16). Best way to avoid moiré (and other aliasing artefacts) is to reduce pixel size.
Best regards
Erik
There is moire with your P45+ Erik…
-
There will be a market for it, just how big a market is the fun question. I'm interested in what DT/CI see folks trade-in on a cmos based unit, and how many folks come back to ccd based on whatever workflow.
The higher ISO will be welcomed in a lot of segments - weddings or places where you're not shooting staged shots. Just another tool for the bag - an extremely expensive bag.
-
The resolution that we have right now, I feel, is more than enough, as do many other APs I speak to. What concerns me is how poorly the high resolution backs handle lens cast. I would like to see a 50 MP full frame CCD that has the same capabilities as the IQ260. This, I feel, would be the perfect compromise between high res and large enough pixels to handle LCCs. Many APs I have spoken to also agree with me on this; no one really wants to deal with those uber big lenses Rodenstock keeps on releasing. (You can not even leave the Roddie 32mm on the camera due to the weight, what is up with that? And why did they not just design it to mount on a stronger Copal 1, which is only marginally bigger than the 0?)
Unfortunately, Phase One does not seem to really be concerned with tech cameras. Not counting the dealers and techs I speak to, who have all voiced concerns about the SK wides with the new backs, the hand full of times I have spoken to someone that works for P1, they smooth it over and just say that the software handles that. I am not sure if this is just marketing hype or that they just do not know?
I shoot with a P45+ right now and love it. Maybe I will upgrade to an IQ260 in 2 or 3 years, but after that ... not sure. If they continue with this pointless MP race, than the IQ260 will probably be the highest res I would ever want to go to.
+1
-
Just use a bad lense and your Moiré will magically disappear :)
Edmund
Oh yes,
There is always moiré on the P45+ at medium apertures if there is pixel level fine detail in the picture. The Sony Alpha 99 (6 my) has some, the Alpha 77 (3.9 my) has virtually none.
Moiré and large pixels go hand in hand, stopping down to f/16 eliminates moiré on the P45+ but it also reduces sharpness. The sample below is a good example of this (left f/8, right f/16). Best way to avoid moiré (and other aliasing artefacts) is to reduce pixel size.
Best regards
Erik
-
Any MF camera with an exchangable back. Also technical cameras.
Best regards
Erik
You think Sony would make their own MFDB to put on other manufacturers' cameras?
-
You think Sony would make their own MFDB to put on other manufacturers' cameras?
At this point anyone can buy a devkit from any manufacturer.
A CMOS chip can probably survive with no shutter or viewinder, can focus with liveview
I see no engineering difficulty in making a back that fits on to Alpa, or even a complete box with a lens mount on front.
Edmund
-
At this point anyone can buy a devkit from any manufacturer.
A CMOS chip can probably survive with no shutter or viewinder, can focus with liveview
I see no engineering difficulty in making a back that fits on to Alpa, or even a complete box with a lens mount on front.
Edmund
I agree with all of that.
But it doesn't answer why Sony would do it.
Kind regards,
Gerald
-
The three different images obviously cover very different FOV (Field Of View), but the test is intended to demonstrate the potential benefit of small pixels.
I see. My point was that it is not image downscaling that makes small sensel cameras (potentially) better, it is the smaller sensels.
Downscaling an image is the equivalent of doing a lowpass filter (blurring), then dropping every n-th pixel (aliasing). That is not something you want to do for increasing image quality, that is something you want to do to fit to some fixed pixel grid (such as a printer or display).
-h
-
When I encounter Moire, I move my camera position a bit.
Way easier than doing all that math in my head.
-
If it it's quite easy to make a basic digital back thanks to devkits, which it might be, I find it sort of surprising that 1) DHW does not make a 56x56 Hy6 back, 2) Alpa/Arca/Cambo/Linhof does not make a tech cam digital back to go with their own cameras.
If I were them, I'd be quite concerned with that often considerably more than 50% of a photographer's camera budget goes into Phase One's digital backs, and that possibly with wider margins than the camera makers get, and Phase One is worryingly focused on their own camera system as solver of all photographic problems.
-
If it it's quite easy to make a basic digital back thanks to devkits, which it might be, I find it sort of surprising that 1) DHW does not make a 56x56 Hy6 back, 2) Alpa/Arca/Cambo/Linhof does not make a tech cam digital back to go with their own cameras.
If I were them, I'd be quite concerned with that often considerably more than 50% of a photographer's camera budget goes into Phase One's digital backs, and that possibly with wider margins than the camera makers get, and Phase One is worryingly focused on their own camera system as solver of all photographic problems.
I think cameras new cameras will come from young digital natives who minimise the physical design via 3d printing.
Edmund
-
I think new cameras will come from young digital natives who minimise the physical design via 3d printing.
Yes, that might be the case, 3D printing is a bit futuristic though as precision is one of its weaknesses, but that a small kickstarter type of company could make a digital back might not be impossible. It seems like there needs to be some new player to get some disruptive thinking into the market place. Maybe not medium format in general (I see Pentax as an exception), but digital backs is thoroughly locked in the professional space, there is only one mindset concerning business model which all run by: sell low volumes with very high margins to a narrow professional space. While manufactures have noticed an increase in amateur users they still don't get it -- that there's (in comparison) a huge market waiting for them if they can succeed in a more volume-oriented business model.
-
Yes, that might be the case, 3D printing is a bit futuristic though as precision is one of its weaknesses, but that a small kickstarter type of company could make a digital back might not be impossible. It seems like there needs to be some new player to get some disruptive thinking into the market place. Maybe not medium format in general (I see Pentax as an exception), but digital backs is thoroughly locked in the professional space, there is only one mindset concerning business model which all run by: sell low volumes with very high margins to a narrow professional space. While manufactures have noticed an increase in amateur users they still don't get it -- that there's (in comparison) a huge market waiting for them if they can succeed in a more volume-oriented business model.
They're not dumb, they get it. And they understand what Nikon and Canon are seeing, a progressive disappearance of the middle class of customers in the mature markets, compounded by the disappearance of the dealers that sold to them. And an accompanying increase in "money is just numbers" customers with a very high disposable income.
You can see how effective the luxury branding approach is in the electronics field. Apple is still selling the iPad 2 in Europe at $500 and up; parts costs for that 3 year old model are now probably around $40 and it is competing with $100 tablets and doing very well.
Edmund
-
...While manufactures have noticed an increase in amateur users they still don't get it -- that there's (in comparison) a huge market waiting for them if they can succeed in a more volume-oriented business model.
How many Canon 60Ds are sold compared to Canon 6D? How much would a Canon "0.6D" (MF) sell?
It seems to me that the big players have gotten FF covered by good performance, ergonomically pleasing models at moderate prices. If you want to compete with them on their turf you need lots of money and time. If you want to survive doing something different (going below their radar), then MF might be the solution. But I am not sure that making MF "more similar to the D800" (if that is what you are suggesting) with sensor size as the sole distinguishing factor is enough to secure the volumes that is needed for such a product.
Sure, someone like Sony might do an A9 MF just for the heck of it, for tech PR or whatever. But they have people, funds, patents, tech, and existing product ranges to harvest software and components from.
It will be interesting to see what the expected Pentax 645DII will do, and what it will cost.
-h
-
The MF segment is so small, that even if it would increase ten-fold it would still be tiny, so I think it may not follow the exact same logic as higher volume markets. It's a niche market and will stay that way. But as a niche market I don't think it needs to stay as static as it is today.
The "forgotten" customer segment I'm thinking about is the 40-60 year-old amateur that would buy a motorcycle or a small sailing boat or other fairly expensive unnecessary item for a hobby you love and spend a lot of time with. Not necessarily overly rich, just middle class people that has saved up some money over the years and want to do something fun with them. Photography has a solid place as such a hobby, and then it's generally not studio photography but things like birding (135 space for sure), travel and landscape. Landscape is huge among amateurs.
When it comes to landscape tech cameras has a very appealing advantage from that it offers a totally different experience from shooting 135. It has a similar appeal as shooting 4x5" large format (which some still do), you can frame with movements just like Ansel Adams, but you don't need to carry as heavy gear or mess with film. And there exists quite economical solutions too, a Silvestri tech cam with Schneider Digitar lenses can be had new to a reasonable price; but then you need to smack a back to it which costs a lot more than the rest of the system, or you need to buy some "entry level" back which still cost a little more than the rest and leaves you with a poorly balanced system with stitching on the wide side and/or possibly the requirement to get much more expensive retrofocus lenses.
This segment has a pretty large growth potential if backs would be less expensive and more focused to work with these systems. But it's the tech camera makers that could have interest in that, rather than players like Phase One. I suspect that tech camera is kind of stuck in their thinking too though, they're doing okay to well by selling in small numbers and are not hungry enough to want to grow their business.
The trend in tech cameras seem to be to make them more similar to an overgrown mirrorless A7r-like camera, both concerning lenses and camera design.This is to some extent a result of digital back development that follow the needs of the MF SLRs rather than tech cam systems. I think this will reduce the appeal to this amateur segment, then it just becomes a luxury product not a different shooting experience. I'll probably leave MF myself when/if the view camera finally dies, on the other hand it could get a new revival with the appropriate CMOS sensors and backs.
Pentax is just a big DSLR, and I think that works because the price difference is not too large, ie it's bigger and better and priced in a reasonable way. But it appeals to a different set of users than a tech cam does.
-
I agree with what you say. Unfortunately, the way the economy is going, middle class amateurs won't be able to afford english aquarel paints, let alone MF backs. I believe that the guys who make drawing *pencils* are going to see an uptick, just like Mc Donald's gourmet restaurants.
Edmund
The MF segment is so small, that even if it would increase ten-fold it would still be tiny, so I think it may not follow the exact same logic as higher volume markets. It's a niche market and will stay that way. But as a niche market I don't think it needs to stay as static as it is today.
The "forgotten" customer segment I'm thinking about is the 40-60 year-old amateur that would buy a motorcycle or a small sailing boat or other fairly expensive unnecessary item for a hobby you love and spend a lot of time with. Not necessarily overly rich, just middle class people that has saved up some money over the years and want to do something fun with them. Photography has a solid place as such a hobby, and then it's generally not studio photography but things like birding (135 space for sure), travel and landscape. Landscape is huge among amateurs.
When it comes to landscape tech cameras has a very appealing advantage from that it offers a totally different experience from shooting 135. It has a similar appeal as shooting 4x5" large format (which some still do), you can frame with movements just like Ansel Adams, but you don't need to carry as heavy gear or mess with film. And there exists quite economical solutions too, a Silvestri tech cam with Schneider Digitar lenses can be had new to a reasonable price; but then you need to smack a back to it which costs a lot more than the rest of the system, or you need to buy some "entry level" back which still cost a little more than the rest and leaves you with a poorly balanced system with stitching on the wide side and/or possibly the requirement to get much more expensive retrofocus lenses.
This segment has a pretty large growth potential if backs would be less expensive and more focused to work with these systems. But it's the tech camera makers that could have interest in that, rather than players like Phase One. I suspect that tech camera is kind of stuck in their thinking too though, they're doing okay to well by selling in small numbers and are not hungry enough to want to grow their business.
The trend in tech cameras seem to be to make them more similar to an overgrown mirrorless A7r-like camera, both concerning lenses and camera design.This is to some extent a result of digital back development that follow the needs of the MF SLRs rather than tech cam systems. I think this will reduce the appeal to this amateur segment, then it just becomes a luxury product not a different shooting experience. I'll probably leave MF myself when/if the view camera finally dies, on the other hand it could get a new revival with the appropriate CMOS sensors and backs.
Pentax is just a big DSLR, and I think that works because the price difference is not too large, ie it's bigger and better and priced in a reasonable way. But it appeals to a different set of users than a tech cam does.
-
The MF segment is so small, that even if it would increase ten-fold it would still be tiny, so I think it may not follow the exact same logic as higher volume markets. It's a niche market and will stay that way. But as a niche market I don't think it needs to stay as static as it is today.
The "forgotten" customer segment I'm thinking about is the 40-60 year-old amateur that would buy a motorcycle or a small sailing boat or other fairly expensive unnecessary item for a hobby you love and spend a lot of time with. Not necessarily overly rich, just middle class people that has saved up some money over the years and want to do something fun with them. Photography has a solid place as such a hobby, and then it's generally not studio photography but things like birding (135 space for sure), travel and landscape. Landscape is huge among amateurs.
When it comes to landscape tech cameras has a very appealing advantage from that it offers a totally different experience from shooting 135. It has a similar appeal as shooting 4x5" large format (which some still do), you can frame with movements just like Ansel Adams, but you don't need to carry as heavy gear or mess with film. And there exists quite economical solutions too, a Silvestri tech cam with Schneider Digitar lenses can be had new to a reasonable price; but then you need to smack a back to it which costs a lot more than the rest of the system, or you need to buy some "entry level" back which still cost a little more than the rest and leaves you with a poorly balanced system with stitching on the wide side and/or possibly the requirement to get much more expensive retrofocus lenses.
This segment has a pretty large growth potential if backs would be less expensive and more focused to work with these systems. But it's the tech camera makers that could have interest in that, rather than players like Phase One. I suspect that tech camera is kind of stuck in their thinking too though, they're doing okay to well by selling in small numbers and are not hungry enough to want to grow their business.
The trend in tech cameras seem to be to make them more similar to an overgrown mirrorless A7r-like camera, both concerning lenses and camera design.This is to some extent a result of digital back development that follow the needs of the MF SLRs rather than tech cam systems. I think this will reduce the appeal to this amateur segment, then it just becomes a luxury product not a different shooting experience. I'll probably leave MF myself when/if the view camera finally dies, on the other hand it could get a new revival with the appropriate CMOS sensors and backs.
Pentax is just a big DSLR, and I think that works because the price difference is not too large, ie it's bigger and better and priced in a reasonable way. But it appeals to a different set of users than a tech cam does.
You have described me pretty exactly. :) Engineer, 56, garage full of bikes, used to roadrace. Spent 10k+ a year on racing for a few years running. Hiking and photography are the other two things I really like doing. Going to retire in 4-6 years.
Not made of money by any means, but I can afford a tech camera/MFDB combo if it's important enough to me. I'm thinking that setup would be fun to use, and that the pacing and thought process required would make me a better photographer. NOT under any illusions that the bigger sensor or increase in pixel count is going to magically make my photos better. :)
You hit the nail on the head with the "different experience from shooting 135" comment. That's what's important to me. How many guys like me are out there?? Dunno, but I doubt I'm alone. Enough though to make it a market worth pursuing?? That's the big question.
-
... I see no engineering difficulty in making a back that fits on to Alpa, or even a complete box with a lens mount on front.
On one hand the new Sony sensor is available to all takers (according to the Phase One video interview at this site), so I suppose there is room for new companies to go into the business of making digital backs for technical cameras and such.
On the other hand:
- Phase One and Sinar already serve this market, with Phase One backs usable on Alpa bodies for example.
- Dalsa and Kodak have also for a long time offered "medium format" CCD sensors to all takers, and yet if anything the number of companies buying such sensors to make DMF back has diminished, with Leaf absorbed by Phase One and Kodak abandoning its DMF back products years before it sold its sensor division.
So I do not see big companies with large revenues in more mainstream photographic equipment like Sony, Canon, or Nikon taking an interest in the far smaller niche sector of digital backs. Digital backs are too obscure and unfamiliar to most of the photographic market to be attractive even as loss-making halo products.
Complete systems like the Pentax 645D have more visibility and more potential as halo products that management will support even if not profitable enough on their own to justify the investment. And I do expect (or at least hope for) Pentax to deliver a "645D Mk II" this year, using this 44x33mm CMOS sensor.
-
Hi,
Another factor is marketing channels, I think. Phase One has a chain of dealers and that kind of resource takes time and effort to build.
Pentax is a special case, they had an existing base, the Pentax 645 being one of the dominant MF cameras, especially in Japan. So they could sell their bodies to customers already having the lenses. Also, Penatx is a Sony sensor customer already, so they probably have good access to Sony Technology which can reduce their need of design effort.
But, I would bet that we see Leica coming out with a CMOS based "S", pretty soon.
Best regards
Erik
On one hand the new Sony sensor is available to all takers (according to the Phase One video interview at this site), so I suppose there is room for new companies to go into the business of making digital backs for technical cameras and such.
On the other hand:
- Phase One and Sinar already serve this market, with Phase One backs usable on Alpa bodies for example.
- Dalsa and Kodak have also for a long time offered "medium format" CCD sensors to all takers, and yet if anything the number of companies buying such sensors to make DMF back has diminished, with Leaf absorbed by Phase One and Kodak abandoning its DMF back products years before it sold its sensor division.
So I do not see big companies with large revenues in more mainstream photographic equipment like Sony, Canon, or Nikon taking an interest in the far smaller niche sector of digital backs. Digital backs are too obscure and unfamiliar to most of the photographic market to be attractive even as loss-making halo products.
Complete systems like the Pentax 645D have more visibility and more potential as halo products that management will support even if not profitable enough on their own to justify the investment. And I do expect (or at least hope for) Pentax to deliver a "645D Mk II" this year, using this 44x33mm CMOS sensor.
-
If it it's quite easy to make a basic digital back thanks to devkits, which it might be, I find it sort of surprising that 1) DHW does not make a 56x56 Hy6 back ...
That would require a 56x56mm sensor, not just building the circuits around existing sensors, and for reasons I will not restate because they have already been debated numerous times in these forums, I severely doubt that there will ever be an economic case for any company to design and make such a sensor in a form suitable of photography.
... 2) Alpa/Arca/Cambo/Linhof does not make a tech cam digital back to go with their own cameras.
Good point; these companies have been good candidates for making their own backs using sensors long available from Dalsa or Kodak sensors, so the fact that none has done so is telling.
-
If we look at tethered-only products there have been really tiny manufacturers of them. Scanning back solutions is well-known, but I'm quite sure I've seen reproduction tethered-only CCD-based digital backs made by really small players, didn't manage to find an example in a quick googling though. I think most/all of them are history by now. I have some memory of that arca-swiss had their own tethered digital back once... not sure if I remember correctly though.
Going from a tethered-only bulky "hack" (ie expand the devkit slightly) to a compact field-usable self-contained back is a massive step though.
-
But, I would bet that we see Leica coming out with a CMOS based "S", pretty soon.
I overlooked Leica; maybe so, with a sensor from either from CMOSIS or Sony. The 44x33mm format requires almost the same image circle as Leica'a 45x30mm, so should work with Leica's existing "S" lenses, but would Leica abandon the 3:2 shape that it pioneered?!
-
I overlooked Leica; maybe so, with a sensor from either from CMOSIS or Sony. The 44x33mm format requires almost the same image circle as Leica'a 45x30mm, so should work with Leica's existing "S" lenses, but would Leica abandon the 3:2 shape that it pioneered?!
I don't think they will… but anyway, it shouldn't be difficult to offer a 30x45mm version of it…. Let's not forget that Leica's current sensor is oriented from a currently available MF sensor of other dimensions.
-
That would require a 56x56mm sensor, not just building the circuits around existing sensors, and for reasons I will not restate because they have already been debated numerous times in these forums, I severely doubt that there will ever be an economic case for any company to design and make such a sensor in a form suitable of photography.
Yes, I'm pretty clueless what it takes to make a custom size of an existing technology. I do know that Dalsa have made custom sizes much larger than 56x56mm, but I don't know what the cost overhead is, it may be massive. Possibly the size could worsen noise characteristics too? Or otherwise break suitability as a photographic sensor. I guess chip manufacturing process could evolve so it at some point becomes more feasible to make custom sizes than it has been so far.
-
Another factor is marketing channels, I think. Phase One has a chain of dealers and that kind of resource takes time and effort to build.
Pentax is a special case, they had an existing base, the Pentax 645 being one of the dominant MF cameras, especially in Japan. So they could sell their bodies to customers already having the lenses. Also, Penatx is a Sony sensor customer already, so they probably have good access to Sony Technology which can reduce their need of design effort.
Dealers also lower support and marketing costs at the manufacturer's end. Someone has to be paid to provide support; whether they sit at a desk with a Dealer logo above it or a Manufacturer logo above it is fairly irrelevant. This is especially true when you're looking to provide support on a variety of inter-related products which are not manufactured by the same company. A dealer can help you with your H4X, your P1 back, your profoto lights, your pocketwizard sync, your eizo monitor, and your capture one software - each manufacturer typically only supports their own part of the chain.
Also I'd like to think Value Added Dealers increase net sales, and greater volume means less R+D cost has to be born by each unit sold. They do this by providing expertise, the ability to demo the unit, the inventory of accessories (especially 3rd party items like tech cameras), the support they provide if/when there are issues (even if the issue isn't with the gear), and by providing rentals/replacement/loaner etc. There are countries where a particular brand is very dominant, largely because the dealer in that country is especially good/liked, even if that brand is not as popular in the broader world market.
-
From what I have seen from stills, my 24 MP full frame camera is a good match for my Pentax 67 using Velvia, so I feel 24x36 would do, but larger is mostly better.
It's not the same with motion. Two reasons:
- Motion blur and camera movements reduces resolution. The lower the frame rate the worse it gets. 60p would be just about okay.
- Interlacing reduces resolution.
- Chroma subsampling reduces resolution.
- Compression destroys resolution. Contrast that to fine art printing, where the goal is to preserve and even 'upgrade' resolution as much as possible. Video is the other way around.
- Poor display technology and viewing conditions reduces perceived (and real) resolution.
For these reasons and more, I imagine, to match 6x7, as I get with my Mamiya RB67, I'd need 40 MP of video, or 8K.
Same rules don't apply.
So you think 8K is around the corner?
Best regards
Erik
There is no corner anymore, Erik. NHK has already successfully broadcasted the first 8K video - which means they have the camera, the display and the compression technology to make it happen. By 2020, there will be 8K cameras covering the Olympics, in the hands of both professionals and fans. You may find this interesting: http://wolfcrow.com/blog/camera-trends-over-the-last-decade-what-does-the-future-hold/
The data rate for UHDTV2 or 8K 12-bit RAW is about 1.2 GB/s - easily achievable today with consumer drives in RAID 0. Thunderbolt technology is already ready for more than twice the data rate. All of this may sound too much, but it is worth it, IMO. Anyone who has seen a true IMAX documentary in a dome theater will know why. It's exhilarating as only motion can be - it makes 30' fine art prints look like post cards - with all due respect.
-
Hi,
I know little about motion. I have seen some IMAX much more than cinema, actually.
It's nice to hear about 8K, but right now I see 39 MP from my P45+ on a 2MP projector. Si I am waiting for 4K projectors to be affordable. Well I ca buy 3 of them for an IQ 250, everything is relative.
I hope 4K goes down in price, I am sure it does.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Thanks for the, I have not read it yet, but I will! Your writing is always interesting!
Pps. Case of beer posted ;-)
For these reasons and more, I imagine, to match 6x7, as I get with my Mamiya RB67, I'd need 40 MP of video, or 8K.
Same rules don't apply.
There is no corner anymore, Erik. NHK has already successfully broadcasted the first 8K video - which means they have the camera, the display and the compression technology to make it happen. By 2020, there will be 8K cameras covering the Olympics, in the hands of both professionals and fans. You may find this interesting: http://wolfcrow.com/blog/camera-trends-over-the-last-decade-what-does-the-future-hold/
The data rate for UHDTV2 or 8K 12-bit RAW is about 1.2 GB/s - easily achievable today with consumer drives in RAID 0. Thunderbolt technology is already ready for more than twice the data rate. All of this may sound too much, but it is worth it, IMO. Anyone who has seen a true IMAX documentary in a dome theater will know why. It's exhilarating as only motion can be - it makes 30' fine art prints look like post cards - with all due respect.
-
Doug,
Dealers can do all you say. But some countries have dealers who have all the interactivity of an electric utility company. Yes they can make things happen for you. Well, they could.
The problem with the dealer model is that a lot of it is territory, and once they have a territorial monopoly with the institutional contracts that go with it, they have zero incentive to provide more service than ... your local electric utility.
Edmund
Dealers also lower support and marketing costs at the manufacturer's end. Someone has to be paid to provide support; whether they sit at a desk with a Dealer logo above it or a Manufacturer logo above it is fairly irrelevant. This is especially true when you're looking to provide support on a variety of inter-related products which are not manufactured by the same company. A dealer can help you with your H4X, your P1 back, your profoto lights, your pocketwizard sync, your eizo monitor, and your capture one software - each manufacturer typically only supports their own part of the chain.
Also I'd like to think Value Added Dealers increase net sales, and greater volume means less R+D cost has to be born by each unit sold. They do this by providing expertise, the ability to demo the unit, the inventory of accessories (especially 3rd party items like tech cameras), the support they provide if/when there are issues (even if the issue isn't with the gear), and by providing rentals/replacement/loaner etc. There are countries where a particular brand is very dominant, largely because the dealer in that country is especially good/liked, even if that brand is not as popular in the broader world market.
-
It's not the same with motion. Two reasons:
- Motion blur and camera movements reduces resolution. The lower the frame rate the worse it gets. 60p would be just about okay.
Excessive motion blur and camera movement would not be good arguments for increasing sensor resolution, though.
- Interlacing reduces resolution.
If we are talking about a hypothetical, top-notch video camera, why would we even think about doing interlacing?
- Chroma subsampling reduces resolution.
Yes, but for for natural images it tends to be acceptable (it is also used for JPEG still-image compression at moderate and low bitrates and kind-of in the Bayer CFA)
- Compression destroys resolution. Contrast that to fine art printing, where the goal is to preserve and even 'upgrade' resolution as much as possible. Video is the other way around.
Agreed.
- Poor display technology and viewing conditions reduces perceived (and real) resolution.
But why then should the recording be improved even further?
-h[/list]
-
... it shouldn't be difficult to offer a 30x45mm version of it…. Let's not forget that Leica's current sensor is oriented from a currently available MF sensor of other dimensions.
Maybe. In the past, it was reportedly far easier to take a basic CCD photosite design and use it in a variety of different sensor shapes, perhaps because a CCD has a very simple repetitive structure and read-out method. Active pixel CMOS sensors instead seem to need more custom designing for each different size and shape. One possible reason is the fact that active pixel CMOS sensors do read out by direct transfer from each photo-site to the edge of the sensor, and so increasing the sensor size changes the signal path lengths and timing. So Leica's custom CCD size might be hard to replace by an active pixel CMOS sensor in a large custom size.
I do know that Dalsa have made custom sizes much larger than 56x56mm, but I don't know what the cost overhead is, it may be massive. Possibly the size could worsen noise characteristics too? Or otherwise break suitability as a photographic sensor.
It used to be that all the huge sensors for astronomy and such either (1) had huge pixel sizes, allowing fabrication on "large format" steppers not suitable for the pixel size needed in MF, or (2) were arrays of several smaller sensors butted together, leaving visible join lines that are tolerable in X-rays, but not for a MF camera. I am not sure what ht state of the art is, but:
1) Teledyne-Dalsa will make custom CCDs and CMOS sensors at up to "wafer scale" (up to 98x49mm, so only one sensor per 150mm diameter wafer), but pixel spacing is a huge 96 microns. Interestingly, this design was derived from an earlier design of exactly half the linear dimensions and half the pixel pitch, so the same pixel count. This suggests that pixel pitch is is limited by the angular resolution of the optical system used in fabrication, and limits sensors to the same maximum pixel count.
See http://www.teledynedalsa.com/public/corp/pdfs/papers/Very_Large_Area_CMOS_Active-Pixel_Sensors.pdf
2) Teledyne-Dalsa also makes the 94 x 78mm, 250MP CCD sensor for the Z/I DMC IIe 250 (http://www.ziimaging.com/en/zi-dmc-iie-250_32.htm) aerial mapping camera with a more MF-friendly 5.6 micron pixel pitch. However, I do not see a price quoted anywhere.
ADDED LATER: this camera weighs 66Kg and needs a 350W power supply! http://www.aerial-survey-base.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ZI_DMC250_DS_en3.pdf
-
Hi,
Think IMAX, think 4K and think 8K, perhaps a reasonable. It seems that a lot of films are made on IMAX. Sony is a dominant player in the cinema business.
Best regards
Erik
yeah! …a cinema camera that would cost 200k, one would have to throw all his lenses away, have only a batch of maybe 10 dedicated lenses, develop "new" style of direction for (almost) NO DOF when one "moves" inside the frame, eliminate camera operators to maybe 4 people worldwide and use 50mp to take …8 (!) eight out of it, to use in 4k raw video… S35 (and APS-C for starters) is more than enough for video… sensor size increase is the last thing that video will ever need.
-
If it it's quite easy to make a basic digital back thanks to devkits, which it might be, I find it sort of surprising that 1) DHW does not make a 56x56 Hy6 back, 2) Alpa/Arca/Cambo/Linhof does not make a tech cam digital back to go with their own cameras.
I think you'll see huge mega corporations create a bevy of product lines to fill a vertical, but small companies typically stick to their area of expertise and try and do it as well as they can.
That said, I would love to see them or anyone build a 56x56mm back - but as pointed out this can only happen if there are sensors made for it. There are some big square sensors but I think mostly even bigger approx. 8cm on a side and for astronomy and space telescopes.
-
Hi,
I know little about motion. I have seen some IMAX much more than cinema, actually.
It's nice to hear about 8K, but right now I see 39 MP from my P45+ on a 2MP projector. Si I am waiting for 4K projectors to be affordable. Well I ca buy 3 of them for an IQ 250, everything is relative.
I hope 4K goes down in price, I am sure it does.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Thanks for the, I have not read it yet, but I will! Your writing is always interesting!
Pps. Case of beer posted ;-)
Thank you humbly for the beer and the kind words!
-
Excessive motion blur and camera movement would not be good arguments for increasing sensor resolution, though.
You used the word "excessive", I didn't ;-). It could well be that a 1080p image at 60p has an equivalent perceptible resolution to 4K at 24p. The strange quirks of video.
If we are talking about a hypothetical, top-notch video camera, why would we even think about doing interlacing?
Thankfully we don't.
Yes, but for for natural images it tends to be acceptable
Unfortunately it is always combined with compression, sampling and a color gamut transformation - which is why the effects are not visible. If you take a TIFF image and compress to 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2, all other things being equal, the difference is visually noticeable. Therefore, it is a non-negligible factor.
But why then should the recording be improved even further?
For its own sake?
-
Unfortunately it is always combined with compression, sampling and a color gamut transformation - which is why the effects are not visible. If you take a TIFF image and compress to 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2, all other things being equal, the difference is visually noticeable. Therefore, it is a non-negligible factor.
I believe that for natural images at sensible resolution/distance and contrast, sRGB directly _tends_ to be visually indistinguishable to sRGB that has been converted to YCbCr 4:2:x and back.
For non-natural images (and some corner-case natural images) the difference may be clearly visible.
For its own sake?
"Quality improvements" that does not lead to improvements for the end-viewer is not a worthwhile goal in my opinion.
-h