Topic: 8x10 ...... digital (Read 20798 times)

asf · « **on:** August 23, 2011, 11:21:50 am »

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/

EricWHiss · « **Reply #1 on:** August 23, 2011, 12:06:04 pm »

Interesting that it appears he is using the back to save the cost of polaroids (to check for lighting etc) but still is using sheet film for final capture. I would like to know more about the back eq. what sensor was used and software etc.

Graham Mitchell · « **Reply #2 on:** August 23, 2011, 12:45:03 pm »

I'd love to see a sample 'polaroid' from that device. Very interesting!

TH_Alpa · « **Reply #3 on:** August 23, 2011, 01:27:20 pm »

I would as well love to know more technical details, about this sensor: pixel size (12 micro?), resolution, colour (which pattern?), etc ...

Interesting.

Thierry

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2011, 01:43:54 pm »

Next up: How about a digital back for the Polaroid 20x24" camera? That could have real mass-market appeal.

mtomalty · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2011, 04:00:47 pm »

From the man,himself.

"A number of people have emailed me regarding the back’s specs. The device creates images a bit over 10MP; when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611. The image is 16bit, in RGB. Quality is excellent, due in part to the large pixel pitch. I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples. The image quality is not exemplary, but similar to a very high quality amateur camera of similar resolution. I do not use the back for final art; it simply does not have enough pixels to go to print."

TH_Alpa · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2011, 04:23:16 pm »

a pixel size of 77,3 microns, wow!

Quote from: mtomalty on August 23, 2011, 04:00:47 pm

"when cropped to correspond to 8×10 the final image size is 3285 x 2611."

Mr. Rib · « **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2011, 05:54:54 pm »

I obviously get that developing this back for the owner was more than explanatory from economical point of view bu still... 10 mp on 10 x 8 sensor.. damn, such a waste

EricWHiss · « **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:11:27 pm »

Wow - only 10mp. But maybe fantastic looking images? I'll bet the sensor was originally developed for astronomy use.

ondebanks · « **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:42:58 pm »

Quote from: EricWHiss on August 23, 2011, 06:11:27 pm

Wow - only 10mp. But maybe fantastic looking images? I'll bet the sensor was originally developed for astronomy use.

I very much doubt it. We astronomers like relatively big pixels, but that would be say 16 micron, not 77 micron! And there's no way a research instrument would use a Bayer array - it is described in the article as a "color capture back". Amateur astrophotographers (and I love to do that too) get wonderful pretty pictures using DSLRs with Bayer sensors, but for research we always want the full spectral response at every pixel, so that we can choose the colour filtration to be whatever the science requires; Sloan broadband filters, Stromgren intermediate band, nebular narrowband, or whatever.

Ray

EricWHiss · « **Reply #10 on:** August 23, 2011, 08:04:06 pm »

Good info - thanks. The only large sensors I've seen listed were for astronomy so that's why I made that bet. What other scientific applications would need such larger sensors? Hopefully when Mr. Feinberg returns he'll provide more info.

nik · « **Reply #11 on:** August 26, 2011, 10:09:39 am »

He can afford to go on vacation after buying 2 of those?! Go Mitch!

Quote from: mtomalty on August 23, 2011, 04:00:47 pm

From the man,himself.

"... I am currently on vacation, so I can not post any examples"

heinrichvoelkel · « **Reply #12 on:** August 26, 2011, 10:33:50 am »

Quote from: nik on August 26, 2011, 10:09:39 am

He can afford to go on vacation after buying 2 of those?! Go Mitch!

i like

DeeJay · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2011, 11:13:22 am »

Quote from: mtomalty on August 23, 2011, 04:00:47 pm

"The image quality is not exemplary"

Shame. But goes to show it can be done which the best part I think.

Ken Tanaka · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2011, 01:08:33 pm »

Quote from: EricWHiss on August 23, 2011, 06:11:27 pm

... I'll bet the sensor was originally developed for astronomy use.

Much more likely military surveillance.

I've long wondered how and when such a back might be created. There would never be a mass market for such a product. Not even a micro-market, really. So this thing may be the only sample we see.

I'd like to see a file from this back. But I bet that it's a real mess to use in any practical terms.

Mr. Rib · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2011, 02:59:15 pm »

I'm absolutely not a tech guy, but shouldn't there be a way to stitch smaller sized sensors to get whatever sensor size you want? What technical difficulties would such a solution introduce? Again, don't scold me for my lack of technical expertise

TH_Alpa · « **Reply #16 on:** August 28, 2011, 07:13:54 pm »

That is absolutely possible, and done since the begin of digital backs. It needs a bit of experience, the right lens(es) to allow enough movement within the IC, or a pano head, a computer with a minimum of memory and a stitching SW, and done it is.

However, subjects with movement are one of the limitations, obviously.

Thierry

Mr. Rib · « **Reply #17 on:** August 28, 2011, 07:36:42 pm »

Hi Thierry,

No no, I'm fully aware of stitching as a photo teqchnique

What I meant was physically stitching the sensors of a smaller size to create a bigger sensor and was wondering why is this task impossible. Some bigger MFDB sensors, when you look at them under right angle, seem to be stitched from smaller sensors.

design_freak · « **Reply #18 on:** August 29, 2011, 02:57:49 am »

Quote from: Mr. Rib on August 28, 2011, 07:36:42 pm

Hi Thierry,

No no, I'm fully aware of stitching as a photo teqchnique What I meant was physically stitching the sensors of a smaller size to create a bigger sensor and was wondering why is this task impossible. Some bigger MFDB sensors, when you look at them under right angle, seem to be stitched from smaller sensors.

Indeed, you're not a technical guy...

Mr. Rib · « **Reply #19 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:49:31 am »

Citing someone from this forum:

Aside: Dalsa does makes some large CMOS sensors for X-rays and maybe telescopes, by "mosaicing" smaller sensor chips, but that adds visible join lines, unacceptable in high end MF photography. This mosaicing is NOT the same as "stitching", which produces a single large sensor chip. Canon has also designed some large sensors, but again suitable for uses like telescopes but not MF cameras.

So, there's no way to stitch sensors physically? And if it is impossible, can someone enlighten my why?

Author Topic: 8x10 ...... digital (Read 20798 times)