when will "true" medium/large format digital be affordable?

The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my limited
understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading in various
photography forums and websites. That said, here goes...

In playing around recently with medium format film, I was astonished at the
improvement of enlarged image quality over 35mm. I also own and enjoy using
both a Nikon D50 dslr and a point/shoot Panasonic FZ30, and I shoot 95% of
my photos in digital form, at a minimum. However, seeing the huge
improvement with the larger film size over 35mm, it makes me wonder what a
truly medium-format-sized digital sensor (with the same pixel density as
that in a "dx" or "35mm sized" digital slr), or even a 4x5" sensor, could
do, assuming you had enough data storage to handle those huge images. I
realize that "scanning backs" exist out there that can cover a 4x5 frame,
but I'm sure that birds or waves or blowing leaves would appear to move
across the frame during such a scan.

I also recently read about a 4x4 INCH digital sensor (150 mpixel) that costs
$200,000, and I realized that this is far beyond my financial reach.

So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on digital
detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead of
$200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just
tossing it out there, wondering.

On the other hand, as digital technology evolves, is a bigger sensor always
going to be better? For example, let's say that super-quiet ccd's could be
created such that point/shoot-sized 50 mpixel CCD's could look great, even
at high ISO. Would this obviate the need for physically larger sensors? I
realize that, at some point, as pixels are made smaller (even super-quiet
ones), one will eventually reach the diffraction limit of the optics in
FRONT of the detector, and I'm wondering how close we already are to those
limits with the digital sensors in the best cameras reachable by a
photographic hobbyist.

Also, I realize that if you make a mosaic of smaller ccd's to have more
physical size, you'll still have the "blank regions" between the separate
ccd's. Can sensors now be made that could have such narrow gaps (say 1 or 2
PIXELS) between their edges that this gap would be inconsquential, so that
you could build a 2x2 or 4x4 array of cheaper full-frame digital sensors and
get pretty much the same result as a single huge sensor?

Scott

Scott Speck wrote:
The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my limited
understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading in various
photography forums and websites. That said, here goes...

In playing around recently with medium format film, I was astonished at the
improvement of enlarged image quality over 35mm. I also own and enjoy using
both a Nikon D50 dslr and a point/shoot Panasonic FZ30, and I shoot 95% of
my photos in digital form, at a minimum. However, seeing the huge
improvement with the larger film size over 35mm, it makes me wonder what a
truly medium-format-sized digital sensor (with the same pixel density as
that in a "dx" or "35mm sized" digital slr), or even a 4x5" sensor, could
do, assuming you had enough data storage to handle those huge images. I
realize that "scanning backs" exist out there that can cover a 4x5 frame,
but I'm sure that birds or waves or blowing leaves would appear to move
across the frame during such a scan.

I also recently read about a 4x4 INCH digital sensor (150 mpixel) that costs
$200,000, and I realized that this is far beyond my financial reach.

So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on digital
detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead of
$200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just
tossing it out there, wondering.

On the other hand, as digital technology evolves, is a bigger sensor always
going to be better? For example, let's say that super-quiet ccd's could be
created such that point/shoot-sized 50 mpixel CCD's could look great, even
at high ISO. Would this obviate the need for physically larger sensors? I
realize that, at some point, as pixels are made smaller (even super-quiet
ones), one will eventually reach the diffraction limit of the optics in
FRONT of the detector, and I'm wondering how close we already are to those
limits with the digital sensors in the best cameras reachable by a
photographic hobbyist.

Also, I realize that if you make a mosaic of smaller ccd's to have more
physical size, you'll still have the "blank regions" between the separate
ccd's. Can sensors now be made that could have such narrow gaps (say 1 or 2
PIXELS) between their edges that this gap would be inconsquential, so that
you could build a 2x2 or 4x4 array of cheaper full-frame digital sensors and
get pretty much the same result as a single huge sensor?

Scott

The first 6mp cameras came out in 1995 by Kodak for $28,000. That
camera line ended in 1992 and then list was $7600, but it was and is
the only camera using a Nikon F5 as a body. Used is still around $1000
for a DCS760 in good condition, they were very good cameras.
Hassleblad is now 39mp for $40000 or so, the problem now is a matter of
scale can they sell enough of these to inspire a less expensive back.
Unluckily Hasslebald has released their own back and no longer will
accept backs from other manufacturers. But Mamyia and Pentax have
medium format cameras coming out, the Mamiya at least is 22mp for $12K,
but not available in the US. It may take 10 years to bring prices out
of the stratosphere. But 35mm based cameras are already as good as
6x4.5 cameras and most 6x6 cameras. You need a film based 'blad with
good lenses or 6x7 and up to beat a Canon 1Ds MkII, ad most APS cameras
are just behind that. For 4x5 you need a scanning back, they work great
in the studio BTW. Some folks have been sucessful using them outside,
but you still need a static image, don't think you can generate any
volumes with your 4x4 inch sensor if they start at $200K.
The 39mp Hassleblad comes close to 4x5, but still you can develop 1000
sheet for the price of the 'blad, and it doesn't have swings and tilts.
Only time will tell.

Tom

Sorry
Meant 2002 for the last year of the DCS760.

Tom

So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on
digital
detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead
of $200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just
tossing it out there, wondering.

Never. Until we have Star Trek-style transporters, the cost of making 16
square inches of semiconductor is never going to be cheap. Investigate how
those things are manufactured, and you'll see. You could tile multiple
small sensors, but still - you're talking about 16 square inches, and that
is COSTLY.

steve

Steve Wolfe wrote:
So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on
digital
detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead
of $200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just
tossing it out there, wondering.


Never. Until we have Star Trek-style transporters, the cost of making 16
square inches of semiconductor is never going to be cheap. Investigate how
those things are manufactured, and you'll see. You could tile multiple
small sensors, but still - you're talking about 16 square inches, and that
is COSTLY.

steve


Never say never....
A high school buddy of mine made millions in developing storage, (MTI it
is listed in NASDAQ) has since retired. He said his company was selling
20 gigs of storage (about 15-20 years ago) for half a million! Can buy
a 200 gig hard drive now for $100. Was going to say "what happened to
Cray computers, but they are going to deliver the first petaflop 'puter,
I guess they are still in business...
http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zh...357&highlight=

tomm42 wrote:


But 35mm based cameras are already as good as
6x4.5 cameras and most 6x6 cameras. You need a film based 'blad with
good lenses or 6x7 and up to beat a Canon 1Ds MkII, ad most APS cameras
are just behind that. For 4x5 you need a scanning back, they work great
in the studio BTW. Some folks have been sucessful using them outside,
but you still need a static image, don't think you can generate any
volumes with your 4x4 inch sensor if they start at $200K.

36x49mm sensors are available for about 32,000 dollars.
they will work on Blads and 4x5 cameras.

PRICE: $29,999.99
Includes: Hasselblad H2D SLR camera with 80mm lens,
viewfinder and 39MP single-shot digital back.


Phase One
P45 Digital Back for Hasselblad H Series With Three Year Warranty
PRICE: $32,999.99

$17,000 Phase One
Specifications:

Imager:

* Color filter: Red, green, blue
* Pixels (active): 6496 x 4872
* CCD Size (active): 44.2 x 33.1mm
* Pixel Size: 6.8 x 6.8 micron
* Image ratio: 4:3
* Image output: 48 bits (16 bits per color)
* Antiblooming: 8 f-stops

Digital Image

* Color depth: 16 bit per color
* Dynamic range: 12 f-stop

Sensitivity

* ISO: 50, 100, 200, 400, 800

Camera system:

* Capture rate: 45 frames per minute
* Writing speed to CF: Up to 20MB/sec., depending on CF card
* Battery type: Lithium ion
* Battery lifetime: 250 captures/4 hours
* Exposure time: Several minutes to less than 1/10000
* IR filter: Mounted on CCD
* Orientation: Automatic image rotation (Patented)
* Power: 8-33 V DC

If you chose the right back,
it will take either single shot exposures for moving subjects,
or 4 exposures for still lifes,
so each pixel location gets all four exposures.

Ixpress 528c

4*Res upgrade option: a new level of quality for studio photography
Get ultra-high-end image quality for still-life subject photography,
with image sizes from 96 to 528 MB.

This unique upgrade provides moiré-free operation in both 4-shot and
16-shot modes.


Tom

Wolfgang Schmittenhammer wrote:
Steve Wolfe wrote:
So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on
digital
detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000
instead of $200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer,
but I'm just tossing it out there, wondering.


Never. Until we have Star Trek-style transporters, the cost of
making 16 square inches of semiconductor is never going to be cheap.
Investigate how those things are manufactured, and you'll see. You
could tile multiple small sensors, but still - you're talking about 16
square inches, and that is COSTLY.

steve

Never say never....
A high school buddy of mine made millions in developing storage, (MTI it
is listed in NASDAQ) has since retired. He said his company was selling
20 gigs of storage (about 15-20 years ago) for half a million! Can buy
a 200 gig hard drive now for $100.

First hard drive, for an intel development system,
was 20mb, for $15,000.

Was going to say "what happened to
Cray computers, but they are going to deliver the first petaflop 'puter,
I guess they are still in business...
http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zh...357&highlight=

Never say never....
A high school buddy of mine made millions in developing storage, (MTI it
is listed in NASDAQ) has since retired. He said his company was selling
20 gigs of storage (about 15-20 years ago) for half a million! Can buy a
200 gig hard drive now for $100. Was going to say "what happened to Cray
computers, but they are going to deliver the first petaflop 'puter, I
guess they are still in business...
http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zh...357&highlight=

Yeah, storage is cheap. But look into the costs associated with
semiconductor manufacturing. Over the last 20 years, they have dropped, but
not by a terrible amount. Seriously, do your own reading on what goes into
those things, and you'll see for yourself.

steve

Scott Speck wrote:
The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my limited
understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading in various
photography forums and websites. That said, here goes...

....snippage...

So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on digital
detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost $1000 instead of
$200,000? I realize that might be impossible to answer, but I'm just
tossing it out there, wondering.

On the other hand, as digital technology evolves, is a bigger sensor always
going to be better?


Maybe not, and maybe not necessary. How close is the pixel size in the
current generation of sensors to the theoretical minimum? If it is
possible to make the pixel size 1/2 or 1/4 of the present size, this
would result in an image which has four or sixteen times the pixel
density....

ns

Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Scott Speck wrote:

The following message is highly speculative, and is based on my
limited understanding of digital sensors as well as my online reading
in various photography forums and websites. That said, here goes...


...snippage...

So here's my question -- is there anyone out there "in the know" on
digital detector technologies who can say when a 4x4 CCD will cost
$1000 instead of $200,000? I realize that might be impossible to
answer, but I'm just tossing it out there, wondering.

On the other hand, as digital technology evolves, is a bigger sensor
always going to be better?



Maybe not, and maybe not necessary. How close is the pixel size in the
current generation of sensors to the theoretical minimum? If it is
possible to make the pixel size 1/2 or 1/4 of the present size, this
would result in an image which has four or sixteen times the pixel
density....

ns

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Regarding of manufacture of large sensors, the cost for a wafer
run is pretty high. The last number I heard for an 8-inch silicon
wafer run was about $10,000. Electronics have become cheaper
by miniaturization. There is some fraction of defects per
wafer, so the larger the chip, the higher percentage that
fail, driving costs up further.

With digital camera sensors, you can't shrink below
a couple of photons in size, and even then you
won't collect many photons (see above web site).
Photons from the sun are finite, and DSLRs are collecting
only a few tens of thousands of photons in a typical
picture, and small P&S cameras much less
(e.g. less than 10,000).

Roger