If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
I think it's worthwhile to point out that there's also a 3D MF subculture out
there shooting with Sputniks, ancient Rolleidoscops and twinned MF cameras. In additon I've read that there's a new MF 3d camera due out of China this year with a $1300 price tag. They're also selling a coin operated viewer (you can just guess what that's for). From what I've read 3d MF slides are breathtaking. I've done superslide 3d, but have not spent the bucks for a full frame (i.e. 50mmX50mm) 3d viewer. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format 64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at end of article fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00...foveon16mp.asp the 16.8MP foveon chip is 22mmx22mm square format ;-) now, so 64MP would be 44x44mm square, right? The trend is towards larger sensor sites to improve images and reduce noise. The Fuji 22 MP sensor is circa 40x51mm; a 32 MP sensor would be decidedly MF sized and not 24x36mm. Most of us shooting MF SLRs with interchangeable backs also have full kits of 35mm SLRs, including the pros. So if 64MP becomes available, I see it requiring MF sized cameras and lenses, and not 35mm SLR sized chips, even full frame ;-) What I don't see is any "need" or killer application which requires 64MP sized chips. Now if HDTV cameras required a 64MP or larger sensor, I would expect cheap MF digital backs as a side product. But they don't. Other than specialty military/science applications, I don't see a requirement which will justify the multi-billion dollar fabrication facilities needed to make 42x56mm or 56x56mm sized sensor devices. Do you? Again, my argument is that the 35mm SLRs, as QGdeB noted, are far more popular than the more pricey 16MP digital backs for MF. If 16MP offered a serious advantage over 8 MP or 11 MP for digital users, then I would expect to see a lot more digital back users with 16MP backs. And we don't. So I argue that there is a series of "sweet spots" here, around 2 MP for consumers with cell phone cameras for 90% of photos to websites, and 4-5 MP for $200 cameras for family digicams doing home prints up to 11x14" or so, and a modest market (in terms of multi-million $ R&D and chip plant costs) for higher end DSLRs up to 11 to 16 MP or so. There isn't and hasn't been much demand for 16MP sensor MF digital back images, right? So where is the demand for 64MP images which will drive the mfgers to make billion dollar investments to provide such chips in high enough volumes to make 64 MP digital backs possible? In short, I see MF gear being needed beyond 16MP (cf Fuji's 22 MP sensor). That's the good news. The bad news is I don't see enough of a market for such gear (today, or in future) from the handful of MF using pros to justify the mfger costs to deliver digital backs in high enough volumes to get the custom made costs down to mass produced limits. In the above article, National Semiconductor figures they can make 16MP chips for "disposable" digital cameras as cheaply as today's disposable film cameras (actually recycled), i.e., under $10 or so each 16MP CMOS sensor chip. The problem is that a 64MP chip at today's volumes will still cost $10,000, not $40 ;-) my $.02 again bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
digital isn't film ;-) with film, you can simply cut the large rolls of film into 120 rollfilm, or 4x5" or 8x10" sheets or 35mm film, as needed. With digital, you have to build multi-billion dollar IC fab plants to make a 16MP or even more for a 64MP CMOS sensor chip. You can't afford to build a multi-billion dollar 64MP sensor making plant, or spend tens of millions on integrating that 64MP sensor into a digital camera back with software etc., unless you have a market that can repay those investment costs. If national semi's CEO is right, and they can sell 100 million annually of Foveon style CMOS 16MP sensor chips, then they can get the costs down to $10 or less (even $2-3 per chip, making "disposable 16MP digital cameras" feasible to compete with today's disposable $10 film cameras. Again, see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00...foveon16mp.asp article etc. The same isn't true of a 64MP sensor, for reasons I suggested. That is why you can't say what happens with cell phone cameras and 35mm DSLRs is unconnected to what we can do with digital in the MF niche market. MF is niche market (50,000 film cameras sold per year worldwide, maybe 1-2% of them with 16MP digital backs costing $10-25k, yes?). You can't justify billion dollar plants and tens of millions in R&D on digital back sales in MF (look at costs of adapting existing sensors in today's digital backs ($25k..) vs. costs of sensors in somewhat higher volume Kodak DSLRs for 35mm format etc. So nobody is going to make multi-millions or billions in investments in order to provide MF users with low cost 16/32/64+MP digital backs ;-) So we _are_ dependent on what the masses do, because IC sensor mfgering is a really mass production process. It costs as much to build a IC plant to make a thousand 64MP chips as 100 million 16MP chips, but that implies a $1 million cost per 64MP chip vs $10 for " " ;-) ;-) Can we afford that? Is there a mass volume application which justifies and demands 32MP and 64MP chips? So far even pro photographers seem satisfied with 8 MP and 11 MP DSLRs vs 16MP digital backs at $25k or so. Unless there is such a demand and market, I doubt 64 MP chips will be developed. In short, QGdeB's argument that what happens in the mass consumer market doesn't limit us on the MF niche market is false, because sensor chips require huge investments in R&D and IC fab plants which mandate huge sales volumes to get the costs down. I don't see any such huge mass market or demand for 64MP sized devices, so you? If there is one, then the good news is that we can probably hope for low cost 64MP sensors of MF sizes which can be adapted for MF digital backs. These 64MP sensors probably won't be compatible with 35mm smaller formats (cf. Fuji's 40+x51+mm chip for 22 MP sinar backs etc.). So high end (22+MP) digital photography may be the preserve of MF or larger systems? The problem is consumers and even pro photographers are happy enough at 8 or 11MP to make 16MP cameras a likely "sweet spot". So there won't be any photographic demand for larger resolution digital cameras past 16 MP or so? The caveat here is that it may be possible to synthesize a 32MP or larger equiv. sensor using multiple cheaper 16MP chips (or a 48 MP in 35mm format using tri color filtering etc.). But a native 64MP chip does not look to have the manufacturing volumes needed to make them cheap due to lack of demand? my $.02+ '-) bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
MF scanner upscaling? MF future? ideal cameras?
Hi Michael! Let us say that present trends in scanner improvements continue. And that future color printers can produce rather larger prints inexpensively, as picoliter technology is implemented better. Films might also continue to be improved to be better matched to scanner's needs, producing higher resolution and Dmax and so on. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Now you can buy a $750 MF camera with auto-exposure and shoot 645 slides, then blow them up optically or scan them to 30MP or 64MP or better resolutions and make large poster prints. Perhaps Kinkos would have a large printer where you make poster sized prints from your CDROM. Or you can spend $1k+ on a DSLR and generate an 8MP or 11MP or at best a 16MP image (again, per Foveon's analysis, see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00...foveon16mp.asp ) Presumably, a 30-64MP sensor equiv. scan can generate a larger poster print than the 8 to 11MP (or 16MP) sensor DSLR, yes? As I have noted in this thread, I don't expect 64MP sensors. But a film scanner that can produce clean 64MP images from MF film is feasible, yes? ;-) =============== We have a new series of color printers able to use much larger widths, and unlimited lengths in some cases, of paper to produce color prints. I think as larger MP digicams come available, people will want to produce larger prints, including panoramics and wall sized photos, if prices are right. Today, you can get 11x14" digital prints for rather less $ than an optical print, and even less in larger (panoramic) formats. I suggest that a future 20x30" print could cost less than today's 11x14" print with new printer technology, and even 40x60" might be possible - with the demand coming from thousands of kiosks and companies wanting to be able to do posters and large prints for banners, conferences, and all that ;-) The key point is that 35mm sized DSLRs of 8Mp or 11MP or the max of 16MP still can't match film's potential resolution, which future scanners can tap, and provide much larger digital prints (just as larger optical prints are possible today, yes?). So MF continues to enjoy an enlargeability and quality gap in the future ;-) Moreover, as larger print making costs decline, the demand for larger print capability may promote the use of MF with film scanners to achieve those needs, yes? ;-) grins bobm PS - the counterargument? in some cases, you can merge multiple shots (not action shots, but many subjects are fixed) from an 8 MP camera to achieve 16 MP or larger equiv. image quality without going to film and a scanner. -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
MF scanner upscaling? MF future? ideal cameras?
Bob Monaghan wrote:
Today, you can get 11x14" digital prints for rather less $ than an optical print, and even less in larger (panoramic) formats. I suggest that a future 20x30" print could cost less than today's 11x14" print with new printer technology, and even 40x60" might be possible - with the demand coming from thousands of kiosks and companies wanting to be able to do posters and large prints for banners, conferences, and all that ;-) The problem with this hope is that it requires large paper to be kept in stock. Not only do you need to keep multiple paper sizes in stock you'll need too change paper rolls. It stops being cheap when you need a human. Nick |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
MF scanner upscaling? MF future? ideal cameras?
On 23 May 2004 23:15:14 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote: We have a new series of color printers able to use much larger widths, and unlimited lengths in some cases, of paper to produce color prints. I think as larger MP digicams come available, people will want to produce larger prints, including panoramics and wall sized photos, if prices are right. Today, you can get 11x14" digital prints for rather less $ than an optical print, and even less in larger (panoramic) formats. I suggest that a future 20x30" print could cost less than today's 11x14" print with new printer technology, and even 40x60" might be possible - with the demand coming from thousands of kiosks and companies wanting to be able to do posters and large prints for banners, conferences, and all that ;-) The key point is that 35mm sized DSLRs of 8Mp or 11MP or the max of 16MP still can't match film's potential resolution, which future scanners can tap, and provide much larger digital prints (just as larger optical prints are possible today, yes?). So MF continues to enjoy an enlargeability and quality gap in the future ;-) Moreover, as larger print making costs decline, the demand for larger print capability may promote the use of MF with film scanners to achieve those needs, yes? ;-) The larger printers are great fun but not cheap. Hard to believe that your typical "consumer" will ever learn how to make satisfactory 16x20" prints at home, or learn how to scan MF film or invest in the gear to do any of that. That's just dreamin'. Tabloid printers (13x19") are available for the desktop starting at around $400 new, but that is still rather expensive. A printer to do 16x20" will cost you $1500 to $1800 - hardly a commodity item. Quality isn't the only factor that drives markets, it's often not even near the top of the list. For photography, convenience and portability are *huge* factors, and that applies nearly across the board, except maybe for the very highest end studio gear. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
Raphael Bustin wrote:
On 23 May 2004 22:21:57 -0500, (Bob Monaghan) wrote: the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format 64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at end of article fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00...foveon16mp.asp And who appointed Carver Mead as the authority on this topic? Carver's got a specific product to sell, and so far it's been a very hard sell. Foveon continues to play a very small role in the digicam market. He's got the physics on his side. The wavelength of light isn't changing. You can't use smaller than five micron pixels, and even those are pretty noisy. 64MP with 7x7 micron dots is 6x6cm in size, even without the electronics between the pixels. I think MF and LF may continue to have a role in niche applications. It will be many years (if ever) before a silicon sensor can return the sort of pixel counts that I get from scanning either of these. The only real issue I see is how long will Kodak and Fuji (et al) continue to make film in these formats? Film will be competitive for a long time. When you start handling 64MP (or 400MB) images, you'll soon notice some things: - memory isn't cheap, and you need lots of it - digital processing needs memory all the way from scanning workstations to permanent storage - permanent storage isn't permanent, unless it is refreshed every five years or so - the rest of the equipment gets obsolete even faster... In terms of total cost of ownership, MF is still hard to beat. Digitals win when you need the speed. -- Lassi |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
Hi,
Recently, Lassi Hippeläinen posted: In terms of total cost of ownership, MF is still hard to beat. Digitals win when you need the speed. I agree with half of this... the cost of MF is hard to beat for creating high-quality images. However, speed is not always in digital's favor. As I pointed out in another post, downsampling a 64 MP image to be used at, for example, 3" x 3" in a publication can take much longer than scanning MF film to that finished size. Combined with the archival issues, digital's advantages are in producing images for short-term uses and for unique features such as the ability to shoot at 4-5 fps without having to change film / backs. Neil |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
Bob Monaghan wrote:
the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format 64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at end of article fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00...foveon16mp.asp Carver Mead is enjoying great visionary succes lately, isn't he? It was deemed very unlikely that people would ever fly. Or that anybody would ever need more than 512 kB of memory. Or that "still-video" would ever replace film. Or... ;-) Anyway, perhaps sensors must grow to be able to produce more pixels. But unless that will happen tomorrow, it will be too late to help keep MF alive today. So those 4x4 cm 64MP sensors will have to be put into something which will look stunningly like a 35 mm format SLR camera of old (have you ever compared the sizes of a Nikon F5 and a Mamiya 645? ;-)), or perhaps one of those "bridge" cameras produced in the late 70s. Not in a MF digiback, since there will not be a MF camera left to put that on. The above is perhaps a bit "over the top", but there's nothing wrong with the realism of notion it is expressing. We will not need MF cameras. They will simply put another housing (perhaps even a telephone ;-)) around that chip. Put a lens mount on it, a display on the back, and Bob's your uncle. [...] popular than the more pricey 16MP digital backs for MF. If 16MP offered a serious advantage over 8 MP or 11 MP for digital users, then I would expect to see a lot more digital back users with 16MP backs. And we don't. But not (!) because there is no advantage. Only because we are expected to pay far too much for it. The things as the are today are way out of proprotion. That's why the lower end will win. That's why the lower end will bring in the revenue that will help the lower end to gain even more of an advantage over the upper end by becoming more and more like the upper end while at the same time holding on to its competitive edge (disproportionally low price), which will increase the low end's winning potential no end. Etc. The only thing to break this spiral would be a rather huge correction of the high end's prices. If that will not happen, the current MF and LF oriented high end will simply cease to be. I guess we fundamentally disagree. I do believe there will definitely not be a place for MF in the future unless they start carving it out today. Relying on present technology's shortcomings to ensure a MF future is the most foolish thing MF industry (both camera- and digital back manufacturers) can do. It would indeed be so stupid that not even shouting at the top of your voice could put enough stress on that simple fact. In the above article, National Semiconductor figures they can make 16MP chips for "disposable" digital cameras as cheaply as today's disposable film cameras (actually recycled), i.e., under $10 or so each 16MP CMOS sensor chip. The problem is that a 64MP chip at today's volumes will still cost $10,000, not $40 ;-) They also though the D-Finity was a break-through product. And that with their invention of a three layer chip, noone would want to buy those crappy Canons and Nikons anymore. ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |