Ultimate digital chip for LF
DALSA Semiconductor has today announced that it has developed the worlds first sensor with a total resolution of over 100 million pixels. To be more specific this single sensor, developed for astronomy, has 10,560 x 10,560 pixels, 111 million in total. The active area of the sensor measures approximately four by four inches and has a 9 µm pixel pitch.
Hate to think of the price of that bad boy!!
Bob
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
Probably would make the P45 seem as cheap as a point and shoot camera. Of course, the first 6MP cameras with about $30000 only 8 years ago. Now, better 6MP cameras are available for $649.
Interesting times.....especially for those who can afford the toys.
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
I wonder if it runs on a pair of AAs, to accommodate all those portable 200" telescopes. ;)
Interesting development, though. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Bob. Time will tell if a more, uh, down-to-earth application for the chip becomes reality.
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
Interesting that it would be a CCD instead of a CMOS like they make for Leaf. Not surprising that they are able to make large imaging chips, since the manufacturing should improve as the keep at it. The 9 µm pixel size would be the limitation of resolution, but when a chip is that large I don't think the customer will complain much. So do we suppose NASA is buying one, or some university?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy
... has 10,560 x 10,560 pixels, 111 million in total. The active area of the sensor measures approximately four by four inches and has a 9 µm pixel pitch.
Now, finally, we're talking. And I can afford one in what -- ten years or so? Sigh...
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Moat
Interesting that it would be a CCD instead of a CMOS like they make for Leaf.
Gordon Moat
All the mf chips (Dalsa and Kodak) are CCD. CMOS is in 35mm and smaller. The only CMOS I can recall is Sony (D2X) and Canon (maybe Fuji) at present. Maybe a noise issue with CMOS and the broader dynamic range of the MF chips. The latest Sony chips in the D200 and Sony (?) are CCD again. For the moment only Canon is moving CMOS in the latest cameras.
bob
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
Strage coincidence : the News are speaking about a wide-field telescope project with 3 a gigapixel detector... so a 100 million pixel detector is already obsolete ;-);-)
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9200
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
That's done with multiple image sensors.....not one chip.
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
I've been testing my Aptus 75 and the results are already much better than I ever got with 5x4 film scanned on the Epson 3200 or 4870. They are even better than film scanned on the Flextight scanners. Actually the results from the Aptus 22 are better than 5x4 scanned on my Epsons.
Plus, if you really want to go big, you can use a quad stitching back to stitch 4 33Mp files together for ultra high quality. Currently I am stitching two together for a 66Mp file for compositional convenience, this should challenge the quality of 8x10.
The colour and clarity of the image blow the 5x4 away (thought I now realise that I never got the best of the older negs and I'll be finding a professional printer/scanner to help redo them).
So you don't need to wait for these fantasy cameras. Its possible to get better than 5x4 from a digiback is possible today, but at a price.
I'll still be shooting Polaroid T55, but my days shooting coloured neg or slide are pretty much over.
Re: Ultimate digital chip for LF
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul r w freeman
I've been testing my Aptus 75 and the results are already much better than I ever got with 5x4 film scanned on the Epson 3200 or 4870. They are even better than film scanned on the Flextight scanners. Actually the results from the Aptus 22 are better than 5x4 scanned on my Epsons.
Paul, isn't that pretty much an apples to tangerines comparison? All the tests I know of clearly show that, while the Aptus 75 is a superb tool, it still doesn't come close to delivering what you get from a properly exposed piece of 4x5 or larger color film which is then properly scanned with a high-end (read drum Creo Supreme or Screen Cezanne, etc.) scanner. So, wouldn't it be more sensible to make the comparision to film scanned with one of these scanners? To me, there is no sense in comparing an over $20K digital back to the output from an under $500 scanner ... compare the back to the professional scanners in the same price range and the back still comes out behind.