Will the world ever have the Digital Equivalent of the Analog LF Camera??

[Jim Burk]

Going back through this old thread, with a few new comments, I didn't see any suggestions about what I think may be a real possibility, a digital view camera. One of the great things about a view camera is the movements. I know that you can get a "Tilt - Shift" lens for your DSLR, but I think a full digital, full movement view camera would be quite useful. It could be fairly small, something along the lines of a 4x5 field camera, or smaller, and have a LED replacing the ground glass. This is slightly different than a digital LF in that the the sensor would not have to be "LF size", but the benefits of the movements would be available. It would be nice though if it was 4x5 so we could use all our old lenses.

[Marko]

Moores Law concept would give you greater pixel density, not larger chips.

bob

Moore's law could also be applicable to the silicon wafer yield, and would therefore result in larger chips.

[Robert Hughes]

Moores Law concept would give you greater pixel density, not larger chips.

bob

The Peter Principle would give you denser clients, not larger proceeds.

[Mike Anderson]

Going back through this old thread, with a few new comments, I didn't see any suggestions about what I think may be a real possibility, a digital view camera. One of the great things about a view camera is the movements. I know that you can get a "Tilt - Shift" lens for your DSLR, but I think a full digital, full movement view camera would be quite useful. It could be fairly small, something along the lines of a 4x5 field camera, or smaller, and have a LED replacing the ground glass. This is slightly different than a digital LF in that the the sensor would not have to be "LF size", but the benefits of the movements would be available. It would be nice though if it was 4x5 so we could use all our old lenses.

This is what I was talking about a month ago in a thread called "Hacked iPad as ground glass", making a digital view camera that had an iPad where the ground glass is to show the image. I thought using an iPad would be economical because you get a pretty good screen with a computer+OS attached for $500, but it doesn't have to necessarily require an iPad.

The thing that sets such a contraption apart I think is the display, having a bright screen to compose with and be able to zoom in on corners for precise focusing. (The hardest thing about LF for me is seeing the image on GG - maybe it's my eyes.)

I doubt there's a market that would support a reasonably priced thing like this from a big company, but I could see a "garage" operation doing it in low volume, kind of like those who convert old Polaroid cameras into hand held 4x5s.

...Mike

[Nathan Potter]

If I was considering a large format sensor I might do a brief engineering study on running an amorphous phototransistor (or something similar) thru a flat panel fabrication facility using a non silicon substrate. The process is different of course but the number of masking levels is similar ( might do it in 12 or so). The minimum linewidths would need to be reduced by nearly a factor of ten but I think it may be possible to squeeze that out of current machines with some lithography tool modifications. A lot of the other existing equipment would be identical. I would find the latest unused flat panel facility buy it at a song and convert it to the new technology. But this only after doing development engineering on a smaller size substrate to work out feasibility and confirm performance and some degree of possible yield. None of the engineering is trivial. The development of the photo device requires some considerable solid state physics design for basic issues such as spectral sensitivity, quantum yield, electron yield of the device and noise characterization. The curse of non crystalline solid state devices is the imperfections within the active material wherein a host of unwanted features both physical and electrical reduce the amount of electrons representing the incoming light signal.

But even considering all the above there is a possibility of producing maybe 2000 sq, in. of sensor for the retail cost of a flat panel element.

But most critical of all is the necessity of determining a market size, and that will never be satisfied solely be LF users. Large volume other imaging applications would need to be identified and estimated over a timeline.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[jnantz]

they already do ..
its a "print/film scan"

[Preston]

Assuming a suitable fullframe 4x5 sensor and viewing LCD could be designed, there is still the question of high-capacity storage, all of the associated circuitry and a power source. To make such a view camera practical, all this stuff would need to be attached to the rear standard and under the bed.

It would appear that such a camera would be pretty darn heavy. Also its center of gravity will be more toward the rear. Thus, handling this on a tripod might be cumbersome.

Still, it would be interesting to see a prototype of a 4x5 digital FF view camera, that is field-capable, with all the movements we've come to know and love.

--P

[el french]

Going back through this old thread, with a few new comments, I didn't see any suggestions about what I think may be a real possibility, a digital view camera. One of the great things about a view camera is the movements. I know that you can get a "Tilt - Shift" lens for your DSLR, but I think a full digital, full movement view camera would be quite useful. It could be fairly small, something along the lines of a 4x5 field camera, or smaller, and have a LED replacing the ground glass. This is slightly different than a digital LF in that the the sensor would not have to be "LF size", but the benefits of the movements would be available. It would be nice though if it was 4x5 so we could use all our old lenses.

Movements are easy to fabricate, but hard to use with the small LiveView screens on DSLRs. I've experimented with them on my setup, but rarely use them because I can't really get a good enough image even when tethered to do critical focusing. It also takes way too many button pushes to check the focus in the corners and reiterate until focus is perfect. Newer cameras with 1080p output may have good enough output for doing critical focusing.

Here's a few shots of my setup. I think it just needs a film back to qualify as an LF http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v6...20Pano%20Head/

I'm mostly concentrating on macro panoramas now, and I've removed the front and back movements to make it more stable: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v6...20Pano%20Head/

To answer the OPs original query, yes, there will be digital equivalent and probably one that is far superior to film, but will we still be alive to enjoy it is another question

[Stephen Willard]

As someone who spends months in the backcountry with the ability go 28 days without replenishing film or life sustain provisions, there is the issue of power requirements, weight-portability, cost, dust on such as large sensor could be a nightmare to manage, extreme environmental conditions, and even the size of the LF market. To develop such sensor for such a small market would most likely not be feasible. I suspect that a pure digital LF camera would never happen. There is just too many technical hurdles to over come.

Film on the other hand provides a very elegant solution that addresses most of these issues at a very reasonable price point.

[Donald Miller]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37790781...science-space/