Faster and cheaper scan back for large format.

[alexanderfedin]

Question: if you were offered an option to buy a 4x5 (or 8x10) scanning digital back, that works 4 times faster than its analogues, scans with 4800dpi (almost half a billion pixels on 4x5!), provides you with the large touch screen, works autonomously without a computer, what would be the price you agree to pay for that?

When thinking about that, consider that you do not process the film (color one!) anymore, do not scan it, do not get back from a shoot that 12 hours driving from home and realize that the lab damaged your film, etc.

[vinny]

Consider a hard drive crash.......
R u selling this?
$150

[Bruce Watson]

You gonna give me 20+ stops of dynamic range too? And the image area is same as 5x4 film? Hmmm...

[Jim collum]

Consider a hard drive crash.......
R u selling this?
$150

i'd say you'd be more likely to accidentally open a box of exposed film (have been shooting with a Betterlight since 2001.. not a single hard drive error, or hardware issue with the unit during that time.). Also , you're going to have the exposed shot on the drive inside of the control unit, and on the one in your computer. It doesn't have 20+ stops, but well exceeds the dynamic range of Chrome, and is pretty close to color negative. It's not the be-all tool.. but it does have uses.

[Jim collum]

I'm not sure I'd give up my Betterlight for the features you propose. A scanning back has a pretty narrow market. The model I use is a known quantity.. Excellent engineering, customer support..
Now, if you were offering an insert, with a sensor the size of the film (4x5, 8x10), w the same capture features of the medium format backs, and were able to offer it < $10K.. i'd probably think about that. :)

[alexanderfedin]

Consider a hard drive crash.......
R u selling this?
$150

I am not selling, I am trying to understand if someone offers this, how much would be a demand.
In other words, does it make any sense to start a business in this area or not?

[vinny]

I am not selling, I am trying to understand if someone offers this, how much would be a demand.
In other words, does it make any sense to start a business in this area or not?

Jim, I wasn't referring to the unit's hard drive crashing. I've had two die on me in less than 5 years.
you'd be better of starting a snow plowing biz in southern california:)

[alexanderfedin]

I'm not sure I'd give up my Betterlight for the features you propose. A scanning back has a pretty narrow market. The model I use is a known quantity.. Excellent engineering, customer support..
Now, if you were offering an insert, with a sensor the size of the film (4x5, 8x10), w the same capture features of the medium format backs, and were able to offer it < $10K.. i'd probably think about that. :)

Say, if it will take 40 seconds to capture 4x5" with 4800 dpi (1/2 gigapixels) with the shutter speed of 1/16, will have a built-in touch screen to set up shooting parameters and possible crop, and cost < $3K ?

[alexanderfedin]

Jim, I wasn't referring to the unit's hard drive crashing. I've had two die on me in less than 5 years.
you'd be better of starting a snow plowing biz in southern california:)

Do you store your film in a Swiss Bank safe, so you worry that much about hard drives?
There are backup services offered for a relatively low price.

[Light Guru]

I'm not sure I'd give up my Betterlight for the features you propose. A scanning back has a pretty narrow market. The model I use is a known quantity.. Excellent engineering, customer support..
Now, if you were offering an insert, with a sensor the size of the film (4x5, 8x10), w the same capture features of the medium format backs, and were able to offer it < $10K.. i'd probably think about that. :)

Yea a scanning back would definitely not have the appeal that a back that functions like normal camera does. Ether a large sensor or a sensor array. Something like this but not as big.
http://petapixel.com/2013/06/24/this-870-megapixel-monster-camera-has-116-sensors-and-weighs-3-tons/

[Lenny Eiger]

Say, if it will take 40 seconds to capture 4x5" with 4800 dpi (1/2 gigapixels) with the shutter speed of 1/16, will have a built-in touch screen to set up shooting parameters and possible crop, and cost < $3K ?

I'd be interested. I get about 2 Gigs of 16 bit RGB off a 4x5 on my drum scanner and if I had a excellent tool such as this I would be happy. However, they would have to be 4800 good dpi, not like an Epson pasted on the back of a 4x5, for example. I would also build in a black and white mode... that was intelligent.

Lenny

[alexanderfedin]

I'd be interested. I get about 2 Gigs of 16 bit RGB off a 4x5 on my drum scanner and if I had a excellent tool such as this I would be happy. However, they would have to be 4800 good dpi, not like an Epson pasted on the back of a 4x5, for example. I would also build in a black and white mode... that was intelligent.

Lenny

I knew that at least a few people would be interested. The question is: how many photographers are willing to pay for such a thing?

I am planning to prototype the one using freely available parts, and I know how to multiply the resolution and make it significantly faster.
But, to start a company that makes them on a regular basis, it is necessary to know the potential market.

[Light Guru]

I knew that at least a few people would be interested. The question is: how many photographers are willing to pay for such a thing?

I am planning to prototype the one using freely available parts, and I know how to multiply the resolution and make it significantly faster.
But, to start a company that makes them on a regular basis, it is necessary to know the potential market.

I don't thing enough people would be interested to make a scanning back with trying to develop. A large sensor or a series of large sensors would get much more interest.

[Kirk Gittings]

you can't talk in the abstract. If it were $2000 very likely. If it were $5000 or more not likely.

[Jim collum]

I'd be interested. I get about 2 Gigs of 16 bit RGB off a 4x5 on my drum scanner and if I had a excellent tool such as this I would be happy. However, they would have to be 4800 good dpi, not like an Epson pasted on the back of a 4x5, for example. I would also build in a black and white mode... that was intelligent.

Lenny


at $3K, i'd be interested as well.. given Kirk's conditions. The quality of the pixel's captured is important (the Betterlight has *excellent* quality). Using a MacBook Air now, the weight/size of the kit is avery manageable (not much more than taking a lot of film holders.. problem is.. if I'm shooting Betterlight, I usually bring the film holders along anyways.. )

[alexanderfedin]

at $3K, i'd be interested as well.. given Kirk's conditions. The quality of the pixel's captured is important (the Betterlight has *excellent* quality). Using a MacBook Air now, the weight/size of the kit is avery manageable (not much more than taking a lot of film holders.. problem is.. if I'm shooting Betterlight, I usually bring the film holders along anyways.. )

Q: how long it takes for your Betterlight to shoot full 3x4 (this is its size, right?) with the "shutter speed" of 1/16? Also, how many pixels do you have in the scanned image on the direction perpendicular to the sensor?

[Sevo]

I am not selling, I am trying to understand if someone offers this, how much would be a demand.
In other words, does it make any sense to start a business in this area or not?

I do think so, at least if you are targeting low volumes or individual production to order - all European makers in the field pulled out and are now catering for the digital medium format market or make process camera only backs (with even higher specifications within a very limited stationary application field). So there is a niche to fill - and with current components, prices considerably below the last generation of the 1990s designed backs by the above would be feasible.

[Jim collum]

the sensor is 6000 pixel's wide.. will scan 8000 rows in about 33 seconds (fastest line speed is 1/240th). You can shoot at faster line times, it just doesn't decrease the scan speed any. So 1/16 will take 500 seconds to scan. From experience, I've rarely shot that slow... most of my scans are in the 30-90 second range


Q: how long it takes for your Betterlight to shoot full 3x4 (this is its size, right?) with the "shutter speed" of 1/16? Also, how many pixels do you have in the scanned image on the direction perpendicular to the sensor?

[Amedeus]

Say, if it will take 40 seconds to capture 4x5" with 4800 dpi (1/2 gigapixels) with the shutter speed of 1/16, will have a built-in touch screen to set up shooting parameters and possible crop, and cost < $3K ?

This would be a great spec and outperform the standard linear scan arrays ;-) ... I assume you're scanning a 2D array since the 40 seconds at 1/16th shutter cannot be done with a linear array at the shutter times indicated. My only concern would be LCC at the proposed 5.2 micron pixel size ;-) ... of course, this can all be corrected for.

Count me in.

[B.S.Kumar]

At $3K, I'd be interested as well.

Kumar

[StoneNYC]

I don't thing enough people would be interested to make a scanning back with trying to develop. A large sensor or a series of large sensors would get much more interest.

This was done, a guy who used Polaroids to check his large format work when Polaroid stopped producing the large sizes (8x10 or maybe 20x24?) had a custom made back, it was only 10 megapixels and cost him $500,000 to have 2 made (a usable one and a backup) ... He only used it to "check" an image before using normal film to take the official shot...

So it probably wouldn't be affordable to produce a large sensor, the guy looked into it and decided that maybe 10 photographers in the world would spend that kind of money for a non-scanning back and even at $200,000 price tag the added phone support and technical support that would HAVE to come with it wouldn't be sustainable as a business model long term.

This is all my memory of reading an article, my numbers could be off slightly.

[George Stewart]

I'd happily spend $5k for a 4x5 back and $10k for an 8x10 unit. I'd like them to be totally self contained - no computer needed. Ideally, they would have an off the shelf LiIon battery, an SD card slot, and a small touch display to make setting adjustments and check histogram, etc. Oh, and it should output DNG files, which means no special software would be needed even 50 years from now. I'd be happy with 100MP from 4x5 and perhaps 200-300MP from 8x10. It seems to me that all the components except the frame assembly should be readily available.

[StoneNYC]

I'd happily spend $5k for a 4x5 back and $10k for an 8x10 unit. I'd like them to be totally self contained - no computer needed. Ideally, they would have an off the shelf LiIon battery, an SD card slot, and a small touch display to make setting adjustments and check histogram, etc. Oh, and it should output DNG files, which means no special software would be needed even 50 years from now. I'd be happy with 100MP from 4x5 and perhaps 200-300MP from 8x10. It seems to me that all the components except the frame assembly should be readily available.

You do realize the MF digital backs that are 80mp are $40,000+ currently...

Also CompactFlash would be much better than SD which is why all the pro digital cameras use CF over the cheaper and slower SD cards that are less stable and don't contain redundancy (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Sevo]

The preference for CF is a relic from times when SD was tediously slow and limited to 2GB - these days they have caught up in speed and size. Both formats still have annoying issues, but there is little development in CF any more and its market is dwindling, so it looks as if that will be left behind and soon grow obsolete. I would not buy a new CF only camera unless it is discounted accordingly or of a shortlived type that won't see the end of CF availability.

[George Stewart]

You do realize the MF digital backs that are 80mp are $40,000+ currently...

Also CompactFlash would be much better than SD which is why all the pro digital cameras use CF over the cheaper and slower SD cards that are less stable and don't contain redundancy (correct me if I'm wrong).

I shoot with a digital 'blad and know the cost of high end equipment. I also know the positives and negatives associated with each type of system. For me a digital 4x5 and/or 8x10 would offer the best user experience and image quality. While a scanning back isn't ideal, its the best readily available system we have today for a camera with the most compositional control and best user experience.

The read-write speeds of the fastest SDXC cards is right there with CF cards. They are fine for high resolution HD video and high frame rate still cameras. The only issue with them is that the technology is expanding so fast, one can't just buy an SDXC card and expect it to work in a few year old camera that may only be SDHC compatible.

[Sevo]

Both formats still have annoying issues

That is, CF is built around a long obsolete hard disk bus architecture that was native to mid 1990's PCs, and won't ever get any faster - the proposed faster successors (CFast and XQD) are incompatible and it rather looks as if they will silently fail on the market. There never was a device using CFast in its five years of existence, so it presumably is dead. And two years after the XQD release, the Nikon D4 still seems to be the only photographic camera that can handle it, there only seems to be a single OEM (Sony), and not even the Nikon pro dealers around here stock XQD cards. Besides, bus architecture and market presence issues mean that CF and its successors have vanished from modern (non desktop) computers and are unlikely to return.

SD on the other hand has forced obsolescence issues in the shape of a lack of upward compatibility intentionally designed into the system, and a speed rating system that does only help the makers to market their cards with false claims...

[StoneNYC]

I'm not sure what the Chinese man said... But it's my understanding that CF is still much more stable... Personally I've had 6, yes 6 SD cards fail and get corrupted after just a year or two, while my first ever CF card is still functioning just fine (56mb card haha) and none of my CF cards have ever failed.

I wouldn't trust any shoot on an SD card they have failed or had corrupted files way too often for comfort.

Perhaps you're right that it's definitely an older technology, then again, as they say "they don't make 'em like they used to". Haha

[Sevo]

Japanese - and it was merely spam laced with popular phrases to get found in as many different contexts as possible by search engines.

CF stability is partially a matter of the architecture (which allows for lower level repair software in the case of original CF - but that will be gone with XQD), partially a matter of prices and market segments. There are high reliability SD cards, but few people buy them when the same money can also buy them half a dozen cards that are four times as big and two times as fast. Given the low price of SD cards, there are no reasonable financial obstacles to a regime of "write once and retire to the archive", with which mid-range brand name cards will be about as safe as repeatedly using one single high quality CF card.

[Light Guru]

This was done, a guy who used Polaroids to check his large format work when Polaroid stopped producing the large sizes (8x10 or maybe 20x24?) had a custom made back, it was only 10 megapixels and cost him $500,000 to have 2 made (a usable one and a backup) ... He only used it to "check" an image before using normal film to take the official shot...

So it probably wouldn't be affordable to produce a large sensor, the guy looked into it and decided that maybe 10 photographers in the world would spend that kind of money for a non-scanning back and even at $200,000 price tag the added phone support and technical support that would HAVE to come with it wouldn't be sustainable as a business model long term.

This is all my memory of reading an article, my numbers could be off slightly.

Yes I'm familiar with the story you are talking about.
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/08/meet-six-figure-8x10-custom-made-digital-back

He had it built in 2009 and he did a 8x10 sensor. The cost of sensors is cheaper now and im talking about offering one in a 4x5 or slightly smaller size. the cost would be MUCH less then the 500,000 or even 200,000.

The cost would be even less if multiple sensors were used together to form a combined large sensor. If they can use 166 sensors to make this camera http://petapixel.com/2013/06/24/this-870-megapixel-monster-camera-has-116-sensors-and-weighs-3-tons/ then using say 6-10 sensors to make a 4x5 sensor array.

[Thom Bennett]

Interesting proposal. I'd say your market would be Architectural photographers who may still have a 4x5 laying around and haven't jumped into a Medium Format Digital back, those who do copy work (museums, galleries, etc.), landscapers and maybe some art and editorial photographers. I think the commercial studio world (where I live) has already adapted to medium format digital backs that they can use with strobes. Would you be able to compose on the ground glass and then insert the device just like a film holder? $3 - 5K sounds like a reasonable price point.

[rdenney]

I'd pay $3K.

Rick "depending on the big details" Denney

[Corran]

Regardless of data reliability, I have issues with physical reliability in regard to SD cards. I've had a very nice name-brand SD card just disintegrate into several pieces in my hand after plugging and unplugging it into my camera/card reader a couple hundred times. If they made them out of stronger stuff I'd probably be more willing to use them. Meanwhile I also have several old as dirt CF cards still kicking. They are much more robust.

As for the digital back - if it's "scanning" then I'm not interested. Too many variables with wind/water to bother. Personally I'd rather have a high-quality but "dumb" digital 6x7 back. I mean a simple capture device that had minimal options and niceties like the Phase One backs but just captured RAW data. Maybe 40-80 megapixels. ISO 25-400 or thereabouts. Attached via Graflok preferably. I'd pay a couple thousand for that. Older P40+ backs are still at $8k.

[Sevo]

Regardless of data reliability, I have issues with physical reliability in regard to SD cards. I've had a very nice name-brand SD card just disintegrate into several pieces in my hand after plugging and unplugging it into my camera/card reader a couple hundred times. If they made them out of stronger stuff I'd probably be more willing to use them. Meanwhile I also have several old as dirt CF cards still kicking. They are much more robust.


While the card connector is hard to kill, the male counterpart inside drives is rather vulnerable - I damaged one Nikon D80 and killed a couple of PC drives that way. By the way, I would not plug/unplug SD cards a couple of hundred times (or indeed more than three times) - at prices below film in its heydays even when you consider them single use, the most trivial way to avoid data loss and maintain an backup archive of unaltered originals is to treat them like negatives, "exposing" each SD only once and archiving it (physically, by labelling it and tossing it into a drawer) after computer transfer.

[Kirk Gittings]

In my experience CF cards are pretty bullet proof. I sho ot tons on them and the ones I first bought are still working fine (though I have now invested in bigger cars for the bigger native files of current model DSLRs)

[StoneNYC]

While the card connector is hard to kill, the male counterpart inside drives is rather vulnerable - I damaged one Nikon D80 and killed a couple of PC drives that way. By the way, I would not plug/unplug SD cards a couple of hundred times (or indeed more than three times) - at prices below film in its heydays even when you consider them single use, the most trivial way to avoid data loss and maintain an backup archive of unaltered originals is to treat them like negatives, "exposing" each SD only once and archiving it (physically, by labelling it and tossing it into a drawer) after computer transfer.

You obviously have too much money to burn, if I had to buy two 16 gig SD cards a week for each shoot I would be homeless....

[Corran]

That might make sense on large commercial shoots where the cost of the card is passed on to the client (and subsequently given to them as extra backup? That's what is often done in digital audio with the original files on harddrives). But that doesn't work for me now. I'll keep on using CF cards though instead...

[Sevo]

You obviously have too much money to burn, if I had to buy two 16 gig SD cards a week for each shoot I would be homeless....

Well, buy 4GB cards, then - at two shoots a week, you won't even be able to fill these... Even 16GB cards are so cheap that you can barely buy a single sheet of 4x5 colour and processing for their price. If there really are photographers that get through 32GB worth of pictures a week (enough to waste a shutter when shooting JPEG on a consumer DSLR, and upward of 300 even when shooting RAW on the biggest MF backs), without making enough money out of that huge amount that they could have afforded a single shot on film, it is no surprise that photography, whether digital or analogue, is sometimes said to be a dying art...

Even CF, at 50€ for fast (and 20€ for reliable) 16GB cards, currently still is cheap enough that any pro ought to be able to use them like film. The risk with CF is that unless the mainstream camera makers stage a big comeback for CF (unlikely - on the contrary it rather looks as if they would prefer to retire all physical storage media in favour of WLAN directly to the computer/tablet/smartphone), it will probably continue to dwindle, and going by the fate of other obsolete card standards, we'll eventually see a rise in media prices as they grow scarce. With that risk ahead, a new camera or back that is priced as a investment for more than half a decade should not omit SD, even though it would be nice if it also featured CF.

[Corran]

Come on now...a typical wedding that I shoot is about 40GB of files now from my D800. RAW + JPEG of course. A portrait session with maybe 50-60 shots or so uses up 10-15GB.

YMMV with older DSLRs with less resolution.

Let's not get into this debate. It's pointless, and I'm sorry you aren't going to convince anyone to use SD cards only once. Again, that's one of the reasons pros use CF cards.

[StoneNYC]

Sevo, basically what corran said.

I don't do weddings as often but I would guess about 1,000 pictures plus 800 or so from the assistant 2nd shooter I always have. I don't shoot JPEG, only RAW but that's still 25-30mb per file.

When not doing weddings I shoot models for portfolio sets that require about 100 images to the client, but that's 100 of the best, so I probably shoot 350-450 to ensure there's enough to play with.

If I did simple portraiture giving the client 5 images then your theory might work sort of, but these are more dynamic images, I also don't and wouldn't shoot color LF film for clients, only for Landscape since I hate C-41 and prefer chromes which aren't really good for portraits (for what's still made).

Ok I'm babbling a lot and it's not really what the thread is about. We all have our own process, I just personally have had enough bad experiences with SD that I prefer CF.

[SergeiR]

to sum this whole thing up

- there is small market at the present, where people would be ok spending 3-5k on 8x10 scanning back that can produce decent result.
- there is real desire for it to be light and self contained and preferably be as thin as regular film holder
- there is no way in hell in would work for anything that is really moving or got flicker-ish light. Which reduces applicability of whole thing quite a bit, hence the market size.
- it will have to be computer tethered or work with large CF/SD cards (CF is easier, sorry - SD format is flakier than snowflake on the planet of Flake in galaxy of Flakiness) b/c your typical scan of 2400dpi from 8x10 will produce fairly large 16 bit tiff.
- there is more than one way to make it work. Even with moving objects. Some of us do work on ideas.

[foster_jb]

I would definitely be interested, and I would add that you might consider making a 6x9 back as well. Photographers who still use a large format or tech camera with current digital backs use a 6x9 (2x3) camera system for this.

Thanks,
John

[alexanderfedin]

Interesting proposal. I'd say your market would be Architectural photographers who may still have a 4x5 laying around and haven't jumped into a Medium Format Digital back, those who do copy work (museums, galleries, etc.), landscapers and maybe some art and editorial photographers. I think the commercial studio world (where I live) has already adapted to medium format digital backs that they can use with strobes. Would you be able to compose on the ground glass and then insert the device just like a film holder? $3 - 5K sounds like a reasonable price point.
Yes, you're going to be able to compose/focus on the GG, and then replace it with the device. I am not 100% sure yet if I want it to be "insertable" in between the ground glass and the camera, as it then raises a question of where/how the touch screen should be attached to the device. It is quite possible to enable an iPhone/iPad/Android to be wirelessly connected to the device and serve as a controlling console, though it sounds too sophisticated for the end-user. It might be an auxiliary option if a user wants to insert the device with the screen in between the camera and GG.

Just to let you all know, I have a small team that progressing on a prototype, and one of the interesting outcomes was that we figured out how to add an option of programmatically increasing the _optical_ resolution from initially thought prototype resolution of 200 megapixels by 4(!) times up to 800 megapixels in a price of doubling the total exposure time.

Once we get something working and, hopefully, ready to be going to production, we're planning to ask a few known and trusted by the community fellow photographers to play with that and give us some feedback. This, I afraid, could be the only reliable way to establish the community trust to the product from an unknown company like ours.

I really think that, despite the rising prices for the film and difficulties finding any good lab to process the film, the large photography must survive.

[alexanderfedin]

I would definitely be interested, and I would add that you might consider making a 6x9 back as well. Photographers who still use a large format or tech camera with current digital backs use a 6x9 (2x3) camera system for this.

Thanks,
John
John,
6x9 is probable better be implemented with a regular medium format digital back, attached through a sliding adapter.
What do you think?

thanks.
--Alex

[Corran]

I'm really fascinated that you are actually progressing on a prototype. I assumed this was nothing more than a pipe-dream. I am extremely interested. FWIW, I have and use a large collection of modern LF lenses, from 47mm to 720mm, as well as many exotics, so I would be able to test a digital back quite thoroughly with a host of lenses and cameras as well...

I'd still like to see a 6x7 or 6x9 back that could be put on Century Graphic or Horseman 2x3 camera or any technical MF camera, simply for size and weight considerations, but a full-size 4x5 sensor would likely be really flexible with so many lenses available.

[foster_jb]

Hi Alex,

I am really happy to hear that you already have a prototype going as well!

As for the "regular" digital backs, they do not come close to covering the entire 6x9 format. Most are around 4.8 x 3.6 cm, and they can become extremely difficult to focus with wider lenses because the sensors are so small. If you can offer a "full" 6x9 cm back in addition to your 4x5, I think you would have a market for it. As I mentioned, most photographers who use a technical camera to shoot with medium format backs use 6x9 (2x3) camera systems, not 4x5. They would be a great market for your product, yet they might be reluctant to change their entire camera system to 4x5 just to use your product.

Thanks,
John

[alexanderfedin]

Hi Alex,

I am really happy to hear that you already have a prototype going as well!

As for the "regular" digital backs, they do not come close to covering the entire 6x9 format. Most are around 4.8 x 3.6 cm, and they can become extremely difficult to focus with wider lenses because the sensors are so small. If you can offer a "full" 6x9 cm back in addition to your 4x5, I think you would have a market for it. As I mentioned, most photographers who use a technical camera to shoot with medium format backs use 6x9 (2x3) camera systems, not 4x5. They would be a great market for your product, yet they might be reluctant to change their entire camera system to 4x5 just to use your product.

Thanks,
John
I clearly understand that the MF digital backs are smaller than 6x4.5, and that would be great to have a DB to fully cover 6x7 or even 6x9 frame. Unfortunately, this should either require a large sensor to be developed (have no idea how many millions of bucks it shall cost), or fitting many sensors together in a tide space (impossible due to the design of the existing chips), or using "scan" or multi-shot stitching approach (fit relatively big mechanics and electronics in a tide space).
The only last option might be sounding feasible, but it seems too complicated for now.

[foster_jb]

Alex, I am not aware of what challenges you are presented with to design and build your 4x5 sensor. Without knowing exactly what you are doing, I simply thought it would probably be easier as well as more inexpensive to build a smaller 6x9 version as well. Apparently that is not the case. Too bad.

John

[alexanderfedin]

Alex, I am not aware of what challenges you are presented with to design and build your 4x5 sensor. Without knowing exactly what you are doing, I simply thought it would probably be easier as well as more inexpensive to build a smaller 6x9 version as well. Apparently that is not the case. Too bad.

John
John,
I am not giving up on this, just have no intention of designing this sort of back soon.

--Alex

[Deepak Kumar]

I will rather be interested in panoramic version it could be 4.5 cm X 9/10 cm. we do not need to stick to film size.
This could be more affordable and technically possible. Mega pixel may add up later but first device need to be
sorted out in terms of its technical architecture.

Your idea make sense to me if I could afford your 4x5 back i would buy one though I would not stop shooting films
as long as they are available.

Deepak kumar

[bob carnie]

If you are considering designing a good system I would think you know the answers to your questions.
Is there a real company that you represent or something/someone financially backing up the point of this thread?

Q: how long it takes for your Betterlight to shoot full 3x4 (this is its size, right?) with the "shutter speed" of 1/16? Also, how many pixels do you have in the scanned image on the direction perpendicular to the sensor?

[Brian Ellis]

Consider a hard drive crash.......
R u selling this?
$150

Yeah, that hard drive crash I had 14 years ago was a real bummer. :-)

[Lenrick]

As an enthusiastic amateur who's only intention is record great images for my own amusement, I'd love to get my hands on a digital back for large format cameras (preferably 4x5"). I love using these types of cameras, but I'm not very fond of dark room work or the result when scanning film. At the moment I'm using Fuji Instant film (but the resolution is very low), or a 6x9 cm 120 film back and a film scanner (but the complicated process takes some of the fun out of it).

For me it would not be very important that the resolution (or whatever) is superior to a modern DSLR camera. What would be important is that I can record decent digital images using my beloved 4x5" camera without much fuss.

I'd probably pay up to $5000 or €3700 for this, without much hesitation. And I think there is a fairly large group of amateur photographers like me who simply love the experience of using large format cameras but don´t care so much about superior image quality.

Have you considered a crowd founding campaign (kickstarter.com, indiegogo.com, or fundedbyme.com)?

Very curious about that prototype.

/Filip

[StoneNYC]

As an enthusiastic amateur who's only intention is record great images for my own amusement, I'd love to get my hands on a digital back for large format cameras (preferably 4x5"). I love using these types of cameras, but I'm not very fond of dark room work or the result when scanning film. At the moment I'm using Fuji Instant film (but the resolution is very low), or a 6x9 cm 120 film back and a film scanner (but the complicated process takes some of the fun out of it).

For me it would not be very important that the resolution (or whatever) is superior to a modern DSLR camera. What would be important is that I can record decent digital images using my beloved 4x5" camera without much fuss.

I'd probably pay up to $5000 or €3700 for this, without much hesitation. And I think there is a fairly large group of amateur photographers like me who simply love the experience of using large format cameras but don´t care so much about superior image quality.

Have you considered a crowd founding campaign (kickstarter.com, indiegogo.com, or fundedbyme.com)?

Very curious about that prototype.

/Filip

Have you actually used a PROFESSIONAL grade digital camera? Their resolution is pretty darn good, my 120 film barley squeaks buy when I scan at 3200 dpi... compared to my Canon 5D Mk2...

[Lenrick]

Have you actually used a PROFESSIONAL grade digital camera? Their resolution is pretty darn good, my 120 film barley squeaks buy when I scan at 3200 dpi... compared to my Canon 5D Mk2...

No, I have not used a professional digital camera, but I'm sure the image quality is more than enough. The thing is, I love recording images with my 4x5" camera. There is something about the process, the camera, and the scene. I'm not after the best possible results, I'm after the (for me) best possible experience. For me the large format has nothing to do with image quality, think instead of it as my version of the japanese tea ceremony (elaborate and does not affect the taste of the tea, but the experience of drinking it).

I work full time and raise a family, and there is too little time for my hobbies. If I can buy myself some thing that can give me more time with the parts of photography that I love (recording images using a 4x5" camera, and viewing the result on screen or print) and reduce the parts that I don't enjoy that much (dark room work and scanning film) that would be worth a lot of money for me.

[StoneNYC]

No, I have not used a professional digital camera, but I'm sure the image quality is more than enough. The thing is, I love recording images with my 4x5" camera. There is something about the process, the camera, and the scene. I'm not after the best possible results, I'm after the (for me) best possible experience. For me the large format has nothing to do with image quality, think instead of it as my version of the japanese tea ceremony (elaborate and does not affect the taste of the tea, but the experience of drinking it).

I work full time and raise a family, and there is too little time for my hobbies. If I can buy myself some thing that can give me more time with the parts of photography that I love (recording images using a 4x5" camera, and viewing the result on screen or print) and reduce the parts that I don't enjoy that much (dark room work and scanning film) that would be worth a lot of money for me.

You can do that now, they have LF attachment backs you can attach digital camera bodies, if that's what you're after. The quality isn't 4x5 but I've easily made 20x30 prints with my digital at 300 dpi...

[alexanderfedin]

Here is the thing:
We are trying to find an LCD multitouch module for the device, and it appears that it is much easier to find the whole android kit with the built-in multitouch display then a separate module. Also, the kit shall have better resolution, colors, and shall cost up to 5 times less than the separate module! (~$100 for an android kit with a XVGA resolution vs. ~$300+ for a separate LCD module with the VGA resolution)
Though, the android kit will have to be developed in a separate enclosure, that is connected to the scanback with a cable. So, it is a kinda bulky solution, and we prefer this to be one single device instead of two.

if you think that this is okay to have two boxes instead of one, or anyone of you can recommend a distributor who sells cheap LCD modules - this will be highly appreciated.

Thanks guys.

P.S. We also decided to make the device an open platform, so anybody will be able to contribute to the software and even the hardware parts.

[alexanderfedin]

If you are considering designing a good system I would think you know the answers to your questions.
Is there a real company that you represent or something/someone financially backing up the point of this thread?
Bob, right now there are three of us working on this device in our spare time, as we are all software/hardware engineers working full time for different companies.
The company does exist, but it was opened a couple of years ago for an IT consulting purposes.
Nobody is backing up us financially, and we hope that we ain't gonna need this at least until we go to the mass-production stage.
It is almost always possible to either buy parts on the market or ask the manufacturer to provide a few samples for free, as we did this with the sensors.
Anyway, if you or someone you know can finance this initiative, this will be very appreciated, as we could spend much more time on the project, thus delivering the results faster.

[Lenrick]

You can do that now, they have LF attachment backs you can attach digital camera bodies, if that's what you're after. The quality isn't 4x5 but I've easily made 20x30 prints with my digital at 300 dpi...

Not sure I understand you completely, but I guess you mean that I can attach a 36×24mm sensor on my LF camera. Yes sure, but composing the image will be a bit awkward on that small area (plus I'd have to use a LF fish eye lens if I don't want telephoto). I have tried stitching multiple images, but I did not enjoy the process. I have looked at medium format sensors also, but I've never seen one for $5000 or less (usually three times that price or more).

[Andre Schneider]

If it's not a scanning back, if it's a 1-shot that I could use to shoot people, I'd give all my medium format equipment (digital back included) for that. I'd pay $50k for an 8X10 40MP back.

[alexanderfedin]

If it's not a scanning back, if it's a 1-shot that I could use to shoot people, I'd give all my medium format equipment (digital back included) for that. I'd pay $50k for an 8X10 40MP back.
Andre, you are asking for too much. First of all, you should know how the electronic devices are being made. First, the microelectronics designers design the schema of the device. Then, a big silicon crystal should be grown. Then, this crystal gets sliced into thin plates (waffles) about 10 inches in diameter. Then, these waffles get through a sophisticated multistage process, both chemical and photographic. Then, these waffles should be cut into pieces, each of that is an individual electronic chip. Then, these chips get tested. If anything fails, the chip goes into a garbage can.
The price of each individual waffle was about 1 million bucks just a few years ago. Divided by the number of chips that come out of the waffle, the price is kind of fine.
Now, imagine that you are trying to make a chip (your sensor) of a size that only one of that can be produced per one waffle. Also, please consider that the chance of its failure is much bigger than if you make hundreds or thousands of chips out of the waffle. So, basically, there is a very good chance that the whole waffle will go to the garbage can.
That means, that your good sensor should cost much more than the money you are willing to invest.

You think that the MF digital backs cost that much because the manufacturers are greedy bastards? Yes, they are, at some extent, but it is also because of the price of such a big chip to produce without the defects.
This also explains why they use CCD technology for those backs rather than CMOS - CMOS technology is much more complicated, so there are many more chances to fail with that size and numbers of elements on the chip.

Sorry to disappoint you, but your only option for now is either to use film or multishot.

[Laron]

I join to the 3K group. for that price I would go for too! would be just perfect for architectural shots.
very curious for the tests, cant wait! :)

do you have plans or schedule how much time will it take approximately to get the prototype work?

[Amedeus]

So why not equip the back with wifi and use a smart phone or pad as command interface ? This is what I do with my MF digital backs (Hasselblad and LEAF)

Works like a charm and it is inexpensive. Not realtime but still acceptable imho.


Here is the thing:
We are trying to find an LCD multitouch module for the device, and it appears that it is much easier to find the whole android kit with the built-in multitouch display then a separate module. Also, the kit shall have better resolution, colors, and shall cost up to 5 times less than the separate module! (~$100 for an android kit with a XVGA resolution vs. ~$300+ for a separate LCD module with the VGA resolution)
Though, the android kit will have to be developed in a separate enclosure, that is connected to the scanback with a cable. So, it is a kinda bulky solution, and we prefer this to be one single device instead of two.

if you think that this is okay to have two boxes instead of one, or anyone of you can recommend a distributor who sells cheap LCD modules - this will be highly appreciated.

Thanks guys.

P.S. We also decided to make the device an open platform, so anybody will be able to contribute to the software and even the hardware parts.

[Amedeus]

Not going to happen anytime soon for all the reasons Alexander outlined.

I've ran a CCD sensor development team for a while and believe me, it is so hard to get good yield on these large sensors regardless of pixelsize ...

I would equally pay $50k for an 8x10 back ... but not for 40MP ... I have better than that in my MF back now with great performance ...


I'd pay $50k for an 8X10 40MP back.

[adelorenzo]

A fellow had an 8x10 back made a couple of years ago, for "the cost of a good sized house"

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

[alexanderfedin]

Hello everybody,
We are facing a difficult problem here, so I need you guys to help us making the right decision.
The problem is that we've found too many options with the display screen.

There are LCD modules of 5" size and the resolution of 480x800, that render approximately 262K colors.
There are LCD modules of 7" size, resolution of 800x1260, and 1.6M colors.
Which one would you prefer? The big one looks better, but consider the size of the device that has such a huge screen!

Another thing is the touch screen.
There are two different technologies available on the market: resistive and capacitive.
The resistive one is very difficult to find the one that supports multi-touch, but this screen should be fine to use outdoors with the gloves on.
The capacitive shall support multi-touch for sure, but it's prone to accidental touch and impossible to work with while wearing gloves.
Once again, what would be your choice?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[dave_whatever]

If you can make it wifi controllable from an ipad then go with the smaller screen, otherwise go big.

[alexanderfedin]

We're planning to get a few of them ready for test in the beginning of January.

[alexanderfedin]

If you can make it wifi controllable from an ipad then go with the smaller screen, otherwise go big.
Yes, there is an option of doing that, but we want our customers be free of much of the additional stuff.

[alexanderfedin]

A fellow had an 8x10 back made a couple of years ago, for "the cost of a good sized house"

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

... and just 10 megapixels.
Ours 1st version is gonna produce stunning 200 megapixels and shall support hardware HDR mode.

[Lenrick]

There are LCD modules of 5" size and the resolution of 480x800, that render approximately 262K colors.
There are LCD modules of 7" size, resolution of 800x1260, and 1.6M colors.
Which one would you prefer? The big one looks better, but consider the size of the device that has such a huge screen!

Another thing is the touch screen.
There are two different technologies available on the market: resistive and capacitive.
The resistive one is very difficult to find the one that supports multi-touch, but this screen should be fine to use outdoors with the gloves on.
The capacitive shall support multi-touch for sure, but it's prone to accidental touch and impossible to work with while wearing gloves.
Once again, what would be your choice?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I think it is very hard to have a preference for screen size and touch-technique, until one has tried the back and have feeling for how to use it. Will multi-touch be an important part of procedure? Will the larger screen drain the battery much faster? But of course, a 7" screen seems better and since I live in Sweden I often wear gloves.

I'm sure whatever choices you make for this version 1, much will be changed for a future version 2.

[alexanderfedin]

I think it is very hard to have a preference for screen size and touch-technique, until one has tried the back and have feeling for how to use it. Will multi-touch be an important part of procedure? Will the larger screen drain the battery much faster? But of course, a 7" screen seems better and since I live in Sweden I often wear gloves.

I'm sure whatever choices you make for this version 1, much will be changed for a future version 2.
Thank you Lenrick, your comment is very appreciated.

[Andre Schneider]

... and just 10 megapixels.
Ours 1st version is gonna produce stunning 200 megapixels and shall support hardware HDR mode.

Yes, but his was one shot and not a scan back... :-)

[Andre Schneider]

Not going to happen anytime soon for all the reasons Alexander outlined.

I've ran a CCD sensor development team for a while and believe me, it is so hard to get good yield on these large sensors regardless of pixelsize ...

I would equally pay $50k for an 8x10 back ... but not for 40MP ... I have better than that in my MF back now with great performance ...

I understand the problems with making a sensor this big. I am hoping for some different approach, like, say, crazy idea, stitch a bunch of medium format sensors together, this way you wouldn't go through the problems of rejecting the whole waffle if something goes wrong. Didn't the Canon 1Ds have basically two sensors stitched together to make a full frame one? And didn't MF backs had that too? I remember my Aptus65 had a problem when I first got it where half of the image had a different color/noise because the sensor wasn't calibrated together or something. Sent it to Leaf and it came back beautiful... So maybe there is an alternative solution.

Now for more than 40MP, even thou I really don't need it, I wouldn't mind paying even more...

[alexanderfedin]

I understand the problems with making a sensor this big. I am hoping for some different approach, like, say, crazy idea, stitch a bunch of medium format sensors together, this way you wouldn't go through the problems of rejecting the whole waffle if something goes wrong. Didn't the Canon 1Ds have basically two sensors stitched together to make a full frame one? And didn't MF backs had that too? I remember my Aptus65 had a problem when I first got it where half of the image had a different color/noise because the sensor wasn't calibrated together or something. Sent it to Leaf and it came back beautiful... So maybe there is an alternative solution.

Now for more than 40MP, even thou I really don't need it, I wouldn't mind paying even more...

Unrealistic scenario, unfortunately. Why? Because the market of the professional Large Format users is too small, even a bunch of sensors combined into one big is too expensive, enthusiasts are not going to pay that much. May be in 10-20 years...

[Andre Schneider]

Unrealistic scenario, unfortunately. Why? Because the market of the professional Large Format users is too small, even a bunch of sensors combined into one big is too expensive, enthusiasts are not going to pay that much. May be in 10-20 years...

Oh, you underestimate the power of dentists and lawyers... LOL I remember when the Aptus10 was first released, the first 20 or so orders were for amateur photographers... LOL Plus, I know myself at least a handful of still life photographers that would buy one of those (and I don't know many still life photographers...)

[alexanderfedin]

Oh, you underestimate the power of dentists and lawyers... LOL I remember when the Aptus10 was first released, the first 20 or so orders were for amateur photographers... LOL Plus, I know myself at least a handful of still life photographers that would buy one of those (and I don't know many still life photographers...)

Well, then ask those people how much they want to invest, sum these up and then ask some silicon company to design that supersized sensor for them :-)

[Andre Schneider]

Well, then ask those people how much they want to invest, sum these up and then ask some silicon company to design that supersized sensor for them :-)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to find out what the market for digital backs for 8X10 were interested in, but I realize now you just want to know about the scan back part of it, I should have read the title better... :-)

[alexanderfedin]

Something interesting: I've found a CCD sensor with the size of 80.64x80.64mm and the resolution of slightly above 80 megapixels. The sensor is monochrome, at least the one that I know about.
It is too big for the medium format and a little too small for the 4"x5" large format.
Can easily be used to shoot panorama 80x127mm or single square frame, or multi-shot for 8"x10".

Anyone interested?

[Amedeus]

Something interesting: I've found a CCD sensor with the size of 80.64x80.64mm and the resolution of slightly above 80 megapixels. The sensor is monochrome, at least the one that I know about.
It is too big for the medium format and a little too small for the 4"x5" large format.
Can easily be used to shoot panorama 80x127mm or single square frame, or multi-shot for 8"x10".

Anyone interested?

I assume you're talking about the Fairchild sensor for "scientific applications" ... little too rich for my wallet ;-)

There's a even larger one out there ...

From a July 11, 2013 press release

"The camera, IOE3-Kanban, was developed by the Institute of Optics and Electronics under the Chinese Academy of Science and is capable of producing images with 10,240 x 10,240 pixels"

Still looking for my link on a European 100Mpix sensor.

[Noah A]

I'm not so interested in an 80mm square sensor, especially if it is monochrome only.

The scan back could be interesting. How long will a scan take?

[alexanderfedin]

I'm not so interested in an 80mm square sensor, especially if it is monochrome only.

The scan back could be interesting. How long will a scan take?
Technically, it is not a "scan" back, as it uses multi-shot stitching to produce the whole frame.
With the sensors that are being used right now for prototyping it should take about 30 seconds to shoot the whole 4x5 frame with the shutter speed of 1 second.

[Racer X 69]

Here is the thing:
We are trying to find an LCD multitouch module for the device, and it appears that it is much easier to find the whole android kit with the built-in multitouch display then a separate module. Also, the kit shall have better resolution, colors, and shall cost up to 5 times less than the separate module! (~$100 for an android kit with a XVGA resolution vs. ~$300+ for a separate LCD module with the VGA resolution)
Though, the android kit will have to be developed in a separate enclosure, that is connected to the scanback with a cable. So, it is a kinda bulky solution, and we prefer this to be one single device instead of two.

The Android kit would be fine, considering the cost savings.

With respect to size and added bulk any solution is going to add extra gear. It will save later on by eliminating the darkroom steps, right?

And for my 4x5 camera the screen will need to be separate anyway, as the ground glass is not easily removable.


Hello everybody,
We are facing a difficult problem here, so I need you guys to help us making the right decision.
The problem is that we've found too many options with the display screen.

There are LCD modules of 5" size and the resolution of 480x800, that render approximately 262K colors.
There are LCD modules of 7" size, resolution of 800x1260, and 1.6M colors.
Which one would you prefer? The big one looks better, but consider the size of the device that has such a huge screen!

So if you aren't going to use the Android it then a 7" screen with better resolution would be the better option.


Another thing is the touch screen.
There are two different technologies available on the market: resistive and capacitive.
The resistive one is very difficult to find the one that supports multi-touch, but this screen should be fine to use outdoors with the gloves on.
The capacitive shall support multi-touch for sure, but it's prone to accidental touch and impossible to work with while wearing gloves.
Once again, what would be your choice?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

It appears that there are going to be tradeoffs. Resistive will be more attractive to users who wish to leave their gloves on while working in cod weather, while the multi-touch may be preferred by those who don't mind fiddling with removing their gloves frequently.

Me?

I could go either way here.