Ultimate digital chip for LF

[Bob McCarthy]

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

[David Luttmann]

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.

[Ralph Barker]

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.

[Gordon Moat]

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

[Bruce Watson]

... 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...

[Bob McCarthy]

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

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

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

[David Luttmann]

That's done with multiple image sensors.....not one chip.

[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.

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.

[Ted Harris]

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.

[MJSfoto1956]

The flaw with this methodology is that scanning film introduces attenuation that exaggerates grain (even more so than using a condenser enlarger vs. a diffusion enlarger). The other flaw is that importing a (noisy) digital image via Adobe RAW "cleans up" the noise resulting in the appearance of a noise-free image (in fact it can be demonstrated that ALL digital CCD and CMOS sensors exhibit significant internal native noise). Needless to say, cleaning up the data also alters it -- there is no way to avoid that. I believe this post-polishing is the "look" that film purists correctly complain about when it comes to digital. It certainly does have a "look"! So the statement that my XYZ sensor is noise free while my scanned film is grainy is simply wrong-headed and the result of flawed methodology (and hyped marketing).

This is the same flawed comparison that Luminous Landscape and other sites have used for years to "prove" the superiority of digital over film. Digital certainly is superior from an economics/convenience point of view (which is why commercial photographers have overwhelmingly endorsed it). However, infering that today's one-shot digital backs produce superior quality to large-format film is wishful thinking. A fairer comparison will be made in the second issue of MAGNAchrom where we scientifically compare a pure analog workflow AAA photo to a completely digital workflow DDD photo. And only the final print will be scanned for the publication, not the film. I think you'll be surprised at the findings.

Hint: yes, a digital print is indeed quite different than a film print!

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com

[Gordon Moat]

I definitely agree with the points made by J. Michael Sullivan and Ted Harris. While that Leaf back is probably having the images going through the Leaf software, it is indeed being polished. That someone would not do the same polishing in PhotoShop or high end scanning software like Creo oXYgen seems inconcievable to me.

As far back as 1996, on far worse scanning gear, I was getting those smooth grainless images from scanned film. This involved a few steps in PhotoShop 3.0, which is now much more easily accomplished with newer PhotoShop or third party add-on software. This post-processing, whether to a RAW capture or scanned film, can sometimes take the same amount of time. As a professional, the amount of time makes a difference in most post processing, though enthusiasts and amateurs might be less inclined to worry about post-processing time.

Rather than compare a Leaf digital back to a low end scanner, I think a more valid comparison would be to a Creo scanner, especially when the software is very similar in operation. However, the idea of a digital back is partially to not have film expenses, even if your prior work practice was to charge each client for your film (zero cost item), or incorporate it into each invoice; rather the advantage should be cutting out drop-off and pick-up time at a lab. That time needs to be balanced against any extra time processing RAW images, or in archiving numerous digital files. Suppose a professional film photographer had 100 actual photography days in a year, with the rest of the time in meetings, writing proposals, delivering work, or contacting clients. If switching to a digital back eliminated lab visits, then maybe 150 days of actual photography work could be done in a year. Thus the saving might not be film costs that you should have been billing to clients, it is instead a way to enable a photographer to do more billable assignments each year.

So if you previously ran a zero cost film billing set-up, a comparible scanner would be near the price of a Leaf back. If you did not bill out for film and developing, for whatever reason, then the costs of film for the expected two years professional usage lifetime of the Leaf back would need to be deducted from the amount one might spend on a scanner; maybe a Creo iQSmart 2 instead of an EverSmart or iQSmart 3 . . . or some other choices. Another expense is that storing film is low cost, and not every shot on film needs to be scanned, so only the scanned images need archiving and computer storage space, while all the direct captures from the Leaf are probably images you want to store; this implies a need for more computer storage and archiving space for a digital back workflow than for a scanning film workflow, though that depends upon what you choose to keep of your images.

The last issue is focusing on the ground glass. While a digital back is double 35mm or less than 6x4.5 in size, the issue of stiching four shots makes it closer to 4x5, making the ground glass composing the shot step more familiar. Stitching, even with really good software, adds time to post processing, and slows down the original capture. Using a Leaf back as a single shot device seems like it would make more sense when paired with a 645 medium format camera, rather than the back of a view camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

[David Luttmann]

I don't know Ted....

I've just finished going over the sample scans on DVD from the Luminous Landscape test. The Aptus 75 is not that different from the P45 (34 vs 39MP). The printed crops I made from a 40" size had the P45 looking sharper than that of the scanned film....not much, but definitely there.

Based on all the sample prints I've made, it's far closer than most people believe....at least up to 40" anyway. Of course, we won't mention the cost

[MJSfoto1956]

The Luminous Landscape DVD is simply flawed, in spite of the endorsement of some of today's top lumineries. What you have is a cleaned-up/sharpened digital file (via RAW processing) compared unfairly to a sheet of scanned film (whose grain is attenuated by the scanning process itself) which does not have the same benefit of noise reduction + sharpening. So of course the DVD can show whatever they want it to.

This DVD is not science -- it is psuedo-science posing as fact.

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com

[Sheldon N]

Not to debate the merits of the LL tests, but my understanding is that the DVD contains the RAW files from all the respective cameras. That would mean that if you are checking out the comparison files from the DVD, you are free to control all sharpening and post processing to make it as fair as you want.

I don't think the DVD or Michael purports it to be any fact at all, but rather he put it out so that he wouldn't have to defend his own conclusions or his processing of the files. I'm sure there's a bit of a financial motivation to it as well.

In a realistic sense though, both LF and state of the art MF digital are so good that very large high resolution prints are easily attainable with either. For us mere mortals, one option is financially feasible, and the other is a pipe dream. For commercial photographers pursuing MF Digital, I'm sure the competitive environment, demand for fast turnaround, and workflow considerations are just as important (if not more so) than which one is "better".

As for me, I'm always curious what the current state of the art digital is. However, I have no plans to take out a second mortgage to buy one, and if I really want more resolution there's always 8x10 or 11x14. :)


The Luminous Landscape DVD is simply flawed, in spite of the endorsement of some of today's top lumineries. What you have is a cleaned-up/sharpened digital file (via RAW processing) compared unfairly to a sheet of scanned film (whose grain is attenuated by the scanning process itself) which does not have the same benefit of noise reduction + sharpening. So of course the DVD can show whatever they want it to.

This DVD is not science -- it is psuedo-science posing as fact.

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com

[Robert Payne]

Yeah, sorry Mr. Sullivan, but the files on the Luminous Landscape DVDs are all RAW files, meaning, they are there for YOU to process them/sharpen them/clean them up, etc...and actually, if you have any experience with digital at all, and you shoot it correctly, most of the files, for me at least, don't need any "cleaning up."

Unfortunately, film enthusiasts seem to think that all digital files are edited to bloody hell. That's not the case if you're simply a skilled photographer who captures images on a digital sensor, instead of film. Now if you're Bob the digital wedding photographer wannabe, it might be a different story...

I have to say though, the Luminous test is done with a subject that is at close distances. Digital is very good in these situations (portraits, product, etc). However, I believe if the test shot was not in the studio, but was a landscape with vast detail in the distance (basically, what most people on this forum shoots), the test might have been a lot more difficult for the digital backs and DSLRs to keep up with the LF and MF film.

[paul r w freeman]

I think its a valid comparison because it reflects what I was actually doing in practice. It isn't a valid comparison of the media and I didn't claim that it was.

Because of where I live, its simply not practical to get professional drum scans and processing done in a timely manner. Hence my comparison is not a technical lab comparison, but a practical one. Driving to the nearest lab open after 5pm absorbs 3 hours of my time. Then there is the wait while all the processing is done.

If I were to have my own colour darkroom, develop my own film using one shot developer, dry it in a professional dryer, then scan the film on my own drum scanner then I might be able to beat the quality of the digital back. This would probably cost as much to set up as it cost me to buy the back, and the eventual process would take longer.

My point is not what the theoretical quality of one medium is over another, only how it works for me in practice. Thats a very different thing. Maybe if I had more time, lived in a more convenient location, had bought better film equipment, worked harder at 5x4 film I would have had better results.

In any case, my point is not merely a film comparison, more to point out that high quality digital results are a reality, for me, not a figment of a future chip that may never exist.

The problem is that its hard for people to get their hands on this kind of gear to make the practical comparisons because of both the cost and the complex fittings needed to hook backs onto view cameras. As a result, people have to rely on lab tests which may not reflect a real life workflow. For this reason all sorts of misconceptions arise like "film lenses haven't got the resolution for digital".

[David Luttmann]

The Luminous Landscape DVD is simply flawed, in spite of the endorsement of some of today's top lumineries. What you have is a cleaned-up/sharpened digital file (via RAW processing) compared unfairly to a sheet of scanned film (whose grain is attenuated by the scanning process itself) which does not have the same benefit of noise reduction + sharpening. So of course the DVD can show whatever they want it to.

This DVD is not science -- it is psuedo-science posing as fact.

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com

Michael,

The file I just worked on was processed with Capture One with the noise reduction settings at 0. The file was not "cleaned up". I sharpend both the digital and film files to taste and printed them. There is nothing "psuedo-science" here. I think you have a little bit of reading to do on this topic as there appears to be a bit of apparent bias in your statement.

What I found one print was this:

The digital file had no noise. It had better accutance than the film no matter how much the film was sharpened. Detail between the two were similar. This was a cropped print from a 40" enlargement.

Please tell us where the LL DVD is "pseudo-science." How is the scanned film vs a RAW digital shot flawed?

[bglick]

Great comments guys....

A few things I would like to add...

First, LL uses digital lenses on the digital back, but uses conventional LF lenses with film.....these digital lenses are ultra sharp, even when used on film. Although the digital lenses are not quite big enough to cover 4x5, some can come close, I would like to see that thrown into the mix to help level the playing field. As the superior digital results when be reduced also if this latest generation of lenses were NOT used.

Next, the digital back is acheiving its greatest advantage by allowing to extra "free stops" of aperture diffraction to attain the same DOF. When DOF is NOT an issue, the MF digital can shoot at optimized f8 - 11, whereas most LF lenses are optimized at around f22, this was never considered a degrading consequence of LF, till now.... i.e. highly dense recording media (digital sensor) provides the benefits of stepping up in format size in resolution, without the obvious draw back of being forced to use longer fl lenses to acheive the same composure.


Its been rumored that Canons replacement for the 1dsII will be a 24MP body, at the same price price both the 1ds and 1dsII were introduced at... $8k. If this becomes a reality and Canon comes through with their version of digitar lenses, we may see a new "film vs. digital" war. Now, a simple two stitch image from a 35mm camera will yield results better than 4x5 and 5x7, and most 8x10. (based on f stop used, or DOF required) The smaller 35mm format enables even lower f stops, allowing even higher lens resolution to the sensor than MF digital. Scary, huh...

In the end, there is lot more to the equation then scanned dpi vs. pixel count... and unfortunately all advantages move in the direction of digital....its more phyiscs than pixie dust...

One poster mentions they can continue to climb the LF ladder if they want more resolution... I would offer some qualifiers to that statement. IF DOF is required in the shot, jumping past 4x5 offers little benefits (if any) as diffraction will eat up any potential gains, this assumes the 4x5 shot was taken at f22, which therefore requires f45 for 8x10, f64 for 11x14, etc. However, if you are shooting flat subjects or at infinity, then the gains can be appreciated in larger formats as you do NOT continue to pay the diffraction penalty when climbing the LF film ladder.


The one area color neg film remains strong over digital is exposure lattitude...it seems digital chip makers have not been able to tackle this problem as of yet.


Also, as pointed out, to make an apples to apples comparison, the users should have the ability to apply all available tools to produce the best final image as possible to each medium. I think this is another area that digital excels in... I have experimented with both, and it's clear that digital images are more pixel friendly than film. In other words, noise cleans up nicer than film grain. It could be a result of more sophisticated software chasing the digital market, as its the bigger source of future revenues. When I take pix with my 8 MP tiny digicam, yeah its noiser than larger digital sensors, but its amazing how well it cleans up using some of the noise reduction programs.

LF and a low cost scanner will clearly remain the choice for the hobbiest or those not willing to throw a second mortgage at new technology, or who just prefer the many benefits of film use in the field vs. electronics. If there was ever a comparison made of the cost of LF set up with low end scanner vs. good (maybe not the best) digital, the value would surely be in the LF system. This assumes low volume usage per year of course. If one is a professional, it's an entirely different game..... as economics is a part of every business.


We just have to hope the next round of digital development is not so strong and cost effective (as Canon rumors above) .... such that it puts an even bigger dent into film sales. It's unfortunate the two big LF color film makers got so damn huge from years of film profits...... but, now what made them (film), will soon be seen as loosing division. Not trying to start the "will they stop making film thread"..... just noting the huge jumps in digital that many of us could not fathom just 3 - 4 years ago when much of this "is film dead" started.


Oh, yeah, B&W shooters, you're lucky....... its mostly us color guys who beat this issue up. The fact small companies make B&W film will probably assure availablity of film supply for our life time....

[Eric Leppanen]

First, LL uses digital lenses on the digital back, but uses conventional LF lenses with film.....these digital lenses are ultra sharp, even when used on film. Although the digital lenses are not quite big enough to cover 4x5, some can come close, I would like to see that thrown into the mix to help level the playing field. As the superior digital results when be reduced also if this latest generation of lenses were NOT used.

While at a theoretical level I agree with you, as a practical matter LF film lens design has essentially ceased, and most likely there will never be any next-generation products brought to market. So I think using currently available LF film lenses amounts to a valid comparison. No sense in using higher resolution LF digital lenses if none cover the 4x5 format, with no prospect of any such lenses becoming available in the future. Perhaps the LL folks might have achieved a smidge more resolution using a Sironar-S versus a Sironar-N, but I doubt this would have made much practical difference. Given the limited objectives of their test, I think their setup was reasonable.

I'm an LF color film guy too, and I've also been watching the digital capture scene to see when it may become necessary to jump to the dark side. Canon has much work to do with wide-angle lenses, greater bit depth, etc. for a 24MP DSLR to reach its full promise. I shoot mostly 8x10 these days and earlier this year we were able to persuade Fuji USA to inventory 8x10 Velvia 100 in the U.S., and one would doubt Fuji would do this if they foresaw an abrupt end to color film manufacture. So I suspect we have several more years before color film availability becomes a serious problem (at least from Fuji). By then, who knows what digital products (some presumably for view camera platforms) may become available?

[chris jordan]

Eric, that's right where I am too-- watching with interest, while still shooting 8x10 Astia 100F and negative films. They are still better than anything I've seen with digital, though I've heard that the Betterlight scanning backs are amazing. My dream piece of equipment is an 8x10 digital capture device that's about the same size and shape as an 8x10 film holder. You slide it in the back of the camera, pull out the dark slide, make an exposure just like normal, and within a minute or two it records a 2GB file right into its battery-powered 100GB internal flash memory. Now THAT would rock, eh?

[bglick]

Eric, as for the digital lenses, they can cover 6x9, but its probable the loss of imaging area will compensate for the added resolution, getting you back to where you started. The point I was making about this was.... as you also mentioned, the advancements in technology such as digital lenses are being geared towards digital, another strike against film in the years to come. Not only will there be no new LF lenses, I would be quite surprised if the current line up continues to be manufactured.... speically by Fuji...and I beleive Nikor already quit.....Fortunately, I bet Schneider will stay the course... Rodenstock ?? (I am sure Bob will tell us)

Agreed on your outlook of color film, we are safe for a couple of years, the scary part is, if and when they decide to cut film, it could be abrubt.... its seems lots of us are on the fence waiting for the digital product that will push us over the edge... sad...but...it's reality...

Chris... BetterLight backs do produce wonderful images, and for still photography, they are tough to beat. But for landscapes, I can NOT swallow 15 minute exposure times...sometimes more for sunsets. I also hate the odd effects they produce when the light changes or wind slightly moves tree branches on different lines of the scan. BetterLight reps coin this as artistic touch.... I see it as un predictable results which you often do NOT have the opportunity to re shoot - as quite often with landsacpes, you only have a short window of opportunity to capture a scene. As fast as the single shot backs are progressing, I question how long scanning backs will be around. It seems more prudent to buy one back that can perform both tasks, vs. buying two backs.... so I think the digital progression will diminish the market of scanning backs to the point of extinction, IMO. Just like film scanners, a very short product lifespan.

For color, IMO, 8x10 neg film is really the cats MEOW, as it offers more than sufficient resolution (although not as much as chromes, but surely enough for most print sizes up to 60") and has the huge advantage of much larger exposure lattitude. The only compromise is, you have to be careful with the near / far distances as those long fl lenses are not DOF friendly. I have learned to pick n choose my scenes carefuly based on the gear / film I have with me.

Carrying a 50 MP back on a small view camera set up would open up tremendous possiblities all in one camera system. But like you, I still would like to see a bit more improvements in exposure lattitude and the use of wide angle lenses.... which IMO is probably digitals biggest shortcoming. Till then, I use film!

[MJSfoto1956]

Please tell us where the LL DVD is "pseudo-science." How is the scanned film vs a RAW digital shot flawed?

Dear David, I've already stated it as clearly as the English language will allow: scanning film attenuates any existing grain, making it "grainier" than it really is. In other words, scanning film ALWAYS puts film at a disadvantage. The only fair apples-to-apples comparison is to NOT scan the film, but examine the printed output.

Secondly, you are fooling yourself if you think that RAW import even at "zeroed" settings doesn't still clean up the data significantly. ALL popular RAW importers agressively eliminate Bayer artifacts (and then do a small amount of sharpening to boot even if you say "none"). This is why you've been led to believe the data is noise-free even when hidden deep inside the RAW file it is a mess. Your problem is simply that you do not own a tool that extracts the pure data without cleaning it up. If you did, you'd know that what I am stating is true. Sadly, RAW ain't RAW.


I think you have a little bit of reading to do on this topic as there appears to be a bit of apparent bias in your statement.

Hah! Ok I'm biased: against marketing hype and the people who continue to blindly promote it. As for reading, perhaps you should read my book on digital scanning written back in 1994 (revised in 1996). In the 1990s I lectured extensively at Seybold Seminars and MacWorld on the topic of digital scanning. FWIW, I've been scanning film since 1988 and have used every version of Photoshop since v1.0 (actually beta v1). I also was an early adopter of digital photography for advertising doing my first studio photoshoots back in 1993 with a three-shot 2k x 2k Leaf Back (man was that fun!). I've never stopped shooting/printing with digital ever since.

I'm afraid you simply have it wrong: I'm a BIG fan of digital -- it's just that all of my comparisons to date with Bayer arrays have been against a BetterLight scan back which delivers about as pure digital data as you can get**. And I find the comparison wanting. I simply distrust marketing hype and know it to be false when it patently is so (and I've got nearly 25yrs in advertising and I know what I'm talking about). And lastly, I'm not particularly fond of "groupies" who embrace whatever new fad comes around.

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publsiher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com (http://www.magnachrom.com)

** A BetterLight 16-bit digital file -- without any post-processing whatsoever -- demonstrates subtle discernable noise even at low ISO. It is the nature of *ALL* electronics I'm afraid. In spite of it being clearly visible, the BL noise is consistent and scales linearly with higher ISO. So it is predictable. This is what I like about the BetterLight software -- it does not lie, it does not fabricate. Adobe RAW and other RAW converters on the other hand, have to lie since the data they start with is significantly WORSE than the much purer BetterLight data. I will state for the record: a BetterLight pixel has twice as much data and half as much noise as any CMOS/CCD Bayer sensor on the market today. So if you are seeing "noise free" out of your Bayer digital back via RAW conversion, then you know that someone has been messing with your data behind the scenes. Personally, I don't like that. But then again, I don't have to rationalize a $50,000 investment in equipment that will be obsolete in 24 months...

[Eric Leppanen]

The feedback I received from various folks here in L.A. earlier this year also indicated that, with 39MP MF digital backs available today, a 20+MP DSLR available from Canon early next year, and 50-60MP MF backs available within maybe two years, the scanning back market is withering away.

An interesting question is going to be how higher digital back megapixel counts are going to square with lens resolution limits. As I understand it, to keep lens manufacturing costs within reason, increasing lens resolution ultimately means reducing image circle (as Rodenstock recently did with their HR digital lens series, which supposedly is already capable of supporting a 50-60MP back). However, increasing resolution by increasing pixel density in turn requires larger lens apertures to avoid becoming diffraction limited, so a higher resolution digital back incurs a reduction in DOF, similar to moving to a larger format. So what digital sensor size will ultimately prove the "sweet spot" in reaching an optimal combination of lens resolution, sensor noise, DOF and cost?

We live in interesting times!

[MJSfoto1956]

An interesting question is going to be how higher digital back megapixel counts are going to square with lens resolution limits.

Great points Eric,

For those of us with significant investments in "big cameras" it is a shame that 6x7 and 6x8 sensors with LOW pixel/mm count aren't available. (you *want* low pixel/mm count so that the sensors act like big photon buckets, resulting in low noise and high sensitivity without all the fake RAW witchcraft) If such a back were available, then your 20-50 year old 6x7 and 6x9 cameras and backs would continue to provide value.

The only manufacturers likely to pull that off would be the Chinese (particularly those on Taiwan) since they don't have an alterior motive to sell you new lenses and/or bodies!! One can only hope. I pray that there are some people out there paying attention.

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAcrhom
www.magnachrom.com (http://www.magnachrom.com)

[bglick]

Michael... although those old bodies may get use, I still question the use of older lenses with any digital sensor, even a less dense sensor.

I don't mean to start a war, but I am not following the benefits of the larger sensor. The larger the sensor, the longer the fl, the higher the f stop. At the sizes we are talking about, this all equates to higher amounts of lens diffraction where even small amount of DOF are required and slower shutter speeds, both are undesireable.

I follow you on the noise issue, but to make bigger pixels, you are trading a little noise for a lot of diffraction. Not sure that is a good trade off in the final print. In the end, it's all a question of degree, and from what I have seen so far, I would clearly desire the smaller, more dense sensors.... I'll take the little extra noise and gain much sharper digital lenses, less diffraction and faster shutter speeds. In the end, I will come out ahead.

A good example of this is the tiny digicams. An 8 MP digicam can have 350 pixels per mm... and of course they are very noisy. However, when you don't push these pixles beyond their capability, such as making a 16x20 print with 8 MP, the noise erases nicely with noise reduction programs. To me, it's all part of the technology of digital..... you take the gains where you can get em, and in this case the gains are smaller cameras, smaller lenses, faster ss's, less diffraction.... in return, you have a small bit of post processing work, which can often be batched processed. And the noise in the sensors we are referring to in this thread, will not be anywhere near as noisy as the digicams.


Before I would attack noise as a huge culprit, I would attack digital sensors undesireable means of recording tonal range. 75% of all the tonal ranges are in the top two highlight stops.... (half in the top stop, half in the next stop, etc. etc.) this is not desireable... I know this is true in Bayer sensors, but not sure if the same holds true in CCD sensors. Assuming it does, this might be the area where film still holds an advantage, specially neg film.

[MJSfoto1956]

Michael... although those old bodies may get use, I still question the use of older lenses with any digital sensor, even a less dense sensor.

I don't mean to start a war, but I am not following the benefits of the larger sensor. The larger the sensor, the longer the fl, the higher the f stop. At the sizes we are talking about, this all equates to higher amounts of lens diffraction where even small amount of DOF are required and slower shutter speeds, both are undesireable.


Good points B,

Funny you should mention this. I absolutely AGREE with you that the smaller the sensor the more everything will be in focus. However, for me this is the MAIN reason to LOVE big cameras! There is nothing like a 4x5 or 5x7 @ f8. I find it surreal. And I know others here do too.

As for "big pixels" the benefits are two fold:
1.) better light-capturing ability (higher dynamic range + lower noise)
2.) lower lens resolution requirements per millimeter

The second fact listed above is the cool reason it would make so much sense for a true 6x7 or 6x8 sensor. If we take 56mm x 69mm as the image area and use a sensor with 5040 x 6210 pixels (31.2 MP) you get a line resolution of only 90 pixels per millimeter -- most 30 year old large format and medium format lenses can readily produce that! And at 90 pixels per millimeter, you would have pixels that are nearly 2.66x as light sensitive as the P45 which has a pixel density of 147 pixels per mm. This would be a GREAT back!! I'd buy one in a hearbeat.

Question: how many of you would buy such a back? (assuming it were priced "reasonably" and would extend the life of your current equipment)

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com (http://www.magnachrom.com)

[Daniel Geiger]

The big vs. small pixel issue is interesting, particulary in context of the overlooked third capture type, the Foveon Chip. It is a three layer chip (no hated Bayer pattern), so much more like film, which does not have any issues with interpolation/aliasing.

It still is a chip, but at least some of the problematic issues with digital devices are removed.

But apart from a small chip in a Sigma digiSLR, it is non-existant. Big pixel on large chip (4x5 or 8x10) with three layers, that is certainly more appealing. Does anyone have any intel on the future (or lack thereof) of Foveon?

[bglick]

> However, for me this is the MAIN reason to LOVE big cameras! There is nothing like a 4x5 or 5x7 @ f8. I find it surreal.

Well, I would prefer the Canon 200mm f2 for this effect :-) With large format lenses, i find the problem with f8 is the lenses perform so poorly, that even the in-focus area is not that sharp. Maybe in a non enlarged print, but not so in most enlargement. The only real reason most LF lenses have low f stops is to see a brighter image on the gg. Most large image circle lenses are so abberated at f8....I never saw much need to shoot at them.


> you would have pixels that are nearly 2.66x as light sensitive as the P45

Explain "light sensitive" ? Do you feel such pixels would be of faster speed? ISO 25?


Daniel, I too often wondered about that Foveon.... there must be some reason that technology grounded itself. If it had merit, I would think one of the big chip makers would license it from Sigma. The Bayer method of capturing one color per pixel is much inferior, however, since the Bayer technology overwhelmed the chip with pixels, it more than compensated for this shortcoming... and in the end, Bayer sensors combined with interpolation actually do an incredible job of getting the color right, and it makes sense, its a great mix of hardware and mathematics / software. The one huge benefit of Bayer is the fact you are recording only 1/3 of the pixles in the camera that the finished raw file will be after raw processing. This represents storage savings of 66% in the field. Hence why I think Bayer lives on... and we may have seen the last of Foveon....

[MJSfoto1956]

Explain "light sensitive" ? Do you feel such pixels would be of faster speed? ISO 25?

The math is easy: take the square of one pixel dimension (e.g. 1/90 ^2) and divide it by the square of another pixel dimension (e.g. 1/147 ^2) and you'll get a very close approximation of the capabilites of any two sensors, all things being equal.

In short, the light capturing capability is increased significantly as you REDUCE the number of pixels per mm. I.E. the sensor is bigger, thus it is more sensitive to light.

So what does this mean? The best analogy is to consider a sensor a form of a photon "bucket" -- and to recognize that a small bucket can only hold so many photons. A larger bucket can hold exponentially more photons due to its greater volume. In the case of comparing 90 pixels per mm vs 147 pixels per mm the math reveals a 2.66 increase in the light capturing capability. Typically with digital sensors, this plays out in less noise (higher signal to noise ratio since there is more "signal"). Meaning, you can increase the ISO and get significantly less "noise" out of it.

Thus, to answer your question, yes, a "big bucket" sensor @ 400 ISO might produce roughly the same noise as a "small bucket" 100 ISO sensor. Or conversely, it would deliver significantly purer data at 100 ISO. And purer data is the key to getting expanded dynamic range. In fact, it is the only way.

[bglick]

Ok, I thought you were chasing the noise issue.....

But, unless things have changed, the dynamic range of the digital sensor is still limited by it's linear recording method. If you have 75% of the total available tonal ranges (based on bit depth) in the top two recorded stops, your dynamic range will always be very limited...... in other words, its a hardware / software issue, which is the heart n sole of these recording mediums. Scanning backs do escape this a bit.

Granted you may have less noise, but IMO, these chips do not produce enough noise to sacrifice all the benefits of the smaller more dense chips.

[Eric Leppanen]

Daniel, I too often wondered about that Foveon....
My vague (and possibly flawed) recollection is that the Foveon sensor suffers from noise problems on certain color channels (the deeper light penetrates into the sensor silicon, the noiser the sensor gets). There was a rumor on the street several years ago that Nikon was going with Foveon, but nothing materialized and we had to wait another year or so for the D2X (with a conventional Bayer-type sensor) to arrive.

Over at the APUG site, Photo Engineer (a Kodak retiree who is still quite active in the photographic world) recently summarized some thoughts on the future of digital after attending an imaging conference earlier this year. His summary is that Foveon-like sensors (any Foveon patents notwithstanding) are coming, as well as enhanced superlenses:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29274

Enjoy!

[MJSfoto1956]

Granted you may have less noise, but IMO, these chips do not produce enough noise to sacrifice all the benefits of the smaller more dense chips.

The smaller denser chips are EXTREMELY noisy compared to, say, a BetterLight back with 87 pixels per mm density. How come we don't see the noise? They clean it up using Adobe RAW and other RAW conversions. If you could "look inside" of RAW you would see a mess (I have a tool that does, and it is). So what you get on output has been significantly polished by behind-the-scenes software. Obviously, this has great consumer benefit. But for an exacting pro, I'd rather know and control what I'm really getting.

Unfortunately, you are somewhat off about some concepts regarding digital sensors -- the output bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range. Nothing at all. The Signal to Noise ratio is the throttling factor. Less noise = greater dynamic range. In a pure world, we could theoretically get 14 stops of dynamic range out of today's sensors. Unfortunately the low bits end up being useless due to ever-present electronic noise. Such is life. Super-cooling would recapture another bit or so -- this is what astronomers do to make every photon count. Anyway, we normal folks end up with 11 useful stops with the BetterLight and 9-10 stops with high-end digital backs, and 8 stops (or less) with consumer digicams -- regardless of whether or not the output is in 8bit JPEG or 16bit RAW.

Now it is VERY true that the # of bits will affect "banding" -- particularly noticable in smooth (quiet) transitions. An analogy to music here is apt. The number of bits has nothing to do with frequency response (typically the high and low bit represent the "ends" of the spectrum -- it is up to the playback equipment to make it sound like real bass). But it DOES affect how the sound "feels" -- its richness if you will. i.e. 18 bit sounds much better to trained ears than 16 bit and so on. Of course, taken to its extreme you can compress a sound much more if you are willing to chop off high and low bits (MP3 does this). But we are not talking about compression. We are talking full-spectrum RAW data during recording.

If you would like to read a good explanation of dynamic range vs. spatial resolution in regards to digital sensors, check out BetterLight's site for one of the best explanations I've found yet on the web (you can disregard the obvious sales pitch):
http://www.betterlight.com/why_better.html

[bglick]

Michael, I fully understand your post....

I agree dynamic range and tonal ranges are two different subject matters, but, what we may differ on is.... how close they are related. I accept that larger pixels have the potential to record more stops of light as the noise is reduced..... you did a nice job explaining this, but what good are these recorded stops if you have run dry on tonal ranges to display them? This is the balancing act which I refered to above... but regardless... as they say the proof is in the pudding...

I have to agree with Daves findings.... if the end result is a satisfying print, the new 39MP digital files meet or beat scanned 4x5 film. This is where the rubber meets the road. But what is interesting is, if 39MP can match 4x5, what will two stitched 39MP shots produce?

The digital advantages keep growing, it's only the price which is the deterent for most. Of course this excludes the specialty stuff that film excels at, like color neg dynamic range, B&W film, speciality formats, etc.

Anyway, I am very curious about where and how you see color film as being advantageous over high end digital one shot backs. I am not being sarcastic here.... I really want your opinion on this... I have a huge investment in film, high end scanners, cameras, etc. I will be a film users for the rest of my life, as some of the formats I shoot will preclude the use of digital. This does not preclude me from using digital also, as I follow the hourses for courses mindset. So I am interested in learning your position on such, as you seem slightly film biased, which is not a bad thing.... I would like understand more of what you have learned.

[David Luttmann]

BG,

That is my point exactly. Some people love to dissect this issue with MTF figures, pixel counts, resolution, mathamatical formulae.....but when it comes down to the print, all that stuff becomes a non-issue. It is not the number of pixels....it's the numbers IN the pixels. It is the final print that I am concerned with. The print samples I've produced between the film & digital file have people choosing the digital file as their favorite. I don't need to analize why with math or excuses....I just know what I see and what others report. Comments about how the RAW file is "cleaned up" or altered are not relevant....the results stand for themselves.

As to RAW files being altered & film versions not....I suggest one looks at an exposed, undeveloped piece of film....try to convince me that developer & fixing doesn't alter the sheet of film from it's native undeveloped state. This silly arguement can be twisted to death.

As to QT deleting my post due to "unsuitable language"....I kept a copy of this thread as I figured as much...and there was no unsuitable language in my post.....however, there seems to be the standard attack from Mr. Sullivan directed to anyone who disagrees.

We can leave it at that as there are some people who refuse to accept what they see on print. I've encountered it a fair bit with digital backs and DSLRs compared to MF film where some people accuse me of stitching 2 digital images together because "it is physically impossible for the digital file to outclass the film."

[MJSfoto1956]

Anyway, I am very curious about where and how you see color film as being advantageous over high end digital one shot backs. I am not being sarcastic here.... I really want your opinion on this... I have a huge investment in film, high end scanners, cameras, etc. I will be a film users for the rest of my life, as some of the formats I shoot will preclude the use of digital. This does not preclude me from using digital also, as I follow the hourses for courses mindset. So I am interested in learning your position on such, as you seem slightly film biased, which is not a bad thing.... I would like understand more of what you have learned.

Thank you QT for preventing yet another flame war. You are a wise man. David and I just ain't good chemistry, I'm afraid.

As for film vs. digital, I'd rather make the case that I firmly believe that BIG CAMERAS change the way you photograph in a positive way and that SMALL CAMERAS (be they digital or film) change the way you photograph in a negative way.

How so? A big camera is clumsy. It takes time and commitment to set up and adjust and "invest" in a photograph. To master it is a form of zen. I can readily see this in the final image itself (regardless of whether or not it is film or digital). Think Christopher Burkett. It takes tremendous skill to overcome the bulkiness of the equipment and produce art (as opposed to mere cliche!) The opposite can be said of small cameras: they make you lazy. Click here click there. Instant feedback. Instant gratification. No investment in the process. No skin in the game. Soul-less at times. Great for snapshots. Great for professionals.

We are entering an age that will be marked by the "dumbing down" of photography. And those who continue to use and perfect the use of BIG CAMERAS are going to be the saviors of an art form that is under considerable risk of mass commoditization. Today, literally everyone is a photographer or fancies themselves one. The price of entry is a digicam, an inkjet printer, and a website. One need only look at flickr to see what the rest of the world considers great photography.

So what does this have to do with film? Well there really are no BIG DIGITAL SENSORS out there. Most digital backs are hardly bigger than 35mm format (in spite of their being mated to 645 bodies). And there doesn't seem to be any interest financially or emotionally for manufacturers to develop digital sensors beyond 645. Which is such a shame 'cause I'm a big fan of digital (in spite of my recent criticisms of the endless digital hype). I personally would rush out to purchase a 6x7 or 6x9 digital back if someone would step up to the plate and deliver. My bet is that it won't ever happen, in spite of the fact that there are probably 1 million people out there worldwide who actively use medium format cameras and/or backs with large format. And I seriously doubt that there will ever be a true 4x5 sensor -- ever. (however, sign me up if you are taking orders!)

So I will continue to shoot BIG film because I find it makes me a better photographer and I have no other choice. I'll shoot fewer photos, but better ones. Its the camera and the PROCESS itself that influences me much more than the medium. When I'm out and about using any one of my many digital (i.e. small) cameras, I find that I shoot more, but the quality suffers. However, I actually have come to like the distinction: when I'm not feeling particularly motivated, I'll shoot a bunch of snapshots of the family and I'm very very glad that there is practically no work at all involved. It wasn't always so -- even 35mm took a lot of time and investment just to make a few 4x6 prints of a birthday party. I for one am glad that for this kind of photography has become brainless.

But it is this very brainlessness that is creeping into "art". I was at the Marriott San Diego Marina a few weeks ago and the walls were plastered with HUGE 44"x66" prints of various underwater themes. At first I was pleased that Marriott would invest so much in photography. But upon closer inspection the prints were fuzzy "small" camera stock photos likely taken by an amateur and chosen by an interior decorator and blown up on inkjet by the local kinkos and framed by a local frame shop. No signature either (a good thing that). They spent much more on the frames than on the photography I have no doubt. In the end, this was not photography at all -- it was nothing more than expensive wallpaper. This is the dumbing down of photography of which I speak. People don't care about quality. We have a culture that only relishes celebrity and the latest fad.

At a recent member's show, there were several photographic submissions from 6MP and 8MP digital photos that were blown up way beyond the abilty to image any real detail yet everyone oohed and ahhed about the "beautiful" photos so and so did. Yes some of them did indeed look great from a distance, but there was no THERE there when you went up close to inspect. Again, we have an ignorant population (even among practicing artists!!!) that cannot distinguish photographic quality. But they can readily distinguish celebrity and the latest trend. And that is all that matters to most people.

As such it is doubly important to take a stand. Art must rule in the end or the very soul of western culture is at risk (I mean that literally). How you achieve it doesn't matter of course, but every article and every ad and every website and all the hype that focuses on "small" cameras (and by extension, brainlessness) in the end chips away at the pure art that I believe is the raison d'etre and soul of Large Format photography.

[bglick]

Michael, interesting rant. I agree with most of what you write.... but the older I get, the more I have come to accept - the art we see the most of, is the art which satisfies the masses. The tiny % of the population that can articulate what you just wrote is just that.... a tiny %. While I share your passion for the end product, it seems most of the public does not, and that is the reality of the situation, as frustrating as it can be. It reminds me of seeing musicians who play music they just love, and yet, no one else loves, they can't figure out why everyone can be so dumb....

My points are evidenced by how few successful photo galleries there is in the USA. The failure rate is worse than restaurants. People like it, but not enough to buy it.... this is the real reason fine art photography has not taken off more in the USA. That's just my opinion.... I feel other parts of the world, such as the land of the OZ, where photography is much more accepted as an art form. Would you agree with this?


As for your position on the camera being a better composure tool for you as an artist, I understand your position. But not everyone will agree with you on this one. I am one who weighs all the factors when selecting a tool... and while I like the big look on the gg, and the slower more methodical work, it does make me think a bit more....but OTOH, I also like to shoot more images and see my results immediate to be confident I got the shot. I also like the reduced downtime and expense of procuring film, loading / unloading film holders, processing film, scanning film, etc. In many ways, this reduces the fun factor for me, as I prefer to spend more time doing other aspects of photography vs. these film based issues. This is why so many I beleive are on the fence, just waiting for the features and price point to be pushed a tad further before diving into the digital waters. Some are driven by the end product, while others are driven by the journey, the procedure, the chase, the tools, the satisfaction of lugging heavy gear, etc.... no right or wrong here, just horses for courses.

[MJSfoto1956]

Michael, interesting rant.

Gosh! I was pouring my heart out rather than ranting!!! But thanx anyway!


My points are evidenced by how few successful photo galleries there is in the USA. The failure rate is worse than restaurants. People like it, but not enough to buy it.... this is the real reason fine art photography has not taken off more in the USA. That's just my opinion.... I feel other parts of the world, such as the land of the OZ, where photography is much more accepted as an art form. Would you agree with this?

Definitely agree. The American system of focusing only on celebrity makes winners of a select few and losers of the vast majority. Think about how many actors need to wait tables to make a living. The starving artist is real, I'm afraid.


As for your position on the camera being a better composure tool for you as an artist, I understand your position. But not everyone will agree with you on this one.

Oh I'm aware of that. Call it elitism if you like. However, there is one exception to my rule: capturing the "decisive moment" is made much more viable when the equipment disappears and allows the artist to focus on (and in) the moment. So for that kind of photography, yes the small camera is infinitely superior. Unfortunately, even here brainlessness can creep in. I'm thinking of motor drives of course, where someone clips off 100 images in a matter of seconds. There is not much skill or art in that IMHO. I find such photography generally soul-less (as is most advertising photography, especially fashion).

However, that being said, you *can* use a "big" camera to capture a "decisive moment" if you try real hard. Here is a recent picture I took (using a Mamiya 7) of a roller-coaster while on holiday in San Diego. Again I want to emphasize that I anticipated the photograph before hand, stood up on a car bumper, and clicked the shutter just once and walked away knowing that I "got it".

http://static.flickr.com/1/190051223_e1d7c57d5e.jpg

As a side note: any 4x5 technical camera could have pulled this off as easily as the Mamiya 7.

Now of course, you may or may not like the photo (I for one find it competent enough). But I add it here only to suggest that even big cameras in the right hands can pull off "ad hoc" types of photography without the risk of brainlessness creeping in.

In case you haven't figured it out: I'm a big fan of big cameras! :D

[bglick]

Oh I got picked up on the "big camera fan" early in the thread :-) A blind person would have seen that!

Sorry for the use of the rant, it was humor.