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

[audioexcels]

I dunno if this is the right place for this post, and maybe it has been answered already, but I'm curious on this one:

Will the digital world ever have the analog equivalent for a large format system? In other words, take the Toho camera or any lightweight type of camera...even a weighty monorail or a weighty Wisner 8X10, etc. etc...Will the digital world "ever" have an "all-in-one" camera that is the equivalent of an analog system? I know there are "backs" and "laptop requirements", but what about an all digital 4X5 camera that weighs 4lbs and requires only CF cards that can store the large files? Not only this, but the system also produces an equally good and or better image than the analog equivalent. I'm not really concerned with a digital vs. analog comparison, but rather if time will produce an all digital 4X5 or larger cam with the same exact weight and "ease" of functionality...even easier by functionality, as a possibility?

If so...how long will it take for companies to develop such a camera, are physics "against" such camera types, meaning, the best one can ever expect to see are "backs" and "laptops" and this type of camera that I describe above is not "physically" possible to "invent"?

Furthermore...would this type of camera, if it ever did exist, become something that sells for 20K even 10-20 years from now due to it being a larger cam and not your typical Canon type thing? In other words, will the digital world "always" be similar to say, the audio world in that in the audio world, you have what are the masses with their very cheap stereos, call them the point and shoot tribe. Then the low-mid fi people that are into DSLRs=Anything in the DSLR world period. Then the higher end people like the ones using backs on Rolleis and Hasselblads...and finally, the "esoteric" group that are using backs on LF cameras.

Curious what people think will happen in the evolution or de-evolution of the digital world of things.

[Ben R]

To be honest I can't see them bothering. The commercial world is pretty happy with their 39 megapixel backs and there are plenty of ways to attach them to LF solutions, a field that the manufacturers seem to be concentrating on. The people left shooting film LF are no where near a large enough market, and probably no where near rich enough for the camera you are talking about. To put it into persepective the medium format back manufacturers are playing with a tiny market that is dwindling due to the lack of bodies to put them on. The LF specific market that needs and could afford a one shot back of that size is far smaller and lets be honest, a sensor that big will need a lot of battery and memory, it ain't going to be as small as a film insert, maybe as small as all the film darkslides in your bag put together..

[Joseph O'Neil]

Yes and no. Yes in that technically such a thing can and will be possible, or at least affordable down the road. Who knows, ten years from now you might be able to buy LF scanning backs for less than a 25 pack of HP5.

No in that - well IMO, LF photography has moved into the same sort of area as wood carving, oil painting, etc. Or for example, if you asked somebody why they practiced Karate or Judo instead of just buying a gun, then you obviously would not get what martial arts are really all about.

To me, LF photography is moving or has moved into these realms. It's the process of taking the photo to begin with. I would even hazard to guess that down the road as digital becomes more and more prevalent in our daily lives, you will see even more people who will take on LF photography move into alternate processing, such as platinum/palladium, etc.

This may lead to a sort of which came first - chicken or the egg question. Did the person get into LF so they can do alternate processing or did they start with LF and move into alternate processing? :)

IN any event, the way I see things, in about ten years you'll be able to buy a do-all digital device. We are already heading that way with items such as the i-phone, but I can see where you have one device that is cell phone, 100 gig MP3 and video player, web and wifi surfing, GPS, 10 megapixel camera - heck, maybe even a built in tazer. Who knows.

My point is, they day is coming when you'll be able to buy such a device while standing in line at the checkout in Wal-Mart for $10, then interest in a digital back or an all digital LF camera will be very low, as the average person will see no use and/or difference. But traditional or older processes, IMO, will be alive and well because you will have something that the average person cannot reproduce. That's important. Give you an example - when I was growing up in the 1960's, thousands of homes had B&W darkrooms - hobby darkrooms, but the "big thing" was how colour was just starting to become affordable to the average middle class person, so everybody wanted colour.

B&W was too common, in fact, I started shooting only B&W because at the time the cost of having B&W film commercially processed and printed - even at the corner drug store - was about half that of colour film. Now today, as I see it, the home computer and colour printer is the new "hobby darkroom" that is very common and "everybody has one" just like the old B&W darkroom of the 1960s. When something becomes common, it looses it's value in our society.

LF is no longer common, and is becoming less so every day. Down the road, the things that keep LF from ever being seen as common are what will help keep it's intrinsic value up, amoung other things I think.

joe

[Walter Calahan]

I'd love an 8x10 digital back, but I'm not holding out that I'll be alive when it happens.

[Ash]

With film, maybe keep in mind that the format started rather large (plates weren't small!) and as emulsion and camera gear became more advanced, the formats shrank. For this reason there will always been a desire for larger format with a larger negative size.

Digital has kinda taken the opposite route, starting with the smallest sensor. It is being developed in a world of compact cameras, so I doubt the formats will get larger, the chips will just get better resolution.

[audioexcels]

Here is the problem I see with chips getting better resolution:

Just how many MP's can one put onto a full framed sensor? I have read many places where 20ish MP's is about the limit which is a far cry from what backs for Rollei and 4X5 cameras have. But stick with sensor and its limitations. One wants a professional tool that isn't "too big". So lets take the Canon 1DSMKII as the primary example since it has the most MP's of any camera still today, in spite it is going on 4 years old. It's also a pretty large camera. How much larger would a "pro" DSLR shooter want the camera to be in order to gain more MP's?

Looking at the digital world today:

1) Consumer market has the same sized sensors and getting loaded with more MP's. We have nearly 13MP cameras out now...basically the same amount of pixels as a Canon 5D!!! But the output of these sensors is quite good at ISO 100, and quite horrendous after that. In spite all the MP's tossed onto these digicams, a print from a 5 year old 5MP Sony and one from today's heap of best cameras is going to be, in many cases, better with the older camera, though better with the newer camera...a toss up from what I have seen and read.

2) Given more and more MP's leads to disaster OR to a "minute" increase in cleanliness/resolution...as in, 10X blowups of a scene can show "discrete" differences" I really question one can see in a photo...what will and what can the DSLR makers do about loading on a ton of MP's to the full frame sensor, or maybe even getting a larger sensor into the camera without making the camera too large? Where will this threshold be that no more MP's can make a difference, etc.?

Speaking of digicams, the very best shots I have seen come from the second session art of photography, post-processing. I have actually seen, web only obviously, "way better" photos from tiny digicams than DSLRs because these people are so much better with photoshop. Leaves me with the question of what is a photo...Is it 99 percent post-processing work or is it the actual photo that was taken? I see people post-process and they take these photos that look like garbage and turn them into amazing photos in a snap!...well...their printed versions look aweful at larger sizes (8X10ish), but on the screen, it's amazing that the majority of these photos I see from shooters are cropped out, blown up, placed over here, there, adjusted for color, adjusted for this and that...it is like taking a Yugo and Making it look like a Bugatti...

DSLR users will photoshop and most will do so with the experience of having used extensive photoshop with their point and shoot days. "Most" DSLR users/photos use straight output with some photoshop to at least make the photo look like what the user intended it to look like, meaning, what you shoot is what you end up with.

[Marko]

Not again! Didn't we have enough of digital vs. film crap?

Sigh. Why didn't you put it into The Lounge, at the very least?

:eek:

[seepaert]

The answer to the question of the Op is: yes and not in the future, but now.

There is no field of photography left that cannot be done with digital equipment. There are large format scanning backs, 39 mP medium format backs, of 22 mP full frame bodies. They can be combined at will with a bellows/lens combination that offers any movement or use you like. In fact Cambo (and probably other brands as well) survives by selling these modern equivalents of the LF camera. Maybe what is missing is a 60 mP or even a 100 mP back, maybe with a larger sensor size, but that's not a principal omission and may very well be available in the near future.

Only a few reasons not to go digital have left. For the commercial photographer it may be the lack of money for the huge investments or the lack of digital craftsmanship. The artist may need the "feel" of analogue processing or the kind of thinking the slow work with a LF may involve. And of course to the real amateur the most important reason of them all: FUN.

[paulr]

My understanding is that the resistance to large sensors is mostly because of cost, but also because of technical issues with light hitting the sensor at shallow angles, or something like that.

These are both the kinds of technical issues that can be resolved over time, but the result has been a goal is to pack as many pixels into as small a sensor as possible (and to squeeze as much optical quality out of a low-coverage lens as possible). So it seems that most of the r&d energy is going in the opposite direction of LF. This is primarily an issue for LF photographers because we've gotten used to looking at the projected image on ground glass.

My dream digital camera would be a big digital back, with a bright, sharp LCD on the back of it for focussing and framing, maybe with some tools like a virtual loupe built in. And magically the thing would run for days on a single charge, would weigh no more than my current setup, and be controllable with a couple of knobs that are so intuitive I could use them when I'm drunk. AND--i could afford it. Ha ha ha ha ha.

I don't think view cameras are going away. They predate photography, and will likely be around after this new incarnation of photography has been buried by something else. It's the largeness of large format that remains in question.

[Rakesh Malik]

My understanding is that the resistance to large sensors is mostly because of cost, but also because of technical issues with light hitting the sensor at shallow angles, or something like that.


Mainly, it's cost. Several companies have found ways to deal with the oblique angle problem using offset microlenses, which increases the cost as well.

One of the reasons for the spectacular costs for the medium format digital backs is that the sensors for them are so big. A sensor for an 8x10 is quite likely never going to be feasible, because you'd only be able to get one from a 300mm wafer.

I think that in order to get bigger sensors in the future, we'll start seeing companies actually making smaller sensors in larger volumes, and moving the interface circuitry behind the sensor (which requires more layers, and therefore costs more). There are some new manufacturing techniques that would make this possible, but being new, they aren't yet being used in volume manufacturing.

Doing that would allow manufacturers to construct an array of sensors to make a large sensor.

One can hope :)

[Ben R]

Seepaert, none of the solutions you suggest can be considered as a replacement to a regular lightweight and cheap field camera. A digital back has less resolution, is extremely difficult to focus (most suggest using a laptop to verify focus) and needs time consuming workarounds to deal with colour casts caused by shifting. They also cost as much as a very decent car. Using a 22 megapixel DSLR with a LF camera needs very expensive digitar lenses and is again almost impossible to use with movements due to the tiny screen. Stitching is possible but not with moving subjects including leaves swaying in the breeze.

Etc, etc etc.

The solutions are out there but that wasn't what the OP asked.

[keith english]

Not again! Didn't we have enough of digital vs. film crap?

I don't understand why people on this forum insult people who ask a question they want to answer. If you don't want to deal with it just skip it. I know you should search the archives first, and not everyone has been a member forever. I didn't see the post as just another digital vs. film rant. Obviously this is an issue that will be of interest forever. I don't see any current developments in this field (4x5 sensors) but I would also love to see one. You never know what will be developed tomorrow. Who would have thought five years ago that DSLRs would totally takeover 35mm. He had some good comparisons to the audio world, where High Resolution discs are available but are becoming extinct due to the consumers demand for poor quality smaller and cheaper MP3 players.

[buze]

By the way. the 'analog' camera does not exists. It's not because a million photographer scream it at the same time that it becomes true.

Classical photography is chemical, not 'analog' -- that makes absolutely no sense to use the wrong adjective to describe it.

'analog' does not mean 'not digital' : it means 'non digital electrical signal' and as far as I know, no photographer was ever electrocuted when handling film holders.

And yeah, thats one of the reason I don't subscribe to APUG :D

[gr82bart]

IWill the digital world ever have the analog equivalent for a large format system?Of course! In fact it will exceed the large format film medium by leaps and bounds. It's just a matter of time.

Regards, Art.

[Maris Rusis]

I guess nothing is impossible but an 8x10 digital back must be a darn awkward thing to use instead of film just to make cyanotypes, platinotypes, and Van Dyke browns.

[JoeV]

I continue to be amused when people criticize the discussion of electronic vs chemical photography on the one hand, and then on the other hand are quick to state that they're open to either form of technology, it's all about the tools, whatever works for your kind of image making, blah, blah, blah,...

I guess you just can't have it both ways, now can you? Either it's all photography, and worth discussing, or just shut up and make pictures and quitcher yapping.

As per the OP, I think we have to redefine what we mean by 'large format', now that electronic format size no longer refers to a physical film emulsion, but rather an abstract data file. Imager pixel count correlates rather closely to image file size, but neither really directly equates to what we meant in the chemical photography era by the term 'large format'.

My armchair quarterback guess is that LF electronic imaging would produce a print whose resolution is equivalent to a contact printed film negative, in terms of image information density (resolution), media 'artifacts' (granularity with film, and pixellation with electronic imaging), and other image qualities (surface finish, image color, texture, etc).

This implies that the further refinement of LF electronic imaging requires a systematic series of improvements - to the camera chips, software and printing technology - and accessible economically to a similar group of enthusiasts as now practice film-based LF photography. I would also like to see some zone-system standards carryover from the camera's operating system, through the post-processing step, to the printing phase. There should be zone-based industy standards, where my in-camera viewscreen tells me that shadow is zone III, it should come out to zone III on the printer. The convenience that software potentially offers should allow these calibrations to be automatic, and carryover from the previsualization step to the printing step.

In reality, this is all just mindless dreaming, since the LF, film-based consumer market is really a niche; the potential sales to such a niche market from a systematized electronic LF imaging system described above would not pay back any return on investment (ROI). In the future, I suspect that the merits and attributes of electronic imaging will define where photography will go, not the attributes of 'legacy' formats like film-based LF. This was already true, prior to electronic imaging, when silver-based LF photographers would rarely, if ever, describe their ultimate photographic image as being a dag on a silver-plated copper plate. Though there are folks today making dag's of exquisite quality, no one is saying that's where the future of photography rests. Older processes become 'historic craft'. New processes become state of the art. And there's never a perfect comparison between any set of technological generations of media, they all have unique attributes.

~Joe

PS-When you start thinking in detail about how CCD transistors work, and how silver halide crystals become latently sensitised and subsequently developed, they both involve the interaction of photons with matter to dislodge electrons. On that level, the two technologies are really not that much different from each other; the differences are really between our ears - the human element that has, historically, always found new ways to make divisions and start wars.

[Mattg]

I can't see why anyone would want to use LF digital of the type you describe when we can use film. Light, self contained, no need for batteries, archival, beautiful, etc.etc. Who is going to make a LF digital back under those conditions? Even now I'm amazed that Better Light have managed to find a market.

I am open to both forms of technology and blah, blah, blah...

[jetcode]

The answer to the original question is no for one basic reason.

The definition of analog is an element that can be divided infinitely and never loose it's identity. An example is time. You can divide or multiple time infinitely and it never looses it's identity. The same as light. Even if we divide light to the point where we can no longer perceive it it is still light.

The same can not be said for digital. Digital at best represents the analog world but is not the analog because when divided it eventually reaches the most basic foundation; the bit, 1 or 0. The identity of the data has long been lost because in digital the microprocessor manages small scale electrical signals at extremely high rates of transition. The digital domain is meaningless without human representation mixed with transducers (analog sensors and outputs) which give digital the illusion of analog.

Just a thought - Joe

[jetcode]

By the way. the 'analog' camera does not exists. It's not because a million photographer scream it at the same time that it becomes true.

Classical photography is chemical, not 'analog' -- that makes absolutely no sense to use the wrong adjective to describe it.

'analog' does not mean 'not digital' : it means 'non digital electrical signal' and as far as I know, no photographer was ever electrocuted when handling film holders.

And yeah, thats one of the reason I don't subscribe to APUG :D

Chemistry belongs to the organic processes here on earth and by it's very nature is analog. See the description of analog in my last post. Even though molecules can be subdivided into quarks and such the original identity never changes.

Analog cameras do not exist but film emulsion is analog because it composed chemically. Even the polyester film base is analog. The analog camera is does not make images it allows light to strike film emulsion in a controlled manner. Light and film are both analog entities.

I guess the real question is what happens if you divide by 0 - does that outcome remain analog?

[Marko]

I can't see why anyone would want to use LF digital of the type you describe when we can use film. Light, self contained, no need for batteries, archival, beautiful, etc.etc.

No need to fiddle with dusty film holders in the dark, no uncertainty about exposure on the spot, no need to wait to come back to the lab and process the film no need to handle stinky, toxic chemicals in the confined, dark space, no need to maintain a dedicated dark room with its own plumbing, no scratches, etc.

And that's just off the top of my head. :)

[Marko]

Chemistry belongs to the organic processes here on earth and by it's very nature is analog. See the description of analog in my last post. Even though molecules can be subdivided into quarks and such the original identity never changes.

If you dig a little deeper, you'll quickly find out that chemical processes are actually anything but analog deep down at their core. It's quantum in nature and therefore discrete. Or digital, if you will, since discrete steps can be described by discrete numbers.


Analog cameras do not exist but film emulsion is analog because it composed chemically. Even the polyester film base is analog. The analog camera is does not make images it allows light to strike film emulsion in a controlled manner.

Digital camera does not "make images" any more than the film camera does. In fact, it is essentially the very same device in both cases. A dark chamber with the lens on one end and light-sensitive medium on the other. The aperture is contained in the lenses while the shutter can reside either in the lens or in the camera itself in front of the light-sensitive medium.

It is just a matter of simple physics - a calibrated opening and a mechanical shutter let through a controlled amount of light to hit the light sensitive medium, which in turn "remembers" the light in miniscule increments. How it does it is the only major difference.


Light and film are both analog entities.

No, they are not. They are actually quite the opposite - the light consists of discrete wave-particles and the film emulsion consists of miniscule but finite granules of light sensitive material. The dimension of these particles called grain varies from film to film.

Isn't it the time to put an end to this entire "analog" vs. digital nonsense?

[domenico Foschi]

I am a quantum photographer, if this image is not good I am sure in a parallel universe, there is a version that is a masterpiece.

[jetcode]

If you dig a little deeper, you'll quickly find out that chemical processes are actually anything but analog deep down at their core. It's quantum in nature and therefore discrete. Or digital, if you will, since discrete steps can be described by discrete numbers.


Yes that appears to be obvious in the fact that chemical bonds can be broken and new bonds formed. I sensed that as I wrote this last bit but I am not a chemist or physicist.



Digital camera does not "make images" any more than the film camera does. In fact, it is essentially the very same device in both cases. A dark chamber with the lens on one end and light-sensitive medium on the other. The aperture is contained in the lenses while the shutter can reside either in the lens or in the camera itself in front of the light-sensitive medium.


That is fairly obvious as well.



No, they are not. They are actually quite the opposite - the light consists of discrete wave-particles and the film emulsion consists of minuscule but finite granules of light sensitive material. The dimension of these particles called grain varies from film to film.


These finite particles are not finite, they are visible measures but composed of much finer matter. In fact there is no real end because we have not exhausted the possibilities of dissecting matter with the means we have at our disposal at this time in history.

If you want to get technical the universe existed before we had a language to describe it or the notion to understand it therefore we are observers to a reality that is far more complex then we will ever know in this form at this time. Ask a neurologist how much they know about the brain. That's a good place to start.

In response to analog vs digital "nonsense" no one is making you engage this thread. Why do you want to make it my problem that you are tired of this dialogue?

[Mattg]

No need to fiddle with dusty film holders in the dark, no uncertainty about exposure on the spot, no need to wait to come back to the lab and process the film no need to handle stinky, toxic chemicals in the confined, dark space, no need to maintain a dedicated dark room with its own plumbing, no scratches, etc.

And that's just off the top of my head. :)

No need to fiddle with dusty film holders in the dark - No need to carry/charge/buy batteries

No uncertainty about exposure on the spot - treat yourself and buy a lightmeter Marko!

No need to wait to come back to the lab and process the film no need to handle stinky, toxic chemicals in the confined, dark space - Use polaroid materials, my stinkiest chemical is stop bath, are you afraid of the dark?

No need to maintain a dedicated dark room with its own plumbing - No need to buy a $2500 printer plus media and ink to print my pictures (BTW I don't have a dedicated darkroom but still manage very well).

No Scratches - No dead pixels, no upgrade costs, no crashed hard drives.

Actually I'd really like to banish scratches, I had one in processing last month that cost me a fantastic shot.

But really I'm very open to both approaches....:) If I shot colour I would probably be pretty keen on the idea of something like a self-contained scanning back in 4x5 size so I didn't have to deal with colour chemicals but not if it means a laptop (or its equivalent weight) in the backpack.

[jetcode]

No need to fiddle with dusty film holders in the dark - No need to carry/charge/buy batteries

I can pop a couple hundred raw images on 1 battery and 3 batteries is lighter and smaller then a single film holder.



No uncertainty about exposure on the spot - treat yourself and buy a lightmeter Marko!

I use the histogram in combination with light meter. The histogram is a powerful tool.



Use polaroid materials, my stinkiest chemical is stop bath, are you afraid of the dark?


Last I remember Polaroid materials were not cheap and while you're waiting for exposure verification the light is changing.



No need to buy a $2500 printer plus media and ink to print my pictures.
No dead pixels, no upgrade costs, no crashed hard drives.


Print once (photoshop), replicate forever (output). The power of the digital darkroom is amazing.

[Marko]

In response to analog vs digital "nonsense" no one is making you engage this thread. Why do you want to make it my problem that you are tired of this dialogue?

These comparisons can be useful to photographers who are trying to decide which way to go and how to invest their money, but only if they are based on facts.

I am not calling them nonsense, however, because most of the "analog" parties to these "discussions" are using false, outdated or simply incorrect statements trying to permanently settle a comparison between one dynamic, changing technology and the other mature one which has reached the end of the (technological) road.

This may be advancing a certain ideological claim, but it is definitely doing a disservice, if not harm, to anybody who is looking at this board to find reliable answers to few-thousand-dollar questions.

[Marko]

treat yourself and buy a lightmeter Marko!

I actually got two - an old Minolta light meter and a brand new Seconic spot/flash meter, thank you! :)


Use polaroid materials

Polaroids? Why on Earth would I be paying $3 per pop just to make sure my exposure is right when I can look at the histogram for free and make as many adjustments I need?

As for the rest, I started with photography as a kid, back in the late 60's and kept doing it until the mid-80's. I only picked up digital a few years ago when I came back to photography and now, with LF, I am starting to do traditional again. And I earned a degree in physical chemistry in the interim.

So, I believe I won't overstate the matters if I say that I am a bit familiar with both dark and the chemicals, just about enough to be fairly comfortable with both.



But really I'm very open to both approaches....:) If I shot colour I would probably be pretty keen on the idea of something like a self-contained scanning back in 4x5 size so I didn't have to deal with colour chemicals but not if it means a laptop (or its equivalent weight) in the backpack.

Whatever works for you is perfectly fine with me. Your question was why would anybody use anything other than film with LF and I provided one possible answer.

I don't think that either of us is wrong, as long as we don't claim that our way should be the only way.

:)

[neil poulsen]

The thing I would miss with the large medium format digital backs is wide-angle capability. With a 35mm digital lens, one can get the equivalent of about an 85mm lens on 4x5. (Assume a 0.8 aspect ratio in both formats, and a light sensitive length on 4x5 film of 4.75") That doesn't cut it for wide-angle photography.

In contrast, to obtain the wide-angle effect of a 47mm lens on 4x5 for the digital back would require about an 18 mm focal length digital lens. Technology has a long way to go, before that's possible.

Maybe sensors can eventually get larger without the typical geometric increase in price.

[buze]

I'm a digital kid. I started hacking computers when I was 12, and I'm 38 now. I work in digital signal processing, and design and program embedded platform computers to route digital signal in complex venues and studios.

And I shoot film, and I'm kicking myself not to have discovered it earlier.

There are many reasons, but /just/ the storage point is enough for me anyway. In 3 years of DSLR, being increasingly picky, I have about 100GB of images. Thats after many passes of trimming the collection.
DVD are very unreliable, and can't be trusted by themselves, and take only 3/6GB anyway.
To make sure of one's backup, I think you need at least 3 DVD of different brands, stored in different places. And I know that because I've had a lot of DVDs 'verified' failing after just a few weeks. Anyway, thats a LOT of DVD to backup 100GB, and it's only 3 years!

So, in 3 years, I've already completely overflowed my capacity to backup my images; it is not possible to backup my stuff in a secure way to guarantee that it'll be there in 5 years. Not even mentioning 20, where there 'dvd drive' will have gone the way of the dodo.
And don;t tell me 'hard drives'; they have the same failure rates these days.

However, now, I know that my binder(s) with the film will still be there. Gently aging, most probably, but still perfectly usable.

[sog1927]

I think it depends on what your definition of "equivalent" is.

If you're asking whether we will ever see single, full-frame large format CCD sensors (4x5 or 8x10), I think the answer is no - not because it isn't technically feasible but because it doesn't make economic sense. That's larger than the standard size for a semiconductor wafer - it would require completely new technology essentially from start to finish, to serve a *very* tiny market. Semiconductor fabs are extremely expensive facilities; the only reason semiconductors are inexpensive is because the cost is amortized over a large number of chips. Unless somebody else needs an 8x10 chip for something, and is willing to order them in large quantity, the incentive just isn't there to build a single chip that large. I don't think you'll even see full-frame medium-format (6x6 or 6x7) sensors.

This doesn't even account for the low yield you'd expect from such a device. A substantial number of the chips cut from a current wafer are discarded because they're flawed. Having to produce a large, 100% functional sensor would drive the cost way up. Unless the Pentagon develops a sudden appetite for a few million 8x10 CCD sensors, I wouldn't hold my breath.

You might see digital backs with arrays of sensors. This would require re-arranging the sensor electronics a bit. You'd have to handle the "blind spots" (well, blind grids) at the sensor boundaries, but that would be trivial to do in software (vertebrate eyes have been doing this for hundreds of millions of years, after all). None of this is impossible, but what you'd end up with is a very expensive specialty item - simply because the usual economies of scale that make consumer electronic devices so cheap really don't apply. You're not going to sell millions of them, just hundreds or thousands, so you'd have to recover your costs by charging proportionately more.

We haven't even started talking about power, cooling, data transfer, or data storage. How big a file do you want to produce from a full-frame 8x10 sensor? Let's assume you want something in the same range as you'd get from scanning an 8x10 transparency at 4000 dpi with say, 48 bits per pixel. That's 1.2 gigapixels at 6 bytes per pixel = 7.2 gigabytes per image. That's essentially 2 DVDs worth of data for a single image. If you scan your film at 8000dpi, we're talking about 5.2 gigapixels or 28.8 gigabytes per image. That's slightly more than 1 single-layer Blu-ray DVD or about the capacity of 2 single-layer HD-DVDs for *one* image. What does the sustained (not burst) transfer rate to storage need to be? Well, the 1X data transfer rate to a Blu-ray disk is 36 Mb/s, so we're talking about roughly 2 hours to archive a single uncompressed, raw 8000dpi image at 1x, assuming I did the math right. This will, of course, improve with time (I'm sure we'll see 4x, 8x, etc. Blu-ray and HD-DVD writers). Flash memory for storage might be faster, but has its own problems.

Scanning backs? We have those already for 4x5. I think they're a niche market within a niche market, because only a subset (although probably the largest subset - most people who make their living from LF are probably doing studio product shots) of an already small group (large format photographers) find them useful. This isn't a function of resolution or dynamic range, it's a function of mechanical scanning speed. These are still a specialty item, but they don't require the technology startup costs of a one-shot LF sensor. If there were enough demand to justify an 8x10 scanning back, we'd have them already. They'd be big, heavy, and expensive, of course...and that wouldn't be likely to improve since most of the weight and size would be due to moving parts.

Which brings us to the other possible definition of "equivalent": a (for the sake of argument) single sensor (regardless of size) that produces an image "as good as" a big piece of film. This
depends on your own personal definition of "as good as", which drags us into the whole digital vs. film religious war. I'm not going to get involved in that - it's the photographic equivalent of the Thirty Years' War. I will say this (based on the above): I haven't seen any 1.2 gigapixel sensors lately, much less 5.2. I don't think such a sensor could be made in current sensor sizes: that's about a 2 order of magnitude increase in density. Assuming you can fabricate at that scale, I'm not sure the CCDs will hold charge well enough.

Do you want movements, too?

Again, the problem is that the available technology will be driven by the demand of the mass market, simply for economic reasons. What's the mass market for imaging in the early 21st Century? Well, it's:

1) Web pages, cellphone displays, "electronic picture frames", and emails (very low res)
2) 4x6 prints (maybe 8x10 for very special occasions)
3) HDTV displays (2.07 megapixels for 1080p, by my count)

Not one of these requires a gigapixel sensor. A person who actually thinks HDTV is "high-definition" doesn't need more than few megapixels at most (which seems to be where the sweet spot in the market is). Anything above that is hype - kind of like 6400 dpi prosumer scanners. ;-)

A lot of people are perfectly happy with webcams and cellphones.

Steve

[jetcode]

I think it depends on what your definition of "equivalent" is.

If you're asking whether we will ever see single, full-frame large format CCD sensors (4x5 or 8x10), I think the answer is no - not because it isn't technically feasible but because it doesn't make economic sense. That's larger than the standard size for a semiconductor wafer - it would require completely new technology essentially from start to finish ...
Steve

300mm is becoming a reality in semiconductor houses, namely nand flash. There will be a day when a 7.2gig file will be a large but not ungodly amount of data to store and transport. In 10 years digital will be at levels previously unattainable today. It would seem to me that rather then make the sensor larger improve the noise and density characteristics.

[Rakesh Malik]

300mm is becoming a reality in semiconductor houses, namely nand flash.


And x86... because they sell in enormous volumes.

All of the BIG semiconductor shops (Intel, TSMC, UMC, Chartered, AMD, and even FreeScale) have been using 300mm wafers for several years now.

That would, however, be big enough for only one 8x10 sensor or maybe 8 4x5 sensors.

Compared to well over 100 Core2 Duos, let alone something as tiny as a NAND chip, and you can see why the costs would go up so much, particularly since you'd lose pixels from every chip when they're that big.



There will be a day when a 7.2gig file will be a large but not ungodly amount of data to store and transport. In 10 years digital will be at levels previously unattainable today. It would seem to me that rather then make the sensor larger improve the noise and density characteristics.

With current sensor technology, we're reaching the limit for density, I think. We'll get better digital to analog conversion, better noise-reduction, and improved read times.

Also, current digital sensors are still monochromatic, with the exception of the Foveon x3. That means that the cameras are actually interpolating the vast majority of the data that they emit, since they're producing 10.2 megapixel images from a sensor with 10.7 million photosites, each of which is recording only one color, and ignoring the other two.

Digital imaging is very much in its infancy, it has a LONG way to go. And I don't think that our current technology has legs enough to get us anywhere significant, but there's probably already a lot of R&D effort going into developing a new imaging technology.

[jetcode]

Digital imaging is very much in its infancy, it has a LONG way to go. And I don't think that our current technology has legs enough to get us anywhere significant

Digital technology has all but eliminated the film and analog print business. I'd say that's pretty significant. Technology keeps expanding and every time there is a limit there is a breakthrough. I understand that soon we will have 1TB hard drives on laptops because Hitachi just broke another barrier in the size of read/write heads.

[Rakesh Malik]

Digital technology has all but eliminated the film and analog print business. I'd say that's pretty significant.


You completely misunderstood my post, apparently. The point is that current technology isn't going to get us much farther.



Technology keeps expanding and every time there is a limit there is a breakthrough. I understand that soon we will have 1TB hard drives on laptops because Hitachi just broke another barrier in the size of read/write heads.

As I said, there's probably already a lot of work going on to develop a new method of implementing digital sensors that will move us forward. Monochromatic, silicon-based sensors aren't it.

[walter23]

I think it's possible to get pretty close to large format film resolution with a medium format digital back and a sharp lens. Some guy sent me a shot from his phase-whatever back for hasselblad shot with one of those fancy schneider digital lenses, and it was pretty damned close to the same resolution as the best scan I can get from my V750 desktop scanner with a sharp transparency - possibly better. Because of the ability of a smaller sensor to capture extremely high resolution and allow movements for architecture with various setups I can't see any drive to develop a 4x5 or 8x10 sized CCD or CMOS sensor (which would be pretty cost prohibitive right now, and perhaps for a very long time).

The one thing you can never match with a smaller format digital are some of the optical idiosyncracies of large and ultra large formats (an 8x10 facial portrait is effectively a macro, with narrow DOF and all that), or the ability to dabble in interesting alternative processes (bromoil, chrysotype, van dyke, cyanotype, Pt/Pd, etc) although arguably you can do that with digital negatives. In any case, commercial users probably aren't generally concerned with Jim Galli-esque 8x10 portraiture and artistic fringe stuff like that, so it seems likely that the larger formats will remain (or become even more so) a fringe activity.

[sog1927]

I do not doubt for a moment that the primary digital image produced by a high-end MF digital back with excellent lenses will be better than a secondary digital image produced by scanning an excellent LF transparency with a consumer scanner, and I specifically don't want to ignite the digital vs. film flamewar. As I said, it all hinges on what your definition (no pun intended) of "equivalent" is, and that's more a matter of taste than anything else. It's like arguing about when painting will be "equivalent" to sculpture (or, to rephrase it in terms from a century ago, when photography will be equivalent to painting). From a commercial standpoint, it is of course about what gets the job done. I think you're right that the answer to that will involve film less and less.

No high-volume user needs an "exact equivalent" of 8x10 in digital. For that reason, there's absolutely no financial incentive to create such a thing. The market for it would be miniscule and the development costs incredible. It currently costs literally *billions* of dollars to build a new technology semiconductor fab or even update an old one (see:
http://www.news.com/A-fab-construction-job/2100-1001_3-981060.html ).

Steve




I think it's possible to get pretty close to large format film resolution with a medium format digital back and a sharp lens. Some guy sent me a shot from his phase-whatever back for hasselblad shot with one of those fancy schneider digital lenses, and it was pretty damned close to the same resolution as the best scan I can get from my V750 desktop scanner with a sharp transparency - possibly better. Because of the ability of a smaller sensor to capture extremely high resolution and allow movements for architecture with various setups I can't see any drive to develop a 4x5 or 8x10 sized CCD or CMOS sensor (which would be pretty cost prohibitive right now, and perhaps for a very long time).

The one thing you can never match with a smaller format digital are some of the optical idiosyncracies of large and ultra large formats (an 8x10 facial portrait is effectively a macro, with narrow DOF and all that), or the ability to dabble in interesting alternative processes (bromoil, chrysotype, van dyke, cyanotype, Pt/Pd, etc) although arguably you can do that with digital negatives. In any case, commercial users probably aren't generally concerned with Jim Galli-esque 8x10 portraiture and artistic fringe stuff like that, so it seems likely that the larger formats will remain (or become even more so) a fringe activity.

[walter23]

I agree with you completely Steve. I was just talking about what makes sense from a commercial standpoint. I think film will eventually have no place at all in the arena of high volume photographers who simply pump out images for advertising and fashion and product brochures and the likes. It's already happened for the most part and I don't think there's a realistic need for sensors too much bigger than the existing reduced medium format digital ones in this area. Unfortunately for us, this is where the money (and hence development incentive) lies.

For the hobbiest and the artist it's a different matter. The quickest and most economical route to some kind of standardized, expected output often isn't the best one.

[jetcode]

You completely misunderstood my post, apparently. The point is that current technology isn't going to get us much farther.

As I said, there's probably already a lot of work going on to develop a new method of implementing digital sensors that will move us forward. Monochromatic, silicon-based sensors aren't it.

Well it wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood a post. :)

[Rakesh Malik]

Well it wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood a post. :)

It happens to all of us :)

I hope the explanation made sense though.

Digital has gotten much more adoption than its technological maturity implies. After all, until basically this year, our primary tool for image editing has been a graphic design tool with a codebase that dates back to before Windows NT -- and before digital photography was something normal people could afford :)

[jetcode]

It happens to all of us :)

I hope the explanation made sense though.

Digital has gotten much more adoption than its technological maturity implies. After all, until basically this year, our primary tool for image editing has been a graphic design tool with a codebase that dates back to before Windows NT -- and before digital photography was something normal people could afford :)

I am not convinced a technology has expired until a new technology appears.

How do you think they measure RGB out a single monochrome pixel? Do you think they use some form of programmable color filter to isolate a particular color spectra and then sample the energy in that band? That's the way I would do it provided I could manipulate the color filter accurately and fast enough to scan 'n' mega-pixels. Of course that's why the high end cameras have proprietary digital imaging processors.

[Rakesh Malik]

I am not convinced a technology has expired until a new technology appears.


That statement makes no sense. It doesn't fit the context, and it implies that you choose to ignore reality until it smacks you in the face.



How do you think they measure RGB out a single monochrome pixel?


They don't.



Do you think they use some form of programmable color filter to isolate a particular color spectra and then sample the energy in that band?


Look up Bayer filters.



That's the way I would do it provided I could manipulate the color filter accurately and fast enough to scan 'n' mega-pixels.


Such technology doesn't exist at the moment.



Of course that's why the high end cameras have proprietary digital imaging processors.

Those proprietary processors are there to implement custom interpolation and noise-reduction algorithms, as well as compression, white balance calculations, and that sort of thing. They do a lot of work to hide the fact that the sensor is monochromatic from the user.

[JoeV]

Actually, a number of broadcast video cameras have used monochrome sensors with rotating color wheels for years.

I'm not sure if you need a 4"x5" electronic sensor for it to be classified as "large format digital". As I stated earlier, I believe we need to rethink how we define large format; it's really the amount of information content, and the level of control at all phases of the process, rather than the size of the digital sensor.

As for the discussion about semiconductor manufacturing, there are definite economies of scale that give advantages to 300mm wafers - at a high price. You've gotta be able to sell the products at a price that will pay for the overhead, in terms of silicon real estate. But I don't see so-called 'large format' digital sensors encompassing the real estate of an entire wafer anytime in the near future. Certainly not marketted to folks like us. Not unless you wanted to pay tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars for it. And I haven't gotten into the issue of die yield. It's one thing to make chips the size of your thumb nail on a 300mm wafer; you expect so many are non-functional, or fail out at test for various issues, and the rest of them pay for that loss. But a chip the size of, say, 4"X5" would have extemely low yields; virtually every sample would have defects of various kinds. You'd need, at the very least, a 'masking ROM' shipped with each device to interpolate for the dead pixels.

So why won't we be able to afford wafer-sized image sensors? Primarily because you can get maybe 300-400 or more functional thumbnail sized chips from a single 300mm wafer; each one can be sold for hundreds of dollars, if it's a premium product. So one 4"X5" sensor would take up the real estate of, say, 40-50 or more such thumbnail sized chips. Do the math. The manufacturer wants to make the same money on each wafer shipped. So the cost for such large chips goes up with the square of the area. And this doesn't count yield issues from such large chip sizes.

I think we will see smaller sensor cell sizes, as ways are figured out to make each cell more light sensitive without increasing the noise level. This will make higher resolution chips smaller in size. Meaning more can be made per wafer, meaning more profit per wafer. That's the economic model that has driven the semiconductor market for the last 30 years.

I'm almost certain that there are military applications of image sensors that use almost the entire wafer for one sensor - if I were designing a spy satellite, for instance, that's what I would put in it. But these are most certainly beyond the price range of the most successful professional photographer, and cost is no object.

[jetcode]

Rakesh,
What is your field of expertise? I am an embedded systems engineer/ systems integrator. I have little background in imaging outside of some integration work on wafer inspection systems. Thanks for the pointer to Bayer filters. This is why there is need for interpolation. The picture now becomes more clear.

JoeV,
Didn't know that about broadcast video cameras. It sounds like you are an engineer as well. I agree that density and image quality is where the future is in sensors.

Joe

[Rakesh Malik]

Rakesh,
What is your field of expertise? I am an embedded systems engineer/ systems integrator. I have little background in imaging outside of some integration work on wafer inspection systems. Thanks for the pointer to Bayer filters. This is why there is need for interpolation. The picture now becomes more clear.


Software development. I studied a lot of physics and took some semiconductor classes in college (my degree is biophysics).

I also spend a lot of my free time reading about technology and how it works, which is how I keep up with it :)

[MJSfoto1956]

Will the digital world ever have the analog equivalent for a large format system?

I think that it is inevitable that digital paper will take off in the next few years. From there it is just a minor step to digital "film" (literally). IMHO the likelihood of an affordable 4x5 silicon chip ever is close to zero.

However, since the likelihood of 8x10 (and larger) digital paper is 100% (in fact, it is already here today) it is reasonable to assume that the possibility of 8x10 (and larger) digital "film" arriving within 10-20 years, while remote, is not out of the question. Just a matter of someone finding a market for such technology. Personally, I can think of quite a few useful reasons for someone to develop 8x10 and larger digital film. The perfect candidate would be Ilford. I can see it now: Ilfochrome-D paper for your ULF! ;)

[Zach In Israel]

You might see digital backs with arrays of sensors. This would require re-arranging the sensor electronics a bit. You'd have to handle the "blind spots" (well, blind grids) at the sensor boundaries, but that would be trivial to do in software (vertebrate eyes have been doing this for hundreds of millions of years, after all). None of this is impossible, but what you'd end up with is a very expensive specialty item - simply because the usual economies of scale that make consumer electronic devices so cheap really don't apply. You're not going to sell millions of them, just hundreds or thousands, so you'd have to recover your costs by charging proportionately more.

Steve
Actually in Astronomy we are seeing just such things. In short the tile the back of the telescope with CCD chips. Cool with liquid nitrogen etc. Of course if you are building a $100 million dollar telescope this becomes much more practical. And some of the new sky survey scopes put out terabytes per night.

That being said I don't see this as being something that will be in use in portable cameras, or as a replacement for film

[JRFrench]

We already have 617 chips by Red and Seitz. Pricey though.:mad:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scarlet.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/seitz-d3.shtml

It's also interesting that only our regular large format lenses (for film) are used. Only they have the coverage right now.

I don't believe RED has actually manufactured their 6x17 sensor yet, its just vaporware. As for the seitz its just a scanning back, nothing too special there ;)

[ret wisner]

quanta , quantum is a tv show

[J Ney]

Just a note that this post is about 3-years old :-(

Will just throw in that the ability to make huge digital backs should be doable in fairly short order given "Moore's Law." Harkens back to the days when I thought a 66 mHz machine was incredibly fast and nobody would ever have a need for a 200 mHz machine.

[Bob McCarthy]

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

bob

[Jim Burk]

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

[Marko]

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

bob

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

[Robert Hughes]

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

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

[Mike Anderson]

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

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

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

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

...Mike

[Nathan Potter]

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

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

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

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[jnantz]

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

[Preston]

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

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

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

--P

[el french]

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

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

Here's a few shots of my setup. I think it just needs a film back to qualify as an LF :) http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etfrench/Spherical%20Pano%20Head/

I'm mostly concentrating on macro panoramas now, and I've removed the front and back movements to make it more stable: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v649/etfrench/Macro%20Pano%20Head/

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

[Stephen Willard]

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

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

[Donald Miller]

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

[Wade D]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37790781/ns/technology_and_science-space/
You beat me to it. I was going to link to your post.:)

[Stephen Willard]

I suspect that the digital telescope noted above was not the first. NASA'a Hubble telescope was most likely the first. Clearly, we have put a man on the moon, but that does not mean we can make a vehicle that the average world citizen can afford that would permit him to drive to the moon.

Its not that a LF digital camera cannot be built, but rather can an affordable cost-effective solution be realized for the average LF photographer in the field. I doubt that will ever happen. Even if someone did, I do not believe it could compete with the virtues of film.

[Marko]

I suspect that the digital telescope noted above was not the first. NASA'a Hubble telescope was most likely the first. Clearly, we have put a man on the moon, but that does not mean we can make a vehicle that the average world citizen can afford that would permit him to drive to the moon.

Its not that a LF digital camera cannot be built, but rather can an affordable cost-effective solution be realized for the average LF photographer in the field. I doubt that will ever happen. Even if someone did, I do not believe it could compete with the virtues of film.

Making technology predictions is a great and easy way to get oneself into a distinguished company:


"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics magazine, 1949

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

"But what...is it good for?"
-- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM commenting on the microchip, 1968

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Attributed to Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

"I have traveled the length and breadth of the country, and have talked with the best people in business administration. I can assure you on the highest authority that data processing is a fad and won't last out the year."
-- Editor in charge of business books at Prentice-Hall, 1957

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981

"It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years."
-- John Von Neumann, 1949

:)