Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

[Don Dudenbostel]

I'm curious how others feel about this. I know LF in film is determined by sq inches of film area but in the digital world I don't think this applies. Let me give an example, 8x10 film is obviously LF but is a digital back with a native file size of 18x22 inches with the back mounted on a view camera LF? I see a digital file uninterpolated at it's native size as being the equivalent of a piece of film that size. Is a file of 120 Megs at 18x22" ULF? What about a betterlight scanning back on 4x5? The sensor is only a small array of pixels on a bar that traverses the width of the back but the file sixe is very large. It may be 30x40 inches or so. Is it sensor size or native file size. Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?

[Ed Kelsey]

Oh boy here we go again.

[Ken Lee]

Don - This very issue has been recently discussed ad nauseum. See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=72076

[Richard M. Coda]

18x22" is 18x22" at 72 dpi, which is the only way we can see it (on screen). Now if you take 80 full size 35mm sensors and put them together, now you're talking 8x10 quality.

YMMV, I am no engineer... just a film photographer ;)

[Bruce Watson]

Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?

Yawn.

[Heespharm]

Someone please close this thread..

[Mark Stahlke]

...a digital back with a native file size of 18x22 inches...
How do you get an 18x22 inch file on to a 3.5 inch disk drive? :confused:

[Darin Boville]

>>How do you get an 18x22 inch file on to a 3.5 inch disk drive?<<

Just use 32.3 disks, duh!

Assuming they are the same *quality* of inches...or disks...or whatever.

Then again, there is something about the pleasure of the physical *process* that makes such comparisons irrelevant.

--Darin

[Mark Stahlke]

Just use 32.3 disks, duh!My computer has four 3.5 inch disk drives for a total capacity of 14 inches. I guess it's time to upgrade. :D

[jb7]

My monitor is 94 dpi.
Do I need a bigger camera?

[Ben Syverson]

Instead of wasting time with a pointless ontological debate, why not just shoot with what you like?

[Mark Stahlke]

My monitor is 94 dpi.
Do I need a bigger camera?
Yes. One always needs a bigger camera.

[Darin Boville]

Although, more seriously, I think Don may be asking a slightly different question--here's my re-phrasing: Are certain kinds of digital capture near enough to LF (in terms of the physical size of the behind-the-lens area captured, not output resolution, etc.) to warrant equal participation on this board?

--Darin

[D. Bryant]

Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?

Eventually we will. Photographers such as Charles Cramer already have. If you ever see any of his work you will be impressed. Christopher Burkett's Ilfochrome prints are beautiful and quite different that Cramer's prints but it's amazing to see what these digital backs can do in the hands of a skilled practitioner.


Don Bryant

[Ben Syverson]

Are certain kinds of digital capture near enough to LF (in terms of the physical size of the behind-the-lens area captured, not output resolution, etc.) to warrant equal participation on this board?
No. Period.

I doubt any moderator would disagree with me.

If the sensors ever reach 4x5, we may have more discussion, but until then, it's not an issue. Digital is just not large format.

[John T]

If the sensors ever reach 4x5, we may have more discussion, but until then, it's not an issue. Digital is just not large format.

Betterlight has made 4x5 digital backs for quite some time.

[Jim Michael]

My computer has four 3.5 inch disk drives for a total capacity of 14 inches. I guess it's time to upgrade. :D

You can stitch them together. I suggest using an industrial sewing thread.

[paulr]

No. Period.

I doubt any moderator would disagree with me.

I'm some people here may be unsophisticated enough to be moved by proof-by-assertion, but no one who's opinions you might care about.

I don't believe for half a second you've examined the best of what's possible from high end digital camera backs. Everyone I know who has done so disagrees with you quite emphatically.

At this point in history each technology offers a different set of strengths and weaknesses, including looking better at different size ranges. But they are in the same room, and in terms of look and quality would stand as reasonable alternatives for a good number of photographers.

I suspect that for most photographers, the deciding factors would be price and workflow rather than print quality.

[Preston]

If there was an affordable and 'field capable' 4x5 digital capture system that meets or exceeds the quality I require, I would do it. With color films becoming less and less available, and the cost of processing continuing to rise, a high quality digital system would be more cost effective.

--P

[paulr]

If there was an affordable and 'field capable' 4x5 digital capture system that meets or exceeds the quality I require, I would do it. With color films becoming less and less available, and the cost of processing continuing to rise, a high quality digital system would be more cost effective.

"Affordable" is always subjective and situational. From my perspective, nothing is close to affordable, yet. But people getting paid, or working with much higher volumes of images, will judge this differently.

No digital backs are 4x5, although the highest end backs compete easily with 4x5 quality, based on what I've seen. Plenty of solutions are field capable, depending on what you mean by 'field.' If you're going to be without access to electrical power for weeks on end, you might be better served by something all mechanical. If I had to go on a backpacking weekend with a camera, most of the digital technical cameras would be more appealing than my own fairly burly 4x5.

[Preston]

Paul,

It's true that 'affordable' is subjective and situational. I was speaking from the point of view of my own situation, which is that current digital capture systems are not even close to being affordable.

As far as 'field capable' is concerned, I spend a good deal of time away from sources of electricity, so current systems aren't an option for me. I use a 4x5 Tachihara, which is light and works nicely for the shooting I do.

--P

[Ed Kelsey]

The Pentax 645D would certainly match 4x5 or be close enough for all but the very largest prints.

[Alan Davenport]

Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?

No, we don't. No digital camera, or digital back on a view camera, will ever be "large format" until the sensor itself is 4 inches by 5 inches. Or larger. And since pixels keep getting smaller, it's highly unlikely that anyone is ever going to make a 4x5 digital sensor. "Large Format" refers to the size of the film, not the size of the digital file you can make. I routinely create 300MB scans from my 4x5 films. If I like, I can make a scan that is over a gigabyte, but that won't make the film any bigger. I can also scan a sheet of 4x5 film and get a file of only a few kilobytes, but the film will still be large format. Digital file size has nothing to do with format size.

I'm one of those pariahs who honestly believe we are in the last age of film photography. The day will come, probably sooner than later, when film of any kind will be a rarity. There will come a time when 4x5 and larger films are simply not available at any price. On that day, there will be no more large format photography.

So stop beating this horse; it's dead. If you're a digital photographer, embrace it and get on with your photographic life. Stop trying to redefine technical terms to fit your version of reality.

[D. Bryant]

I

I suspect that for most photographers, the deciding factors would be price and workflow rather than print quality.

Ditto what Paul said.

Don Bryant

[Marko]

No, we don't. No digital camera, or digital back on a view camera, will ever be "large format" until the sensor itself is 4 inches by 5 inches. Or larger. And since pixels keep getting smaller, it's highly unlikely that anyone is ever going to make a 4x5 digital sensor. "Large Format" refers to the size of the film, not the size of the digital file you can make. I routinely create 300MB scans from my 4x5 films. If I like, I can make a scan that is over a gigabyte, but that won't make the film any bigger. I can also scan a sheet of 4x5 film and get a file of only a few kilobytes, but the film will still be large format. Digital file size has nothing to do with format size.

I'm one of those pariahs who honestly believe we are in the last age of film photography. The day will come, probably sooner than later, when film of any kind will be a rarity. There will come a time when 4x5 and larger films are simply not available at any price. On that day, there will be no more large format photography.

So stop beating this horse; it's dead. If you're a digital photographer, embrace it and get on with your photographic life. Stop trying to redefine technical terms to fit your version of reality.

Formats, their sizes and their names are relative and completely arbitrary, and they literally change with the times. There was a time when 4x5 was actually considered small format...

I agree that a digital sensor with physical dimensions to fit today's definition of large format will likely never be made. Not because it will be impossible, it will simply be unnecessary. Medium format digital backs are already there quality-wise for most practical purposes, and so are specialized view cameras capable of providing all the necessary precision and movements.

The age of film is already over and large format sheet film will probably be the last one to go. Not for any exotic nor romantic reason, but simply because smaller formats will run out of available users first. And when that happens, the largest sensor format available will become the new large format.

No sense hyperventilating about it, shoot what you like as long as you can, then either pick up something new or retire, just leave the rest of us alone to enjoy this wonderful activity without all the heartburn.

[John NYC]

Is it sensor size or native file size. Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?

If photographers themselves don't start calling some bigger-than-today's sensor a "large format" sensor, you can bet the marketing people for the sensor makers will start it if they think it will help them sell the product.

But hopefully they will be more creative than that and come up with some stunning new term to use for it. At least in audio they didn't decide to call 24-bit/192kHz audio "2-inch digital audio"*... thankfully.

John

* High-end recording used to be done on 2-inch tape.

[walter23]

I would like a large, low resolution, inexpensive sensor. Couldn't someone put out a 4 megapixel sensor at near large format size for a thousand bucks or so?

[paulr]

Stop trying to redefine technical terms to fit your version of reality.

Looking historically, it seems that most of the definitions associated with photography have been rethought with the major technical evolution of the medium. Whatever your definitions are, I'm guessing they're the one's in vogue when you learned the medium. But they would have seemed ridiculous to a practitioner from the mid-19th century. 4x5 would have been considered a small format. Film would have looked like a shortcut for amateurs. Color? God knows, but that couldn't even be called photography ...

[paulr]

I would like a large, low resolution, inexpensive sensor. Couldn't someone put out a 4 megapixel sensor at near large format size for a thousand bucks or so?

I've had the same thought, but unfortunately, it would require an yet-uninvented technology. What costs money is the size of the silicon wafer. The geniuses of the semiconductor world have been able to continuously improve performance and decrease costs by packing smaller and smaller circuits onto a silicon wafer (and getting more and more parts out of the same surface area). But that silicon isn't getting any cheaper, as far as I can tell.

I don't know what a 4x5" slice of silicon would cost. Probably a number that we associate more with space shuttles than cameras.

Maybe there are other semiconductor technologies in the works. Would be nice if this stopped being a hurdle.

[Chris Strobel]

"Affordable" is always subjective and situational. From my perspective, nothing is close to affordable, yet.

Same here, in fact I will probably never be able to own a MFD system unless the price drops to the current enthusiast dslr price range.Fortunately though as a serious fine art enthusiast with no time or volume constraints, I can easily match and exceed the image quality of these uber expensive MFD systems via stitching with my dslrs if need be, and still have the luxury of time and no deadlines to be able to use the view cameras when I'm in the mood :)

[Arne Croell]

I've had the same thought, but unfortunately, it would require an yet-uninvented technology. What costs money is the size of the silicon wafer. The geniuses of the semiconductor world have been able to continuously improve performance and decrease costs by packing smaller and smaller circuits onto a silicon wafer (and getting more and more parts out of the same surface area). But that silicon isn't getting any cheaper, as far as I can tell.

I don't know what a 4x5" slice of silicon would cost. Probably a number that we associate more with space shuttles than cameras.

Maybe there are other semiconductor technologies in the works. Would be nice if this stopped being a hurdle.

The silicon itself is not that much of a problem. Your Intel and AMD processors as well as memory are routinely made on 300mm (12") wafers. No problem to put a 4x5" on that, even 5x7 can be done. The polished wafer before processing will cost in the vicinity of $50-150 (if you buy a few 10000 of it). Its the processing cost vs. demand that would kill it.

[paulr]

TIts the processing cost vs. demand that would kill it.

Interesting. By processing do you mean everything that gets done to turn a slab of silicon into a chip? If that's the case and if this cost scales by the square inch, then the result is effectively similar to what I said ... although it leaves some hope that "processing" could get cheaper.

[Ben Syverson]

The silicon itself is not that much of a problem. Your Intel and AMD processors as well as memory are routinely made on 300mm (12") wafers. No problem to put a 4x5" on that, even 5x7 can be done. The polished wafer before processing will cost in the vicinity of $50-150 (if you buy a few 10000 of it). Its the processing cost vs. demand that would kill it.
That's not my understanding of the situation at all.

As I understand it, the larger the IC, the greater the chance of a defect in any given IC. That's why it's cheap to make 1/2" sensors—you can cram a bunch of them on a 300mm wafer, and just throw away the few that don't pass QC. In contrast, if you can only fit one gigantic 4x5" IC on a wafer, it's virtually guaranteed to have a large number of defects.

It has nothing to do with "demand." There is huge demand for full frame 35mm sensors, yet they still cost orders of magnitude more than the sensors in compact cameras. That's because as IC area increases, manufacturing costs go up exponentially, not linearly.

[Arne Croell]

That's not my understanding of the situation at all.

As I understand it, the larger the IC, the greater the chance of a defect in any given IC. That's why it's cheap to make 1/2" sensors—you can cram a bunch of them on a 300mm wafer, and just throw away the few that don't pass QC. In contrast, if you can only fit one gigantic 4x5" IC on a wafer, it's virtually guaranteed to have a large number of defects.

It has nothing to do with "demand." There is huge demand for full frame 35mm sensors, yet they still cost orders of magnitude more than the sensors in compact cameras. That's because as IC area increases, manufacturing costs go up exponentially, not linearly.
True - but that is what I include under processing costs. If you have to reject 90%, then your pocessing cost for a working wafer is 10x that of a single wafer going through the line. Paul just talked (or so I thought ) about the material - the silicon wafer as it is supplied from a manufacturer like Siltronic, MEMC, or Shin-Etsu to Intel, Dalsa, Kodak etc. Such an unprocessed wafer is already a hight-tech product btw, to stay within its specs. And a certain number of defective sites is allowable if you map them out and interpolate in the software.

[Arne Croell]

Interesting. By processing do you mean everything that gets done to turn a slab of silicon into a chip? If that's the case and if this cost scales by the square inch, then the result is effectively similar to what I said ... although it leaves some hope that "processing" could get cheaper.

Yes, the processing cost will roughly scale with the area, and if you can divide it only over 1 or 2 sensors, it will be expensive. Of course, the sensor resolution/pixel pitch one chooses also has an influence - both on cost and on the number of defects.

[Zaitz]

I didn't see this posted. I thought it was an interesting read and was surprised at the results.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

[Don Dudenbostel]

I'm one of those pariahs who honestly believe we are in the last age of film photography. The day will come, probably sooner than later, when film of any kind will be a rarity. There will come a time when 4x5 and larger films are simply not available at any price. On that day, there will be no more large format photography.

So stop beating this horse; it's dead. If you're a digital photographer, embrace it and get on with your photographic life. Stop trying to redefine technical terms to fit your version of reality.

Alan don't have a stroke. I'm not trying to rain on you parade. Why so defensive?

My reality is what I'm shooting at the moment. Yes I shoot digital but I shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10 and have probably shot more LF including 11x14 since 1964 than most folks here will in six lifetimes. LF was the Primary format of my business for almost thirty five years. Even though my business is digital I stll shoot LF for my pleasure and will continue as long as I can.

My question was an honest question. Sorry I asked. I'll remember to stay away from this area of the forum.

Moderator, please close the thread.

[walter23]

I've had the same thought, but unfortunately, it would require an yet-uninvented technology. What costs money is the size of the silicon wafer. The geniuses of the semiconductor world have been able to continuously improve performance and decrease costs by packing smaller and smaller circuits onto a silicon wafer (and getting more and more parts out of the same surface area). But that silicon isn't getting any cheaper, as far as I can tell.

I don't know what a 4x5" slice of silicon would cost. Probably a number that we associate more with space shuttles than cameras.

Maybe there are other semiconductor technologies in the works. Would be nice if this stopped being a hurdle.

Isn't the main cost of silicon not the price of the material itself but the need for it to be very high grade / free of defects? It seems to me you could have a much lower defect rate by simply using a larger scale process (bigger features on the chip itself) - ie features on the chip that are large enough (pixel sites and electronic traces) that they wouldn't be impacted as much by minor defects.

I don't know much about silicon chip and sensor technology but I *think* that the smaller your process is, the more rejects you get... high density sensors, chips, etc, are the big culprit.

This is all kind of lay speculation and I'd be happy to hear something more conclusive one way or the other.

[paulr]

Isn't the main cost of silicon not the price of the material itself but the need for it to be very high grade / free of defects? It seems to me you could have a much lower defect rate by simply using a larger scale process (bigger features on the chip itself) - ie features on the chip that are large enough (pixel sites and electronic traces) that they wouldn't be impacted as much by minor defects.

I'd be curious to hear an answer to that from someone who knows more about the subject. What makes me skeptical is that I don't think we ever see manufacturers using this concept to make cheap chips. They seem to go smaller, smaller, smaller, using whatever newest/smallest fabrication process they can get their hands on.

it's possible that i'm missing something. At any rate, a 4x5 sensor with a 12 micron pixel pitch should give you something like 40 lp/mm on the sensor at high MTF.

In terms of ultimate quality, I bet it wouldn't be as good as the best phase one backs and shneider/rodenstock digital lenses (lenses that cover 4x5 don't perform remotely as well). But if it could be cheap--the big question--it would be an interesting option.

[Arne Croell]

Isn't the main cost of silicon not the price of the material itself but the need for it to be very high grade / free of defects? It seems to me you could have a much lower defect rate by simply using a larger scale process (bigger features on the chip itself) - ie features on the chip that are large enough (pixel sites and electronic traces) that they wouldn't be impacted as much by minor defects.

I don't know much about silicon chip and sensor technology but I *think* that the smaller your process is, the more rejects you get... high density sensors, chips, etc, are the big culprit.

This is all kind of lay speculation and I'd be happy to hear something more conclusive one way or the other.
Essentially yes - but the price range I quoted for a wafer was already for the "perfect" silicon wafer, of course dislocation-free, with tightly specified types and amounts of point defects, "warp", "bow", oxygen content etc. Other wafers, e.g. for solar cells, have to be much cheaper. If someone wants to read up on some of the issues, every second year there is a new "roadmap" for semiconductor technology by the ITRS (http://www.itrs.net/). An executive summary from 2009 is here: http://www.itrs.net/Links/2009ITRS/2009Chapters_2009Tables/2009_ExecSum.pdf

Btw, that summary lists the transition to 450mm wafers in production for about 2014/15 - theoretically one could make an 8x10 or even larger sensor with it.

[David Luttmann]

Where's Jorge when you need him? :rolleyes:

[sanking]

Where's Jorge when you need him? :rolleyes:

David,

Well, if you really need him check out this link. http://www.bridgecitytools.com/blog/2011/02/18/inspiration-is-everywhere-the-lure-of-designingmaking/

Could be the same Jorge you knew and loved so well?

Sandy

[David Luttmann]

David,

Well, if you really need him check out this link. http://www.bridgecitytools.com/blog/2011/02/18/inspiration-is-everywhere-the-lure-of-designingmaking/

Could be the same Jorge you knew and loved so well?

Sandy

That must be the new hobby for him then. I wish him well.

[paulr]

That must be the new hobby for him then. I wish him well.

I heard he was making a good living as a PR consultant for Charlie Sheen and Colonel Qaddafi.

(sorry … running back to my hole now …)

[Brian Ellis]

That must be the new hobby for him then. I wish him well.

I wish he'd either send me the photograph or return my $200.

[sanking]

I bought a print also and never got it. My recollection is that the donation for a print was through APUG. But Jorge sent me a note to the effect that he never got the order or the money. I have no way of knowing the truth, and far too late now to be concerned about it. It was not the first $200 I pissed away in my life, and won't be the last. However, I had several other financial transactions with Jorge (sold him some ULF holders) and they all turned out fine.

One thing is for sure, Jorge sure had a way of ranting against digital.

Sandy

[yaya]

I'm curious how others feel about this. I know LF in film is determined by sq inches of film area but in the digital world I don't think this applies. Let me give an example, 8x10 film is obviously LF but is a digital back with a native file size of 18x22 inches with the back mounted on a view camera LF? I see a digital file uninterpolated at it's native size as being the equivalent of a piece of film that size. Is a file of 120 Megs at 18x22" ULF? What about a betterlight scanning back on 4x5? The sensor is only a small array of pixels on a bar that traverses the width of the back but the file sixe is very large. It may be 30x40 inches or so. Is it sensor size or native file size. Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?

Format wise, digital is now at 645 full frame, hence why the term MFDB has become the norm. Obviously this is a lot smaller that 5X4 or 10X8

Resolution wise, an 80MP MFDB, at 300dpi, produces a 34.40" x 25.84" print.

When shot at low iso with a good lens, I very much doubt it can be matched by a 10X8 scan.

Today's best scanners use line sensors that at best, were developed 8, 10 or even 15 years ago. These sensors are far behind the cutting edge we have in MFDB in terms of dynamic range, sharpness and colour depth. This is not just my view but what many reproduction experts say.
So no matter how good your 10X8 sheet film and your camera are, you are still limited by what the scanner can record.

Beyond that there are other factors such as DOF, FOV and the "look"...a 645 frame shot at f2.8 does not look like 4X5 shot at f5.6...a 400iso neg does not look like a 400iso digital file and so on...and then there's the cost

I think that when photographers compare large format film work to medium-format digital work, they relate more to the above subjects than to the actual image quality pixel-for-pixel

Yair

Leaf Imaging Ltd | ysh@leaf-photography.com

[paulr]

Today's best scanners use line sensors that at best, were developed 8, 10 or even 15 years ago. These sensors are far behind the cutting edge we have in MFDB in terms of dynamic range, sharpness and colour depth. This is not just my view but what many reproduction experts say.
So no matter how good your 10X8 sheet film and your camera are, you are still limited by what the scanner can record.

I would still think that the limitations of the lens (both diffraction and the compromises needed to make optics with huge coverage), and film flatness and depth of field would be the greatest limiters.

When scanning film, dynamic range is only an issue for scanners when dealing with contrasty transparencies. Even my humble desktop scanner can see all the way into the densest parts of my black and white and color negs.

The resolution and MTF performance of higher quality scanners is also very impressive. It's nothing like a digital camera sensor, but the enlargement requirements are much smaller.

[Nathan Potter]

12 inch silicon wafers from suppliers and intended for state of the art (say 32 nm features) are very near perfection in the qualities mentioned by Arne. They are under $US 200 in very large quantities. They would be more than suitable for 10um pixel size where minimum linewidths might be expected to be on the order of 2 um. Relax to 20 um pixel size for LF and lesser grade would be suitable.

But the problem of cost does not lie with the silicon starting material. It is in the cost of the fabrication facility and the volume that can be put thru it to recover Return On Investment (ROI). Without a truly hugh volume of wafers per month (think > 20,000 per month) the cost of a new 12 inch fab at minimum $2 billion cannot be recovered. The whole semiconductor industry survives mainly on volume.

An additional limiting factor for large 12 inch wafers is the cost of the process machinery and in some cases its outright unavailability in some forms that are suitable for low resolution lithography processes. This is particularly true in the lithography node where there are no large area low res tools made AFAIK. State of the art in lithography for 12 inch wafers is, of course, state of the art linewidth (25 to 50 nm). Other 12 inch process equipment used, deposition, dry etch, CVD, etch has all been optimized for a phenomenal degree of radial uniformity across a 12 inch wafer and is consequently enormously expensive. A state of the art 12 inch fab is nominally $5 billion with perhaps 2.5 billion for equipment and qualification. And we ain't paid the help yet.

Well, we presumably need not use a state of the art facility to produce a 4X5 digital sensor since an older, say 8 inch wafer size, would be adequate and some of those facilities have already been paid for. Even a six inch facility would do for one sensor per wafer.

As pointed out though, sensor yield at the end of the process is of considerable concern. Yield scales with area required to be defect free for defects that are fatal. The scaling varies some as a function of the process used at each step. But shaking down the yield detractors in an older 6" or 8" fab might get yield up to > 90% good wafers for say a 2 to 4 um linewidth device and one 4X5 sensor. While a used fabrication facilitity has possibilities there cannot be a big enough market for even 4X5 sensors to sustain >20,000 sensors per month.

Using conventional processing for CCD and CMOS type sensors requires roughly a minimum of 15 process steps for CMOS and a few less for CCD technology. Current figures vary widely but a $20 to $40 cost per lithography process level is likely. So while the manufacturing cost for one 4X5 sensor might be on the order of $800 to $1000 the volume to recover ROI is a killer.

BTW I think a more promising approach for large format sensors might be a write/read sensor say based on, for example, the current proliferation of selenium xray sensors used in hospitals. Of course the phosensitive material needs to be compatible with color but is pretty simple for B&W. Decent quantum yield for a small pixel size (say 20um) is an issue to be studied but I'm quite certain that this could be dealt with. Ultimately such a sensor could have the profile of a conventional film holder and simply be inserted in front of the ground glass then downloaded on site later. But even such a device still has volume issues and any business plan would have to address this crisply.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

No need to keep the thinking mired in 50 year old silicon wafer-technology, when photo-voltaics and LCDs are already being printed on thin film (and much more cheaply). Here's a technology that seems destined to trickle down to a photo grade sensor that more closely emulates film.

My guess is within the decade, we'll see the first 4x5 sized 1GB sensors of this type (sheet film form factor sensors). First ones will be well under a grand and sub-$100 ones knocked off within a year or so after that. Will they be as good as $40K sensors today? Probably not in sheer pixel density or noise, but the brute force approach of a huge sensor will make them more than good enough to largely settle the question of choosing between the need for souping LF film just to scan it, or ponying up $10K-50K on tiny format digital sensors, going forward. (The answer being "neither".)

P.S. Long as I'm prognosticating, the break-through moment will occur 42 months from today when some maker posts an illustrated how-to for refilling Epson printer ink carts in order to do pin-registered multi-pass laying down of the photovoltaic and electrically-conductive inks on cleared Estar film base, which then must be heat-laminated in an autoclave made from a scrounged Jobo Expert Drum foot pump with the valving turned round backwards (to create a vacuum) in an Easy Bake Oven.

[paulr]

P.S. Long as I'm prognosticating, the break-through moment will occur 42 months from today when some maker posts an illustrated how-to for refilling Epson printer ink carts in order to do pin-registered multi-pass laying down of the photovoltaic and electrically-conductive inks on cleared Estar film base, which then must be heat-laminated in an autoclave made from a scrounged Jobo Expert Drum foot pump with the valving turned round backwards (to create a vacuum) in an Easy Bake Oven.

Brilliant prediction, but I humbly suggest that it will take more on the order of 44 months, since the upcoming ban on 100 watt incandescent bulbs is forcing a major redesign of the Easy Bake Oven, and this will surely lead to setbacks.

[Nigels]

I'm curious how others feel about this. I know LF in film is determined by sq inches of film area but in the digital world I don't think this applies. Let me give an example, 8x10 film is obviously LF but is a digital back with a native file size of 18x22 inches with the back mounted on a view camera LF? I see a digital file uninterpolated at it's native size as being the equivalent of a piece of film that size. Is a file of 120 Megs at 18x22" ULF? What about a betterlight scanning back on 4x5? The sensor is only a small array of pixels on a bar that traverses the width of the back but the file sixe is very large. It may be 30x40 inches or so. Is it sensor size or native file size. Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?
Going back to the original post - NO!
Because you are not comparing like for like. If you want to cheat by enlarging your digital capture to native resolution you should do the same with your film. For digital native resolution is in pixels, for film it is grain. If the native resolution is a figure at which you can print without seeing pixels then for film it must also be the same i.e. how large can you print before grain is an issue. I suspect LF film will still give much larger acceptable prints.
For me the format size is determine by the image area captured that is projected by the taking lens.
(back to lurking).

Nigels.

[Ben Syverson]

Oh god, not this again

[Ivan J. Eberle]

MIT researchers have smashed the Easy Bake Oven barrier to cheap photovoltaics:

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/07/13/hit-print-for-solar-panels/

Kidding aside, it's not a stretch to see that before too very long this could very well be a route to cheap large scale image sensors in the form factor of film.

[mcfactor]

Really? because my 8x10 film scanned at 2500 dpi give me something like a 70x90 inch print at 300 dpi with just a hint of grain.


Format wise, digital is now at 645 full frame, hence why the term MFDB has become the norm. Obviously this is a lot smaller that 5X4 or 10X8

Resolution wise, an 80MP MFDB, at 300dpi, produces a 34.40" x 25.84" print.

When shot at low iso with a good lens, I very much doubt it can be matched by a 10X8 scan.

Today's best scanners use line sensors that at best, were developed 8, 10 or even 15 years ago. These sensors are far behind the cutting edge we have in MFDB in terms of dynamic range, sharpness and colour depth. This is not just my view but what many reproduction experts say.
So no matter how good your 10X8 sheet film and your camera are, you are still limited by what the scanner can record.

Beyond that there are other factors such as DOF, FOV and the "look"...a 645 frame shot at f2.8 does not look like 4X5 shot at f5.6...a 400iso neg does not look like a 400iso digital file and so on...and then there's the cost

I think that when photographers compare large format film work to medium-format digital work, they relate more to the above subjects than to the actual image quality pixel-for-pixel

Yair

Leaf Imaging Ltd | ysh@leaf-photography.com

[Adamphotoman]

I agree that the Leaf will outperform a scan of an 8X10 sheet of film.

My Betterlight Scanning back is 216 megapixels NOT Interpolated. It does have its limitations, however; every medium format back that we have tested has not come close to the detail that the BL scan back can deliver. I made a pano scan which has a Native res of 30 inches X 18 feet at 300 DPI... 2.5 G file NATIVE...
I shoot 8X10 and no scan of film gives me this detail. The Betterlight may be older tech but no Bayer filter (Interpolated by a computer) - its best guess...is as accurate with as subtle gradations as the 10 stop curve implemented by Mike Collette. It will catch up, and convenience is important. But for now??? I can still shoot film when the situation demands it. I will upload a sample and a few crops of a 30 inch X 20 foot image. Next Post
The Medium format backs that we tried Phase 80megapixel had colour issues in Fine Art Repro.

[Adamphotoman]

Another post.
This image is only 20X45 Native.
I will find a bigger one in the morning.
For now. the overall and a detail.
You can drum scan film to be a bigger file but the detail won't be there.
These are only jpegs of course.

[mcfactor]

Yes, but you are talking about stitching and/or scanning backs, that is very different from one shot captures (I could stitch 5 8x10's together an have a monster image). I agree that certain digital devices can do better than 8x10, no one is arguing that. I was responding to the statement that an 80 megapixel digital back can give you the same resolution as a well scanned 8x10.


I agree that the Leaf will outperform a scan of an 8X10 sheet of film.

My Betterlight Scanning back is 216 megapixels NOT Interpolated. It does have its limitations, however; every medium format back that we have tested has not come close to the detail that the BL scan back can deliver. I made a pano scan which has a Native res of 30 inches X 18 feet at 300 DPI... 2.5 G file NATIVE...
I shoot 8X10 and no scan of film gives me this detail. The Betterlight may be older tech but no Bayer filter (Interpolated by a computer) - its best guess...is as accurate with as subtle gradations as the 10 stop curve implemented by Mike Collette. It will catch up, and convenience is important. But for now??? I can still shoot film when the situation demands it. I will upload a sample and a few crops of a 30 inch X 20 foot image. Next Post
The Medium format backs that we tried Phase 80megapixel had colour issues in Fine Art Repro.

[Steve Smith]

I was responding to the statement that an 80 megapixel digital back can give you the same resolution as a well scanned 8x10.

Anyone who suggests that an 80 Megapixel back is equal to a piece of 8x10 film needs to do some simple working out:

If 80 Mp = 80 square inches then 1 Mp = 1 square inch.

A frame of 35mm film is about 1.33 square inches. Therefore 1.33 Mp is needed to equal 35mm film.

EDIT: I seem to recall writing this somewhere a few weeks ago.... probably in this thread!


Steve.

[Ed Kelsey]

Anyone who suggests that an 80 Megapixel back is equal to a piece of 8x10 film needs to do some simple working out:

If 80 Mp = 80 square inches then 1 Mp = 1 square inch.

A frame of 35mm film is about 1.33 square inches. Therefore 1.33 Mp is needed to equal 35mm film.

EDIT: I seem to recall writing this somewhere a few weeks ago.... probably in this thread!

Steve.

More illogic from the clueless