With regular (full frame, etc) sensors having pixel sizes in the 3 to 5 um, a pixel of 50um must surely have a lot more sensitivity and be able to do much better comparably in terms of noise and low light conditions— assuming the technology they use scales in performance?
Remember back in the D700 days? People would argue that we reached some kind of quality level and that increasing resolution father would lead to a loss of quality. Well, that was just wrong.
People also like to talk about fat pixel Phase backs. Well, 15 years ago, I worked in a big commercial studio with 10 'fat pixel' Phase backs. I would take a D850, or even my D600, over one of those systems in a heart beat. That quality was not very good. Moire was a huge problem, as were color shifts with use with a view camera.
People also used to talk about how CCDs where inherently superior to Cmos chips.....
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Some rough aprox numbers,
1mm/50 microns = 20 LPM. Diffraction at f64 about 22 LPM.
50 micron sensor theoretically has lower noise than a 5 micron sensor, typical view camera images are not done in low light conditions.
Essentially, the market for a solid state imager back of this size would be extremely limited.
Only time will tell where this large area solid state imager back will end up.
Bernice
Not just low light but how many of us doing landscape have had to wait for a long time for the wind to stop to avoid getting tree branches/leaves motion? Add to that a sunrise or sunset with the usual lower light conditions, and you’re screwed — you just can’t wait. Some people prefer using 400 iso film for that reason. But color slides don’t come in iso over 100. I’d love to shoot at speed of 1/250 or 1/500 a lot of times to get around these issues. 50um pixels should offer a distinct capability to go to significantly higher iso’s while keeping the same noise level of their 5um counterparts.
This article from three years ago...
https://www.diyphotography.net/the-w...a-mere-106000/
...says that the 9x11 version has a base ISO of 2100.
It’s great to have these options but I cannot help but think that an IQ4-150 on an Arca is a much better option in terms of actual results. It’s even more expensive though.
Images available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/
it cost a lot less than before .Originally Posted by Oren Grad
only a matter of time it will be less expensive. Sadly I sold 1 kidney for a box of TMX film and I'm going to need the other one until the chimera is big enough.
what I'd love is a XEROX 11x14 camera .. sadly they are extremely rare.
Last edited by jnantz; 12-Aug-2021 at 14:39.
Actually, while I don’t expect it’s something many cinematographers are asking for, movements + motion actually sounds pretty cool. I don’t know if cinematographers ever use a PC lens to do interesting stuff? Or mount it on a geared 4x5 and attach servo motors to the gears, and change perspective it real time. If I had infinite funds I’d love to try some stuff like that (in another life I was a very amateur cinematographer and editor for friends who were going to film school. I still have my Bolex somewhere.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks