Slashdot Mirror
Kodak Unveils 50MP CCD Image Sensor
i4u writes in to let us know that Kodak has announced the world's first 50 million pixel CCD image sensor for professional photography (i.e., for medium-format cameras). Engineering-grade devices of the CCD, the KAF-50100, are currently available. Kodak plans to enter volume production in Q4 2008. "At 50 megapixels, the sensor captures digital images with unprecedented resolution and detail. For instance, with a 50 megapixel camera, in an aerial photo of a field 1.5 miles [about 2.5 km] across, you could detect an object about the size of a small notebook computer (1 foot by 1 foot)." Here's CNet's Crave blog with a few more technical details.
H3DII-50 has had 50 megapixel backends for quite some time..?
Is it unprecedented because it's now available at a cheaper price or something?
This is pretty much useless without really expensive lenses, so don't expect to see it in any consumer-level cameras.
The cake is a pie
The article doesn't seem to mention whether the new Kodak sensor uses the new-and-perhaps-improved pixel pattern that Kodak announced in 2007. See http://johncompton.pluggedin.kodak.com/default.asp?item=624876
Happily this sort of development drives down prices on consumer grade products over time. I wonder how this compares to scanning low iso medium format film on a drum scanner.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Is a good example of such a comparison, though I've seen differing results with older digital cameras.
Bing! Right on the heels of Hasselblad announcing their new H3DII-50 camera (to be released in October) which presumably uses this sensor. Hasselblad has also announced a future 645 format sensor (roughly 56mm x 45mm), more details to be revealed at Photokina 2008 (major bi-annual worldwide photography trade show) later this year.
>> in an aerial photo of a field 1.5 miles [about 2.5 km] across, you could detect an object about the size of a small notebook computer
That's either a really tall tripod or image stabilization has come a lot farther than I thought.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Hi-Rez Pr0n!!
Gimme!!!
You can't use this. I can't use this. But a real pro can. I'm just a point and shooter with a small amount of knowledge to be dangerous. 5-6 mpix is probably all I need because I don't have a discerning eye. I only want to blow stuff up to 8 x 10 once in awhile when I accidentally take a great picture (like when the airplane went right by Mt. Rainier (REALLY close) and I just happened to have a window seat. I coulda seen a climber pee in the snow on there!)
But to a real pro I could see how this would be a must have, and if it is a must have they'll pay whatever it takes to get it, and the cost will be too much for both of us. And if producing this ultimately brings down the cost of my Nikon Coolpix 5700 next time I have to buy one, that's cool with me.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
I have a Mamiya 645 J (I think it is) and an older Yashica Mat 124 G that I wish had digital backs. I wonder how hard it would be to make my own back.
Unfortunately, Hasselblad has given up on the V system line (as the H system is a completely different design) and only the lowly 16mp back is offered with a square sensor. And its mostly as a tribute to V system diehards and possibly be discontinued soon.
That means that if a V system user want to upgrade to a new digital back, like the 50mp one, will need to dump the whole system. The lenses can be used with adaptors but then you will miss their real focal length and the autofocus and electronics of the H system. Which unfortunately goes against the philosophy of the "old" Hasselblad company where one could mix modern and old components freely. That meant that you could stick a modern lens and a digital back on a 50 year old body. Now, its pretty much "dump everything" to upgrade.
And I wonder how many people's computers will absolutely CRY when trying to open a 50mpix tiff. My 6mpix jpegs are 2.5-3.5mb.
Here is a 24mb tiff from the Phoenix mission.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
You may not but I could.
Its not a Mom and Pop ccd for a $299 camerat at walmart.
Current digital backs for film cameras like I use are 20,000 a POP !
Try to take one of you 6mp pics and blow it up to a 6ft poster or art piece, youll be swimming in boxes
I still shoot film, medium format 6cmx6cm, 25 iso high silver film. I took a picture of a building in NY and the 60th story I can count rivets in the windowsill vents when I blow it up.
For high quality there is no comparison for film, currently, I would trash my darkroom in a New York minute if I could forgo the nasty chemicals and space in my house, but I cant affork 20,000 for a digital back.
HOPEFULLY this will drop the price in the even the 3-4k market....
from cnet we have:
The specs on the two cameras, however, show the lower-resolution version to be faster: 1.4 seconds per capture for the H3DII-39 over 1.1 seconds for the H3DII-50. That could simply be implementation-specific, though.
Indeed, 1.4 seconds is a very long time to not move. Only useful for objects and scenery, certainly not going to do people or wildlife.
The times refer to saving the photos, not exposing them.
those of us in third world countries like New Zealand who have to pay in blood for our bandwidth are going to start seeing Users sending (or trying to send) their friends 40+ meg attachments once those cameras become standard consumer issue. Trying to explain to my dad how to load MS Paint, and shrink the image, resulted in him writing down the instructions, and then promptly ringing me the first time he had to follow those instructions.
The major ISPs in this country who offer "broadband" plans with 200MB traffic per month -- yes, you read that right: MB -- are going going to have to do some serious reassessing. As it is, with Xbox demo games upward of 1GB, I don't know how we're putting up with this garbage.
As Uncle Ben said: "With great power comes great responsibility." Everybody wants the power, but nobody wants the responsibility.
I'll probably be marked as a troll, but this is a serious issue. How many of you have received one page word docs, or excel spreadsheets from companies, only to find that those files were over 5 megs? just a bunch of text, and fecking huge 12 million DPI logo.
I'm not saying we should stay in the dark ages, but we need to start preparing.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
from cnet we have:
The specs on the two cameras, however, show the lower-resolution version to be faster: 1.4 seconds per capture for the H3DII-39 over 1.1 seconds for the H3DII-50. That could simply be implementation-specific, though.
Indeed, 1.4 seconds is a very long time to not move. Only useful for objects and scenery, certainly not going to do people or wildlife.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
It has nothing to do with shutter speeds. You just can't shoot again until 1.4 seconds, which is how long it takes the camera to process and write the image to the card. The camera has a frame rate of about 0.7 FPS.
You mean a telephoto lens?
I have a Sigma 10-20mm lens that is a zoom lens that is from crazy-wide to very-wide, and doesn't get to a "normal" focal length. Perhaps you mean something like a 500mm lens, which doesn't zoom?
Focal length comparison, from 10 to 500mm on a 1.5x crop sensor here
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Uh, ... today?
I don't think a do-it yourself digital back for your old camera is a very realistic project, unless you're an experienced Analog & Digital electronics designer. Kodak used to have a pretty nice demo board for their CMOS imager chips, which was about as "plug and play" as you could hope for, but I haven't seen anything for their higher-end CCD sensors...
Actually, they do have an evaluation board listed for the previous version of this sensor:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/KAF-39000/support.jhtml?pq-path=11937/11938/12138/12249/12265
That probably means they'll have one for the 50MP version soon(ish). Reading the documents on that page should give you an idea of the level of work involved.
Has a lot more to do with the quality of the glass than the size - the size tends to have to do more with how fast you want the shot to be (smaller aperture number/"bigger aperture" -> much bigger lens with normal optics).
The quality of the glass though...there's a reason why the lenses for a Hasselblad H3 are $4k for the same "version" of a $1k 35mm lens. Resolving power, for one.
They are called scanning backs because that is precisely what they do.
And yes, the resolution is unparalleled. 50 megapixels was achieved in these, oh maybe 10 years ago. Its not uncommon today for these to generate files in excess of 1GB.
-
...in a typical medium format transparency (6x7cm) shot with a good lens (e.g. Mamiya Sekor). That's a careful assessment made by inspecting top quality drum scans. Yes, those lenses are expensive; up to $3K-4K new, but that's not just the optics - the lens integrates the leaf shutter (not focal plane, typical of consumer cameras).
For comparison, a 35mm film frame (24x36mm, iirc) carries about 15 Megapixels (there is wide consensus on this).
More here, here...
you had me at #!
The fovea of the human eye, the part that sees details, is approximately (in a hexagonal layout) 4000x3000 photoreceptive cells. To saturate the foveal field with data, the Nyquist rate says that an image must deliver 8000 x 6000 dots. Which is 48MP. 50MP is enough to cover that field. It's still not quite enough to completely fool the eye, until the 50MP is in a grid that exactly matches the eye - and no two eyes are the same, even in a single person, and not regularly hexagonal, but actually a stochastic distribution in a roughly six-axial surface across the inside of an uneven sphere.
And even then, the fovea is only about 1mm, capturing a 2-degree field in the middle of vision, about double the width of your thumbnail at arm's length. These 50MP cameras only capture the amount of info that's in the central 2 degrees, though the human eye captures data (though much less per degree outside the fovea) from a visual field with a 160 degree horizontal width and 135 degrees vertical height. Unless the image delivery can track the eye's movement to stay projected on the fovea, the image has to have foveal (over) density imagery across the entire scene for the fovea to track across.
But for images to stare at, 50MP is about the foveal (over) resolution. Further improvement is probably better off invested in image delivery technology, as we're sampling at about the limit of what we can actually see.
--
make install -not war
Who said that? Maybe a few years ago, today we have cameras that are better than any B&W film. Hint: I'm a professional photographer. I'm on /. because I'm a reformed geek and every once in a while I get withdrawals ;-)
the h3-DII50 won't be available until October (possibly later)
their competitors are coming with 65 mp digital backs.
Hasselblad is a locked down proprietary system, hasselblad cameras only connect to hasselblad backs, and vice versa.
Mamiya and Phase One are using open protocols in their cameras and backs.
btw. Expect an announcement of an even higher pixelcount back at the photokina conference. 23 of september.
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah