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.

Comments

Hasselblads?

[sudog]

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?

Re:Hasselblads?

[Z00L00K]

Just take a look at the camera here.

So this news may not be the really latest news.

Note

[ucblockhead]

This is pretty much useless without really expensive lenses, so don't expect to see it in any consumer-level cameras.

Re:Note

[Silicon_Knight]

It's a medium format sensor; the silicon imaging area is twice as big as a single 35mm film slide. Currently there's only a handful of cameras that has a "full frame" sensor for 35mm.

So, no, it will NEVER be used in a consumer-level camera. This is for people who shoot billboard ads.

This is the camera that sensor's going into:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx

$1k per Megapixel is about right for a Hasselblad - the H3DII-39 is about $35k. And that's just the body only. Lenses start at 3k. Zeiss makes'em. Aside from Zeiss's optical reputation, these lenses are special because the clockwork mechanism and the shutter are integrated into the lens.

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/2DFB31CE532E5E32C125711B0038D874

Unlike a DSLR which has to expose the image sensor a slit at a time at higher shutter speeds, this means that the entire frame can be exposed simultaneously, down to 1/8000 sec.

In other words... not your typical point and shoot or Digital Rebel XSi :-)

Re:Note

[Anonymous Coward]

Billboards can be shot with the cheapest of consumer digital cameras due to the fact that they are printed at an extremely low DPI. If you were standing two feet in front of a billboard it would look absolutely horrible regardless of what it was shot with, but for people viewing them from 50 feet away it looks perfect. The only thing you need a ton of megapixels for is very large prints that can be viewed up close. An average print in a shopping mall is anywhere from five to ten feet tall and you can walk right up to it. For those you need a lot of resolution. Having said that, billboards are still probably shot with medium format due to the nature of the assignment, even the two by three inch pictures on product boxes or catalogs are shot medium format because that is what is used by commercial photographers, almost exclusively.

Re:Note

[Jeffrey Baker]

Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but the size of the Airy disk at f/5.6 is 7.5 microns, therefore any sensor with smaller pixels can be said to be diffraction-limited. If you want to discard the issue of color, and consider just the luminance, then the 2x2 pattern gives you a 12 micron area diameter in which case the system is diffraction-limited at f/11 and smaller. But if you do that you must be willing to admit that the system has only 3 megapixels instead of 12.

You appear to be operating under some definition of diffraction-limited other than "limited by diffraction". Also I would like to point out that 12MP on a 16x24mm sensor is 6 microns, not "less than 6 microns".

Re:I can't use this

[mschuyler]

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.

Re:I don't know about how many LoCs this is ....

[corsec67]

.... but, you could spot the pimple on the Pron star's ass from 1000 feet away without using a zoom lens.

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

these exist!

[rebelcool]

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.

I've measured around 400 Megapixels equivalent

[toby]

...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...