Slashdot Mirror
Canon Develops 8 X 8 Inch Digital CMOS Sensor
dh003i writes "Canon has developed a 8 x 8 inch CMOS digital sensor. It will be able to capture an image with 1/100th the light intensity required by a DSLR and will be able to record video at 60 fps in lighting half the intensity of moonlight. There are already many excellent quality lenses designed to cover 8 x 10 inches, although Canon may develop some of their own designed specifically for their requirements."
it's be great if it were something lame like 6 megapixel
.8 mp and it takes amazing pictures because the sensor is huge. Like this thing.
Why is 6 mp lame? Do you know the Hubble is something like
Actually, they use software to merge the photos. Otherwise the photos would suck.
For architectural photography, and many landscapes, nothing, but nothing, beats a view camera. If you take a picture of a building with a standard DSLR, the picture will look like a pyramid, because the film plane was at an angle to the building. With a view cameras, with swings and tilts, you can have the lens and film plane parallel to the walls of the building, giving you a much more natural look.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Ahem. Remember that you have to account for the Bayseian Filter in front of the sensor.
It's not a "Bayseian filter" [sic], it's a Bayer matrix.
And how is a higher resolution sensor going to undo lens aberrations? That would be nice.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
You have this exactly backwards. The more you can stop down your lens, f2.8 wide open and f60 stopped down, means less light to your sensor, the greater your depth of field. This sensor means you could shoot at ISO 25, a shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/1000 of a second, and an fstop of 60 very easily in a lot less than full light conditions. That's a great depth of field, a shutter speed fast enough to reduce the effects of any vibration, and still get enough light to get a good exposure. I'm just guessing on what the fstop and shutter speeds would be with a sensor that light sensitive, but with a modern dslr you couldn't even get close to those settings in anything less than bright sunlight without very low shutter speeds that require the use of a tripod and higher ISO settings that tend to induce noise.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Last time I looked, which waasn't that long ago, there were two DSLR tilt-shift lenses on the market, they cost about $3,000, and the coverage they had was unimpressive.
It must have been a quite a LONG time ago, because Canon has had 3 tilt-shift lenses available for years. The were released in 1991, and are still available today. A few years ago they added a 4th lens to the batch (and updated one of the old models with a
new version). So your choices are:
17mm f/4
24mm f/3.5
45mm f/2.8
90mm f/2.8
Also, when I checked a few years ago, the cheapest one was under $1500. Today they range from $1200 to $2200.
Bigger CCD does not necessarily mean higher pixel counts. In this application it means that each pixel will receive more photons per exposure, allowing for much better low light photography (I.E. less grainy.) Making larger CCDs previously meant higher latency (and therefore more motion blur or related distortion, in addition to lower framerate in video applications) due to limits in the speed of transfer of electrons in the medium. The innovative bit here is that Canon apparently came up with a circuit design that eliminates this latency.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Ansel Adams used various format camera's throughout his long career. Everything from a 35mm up to and including the Polaroid 20x24 inch instant camera which he had hauled up a mountain in Yosemite to take photographs as at the time he was on retainer from Polaroid.
His favorite was an 8 x 10 view. I know this because I was very privileged to meet the master in 1980 and actually asked him.
To be honest I am not sure what he would think of all the new tools there are to take photographs. Much of his magic occurred in the darkroom as he meticulously used his masterful understanding of printing and printing chemistry to create breathtaking images that to this day have not been surpassed in my opinion.
I have been a shutterbug since the early seventies and I am really not sure if you can duplicate the incredible subtleness of being able to alter the print developer just so so to render a more striking contrast or to bring out the very subtle shadow detail. I mean it is close, but I don't think it is there yet, just as digital has still yet to achieve the pure gradients that film provides so readily.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!