8x10 digital back?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by P. Meschter, Mar 14, 2005.

  1. P. Meschter

    P. Meschter Guest

    Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
    works for release soon?
    Thank you.
    PM
    P. Meschter, Mar 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Well....yes and no. Backs can be made to fit anything....but they won't be
    big enough to work the same way. You would start with stepping it down to
    4x5 or medium format and then stepping it down further with the back. Since
    you would only be taking a small part of the image from the center its hard
    to image any benefit to it.



    "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    news:JMkZd.126$...
    > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
    > works for release soon?
    > Thank you.
    > PM
    >
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. P. Meschter

    bob Guest

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > Well....yes and no. Backs can be made to fit anything....but they won't be
    > big enough to work the same way. You would start with stepping it down to
    > 4x5 or medium format and then stepping it down further with the back. Since
    > you would only be taking a small part of the image from the center its hard
    > to image any benefit to it.


    I saw a website where I guy made his own back by mounting a document
    scanner where the film back would go.

    Bob
    bob, Mar 14, 2005
    #3
  4. P. Meschter

    rafeb Guest

    bob wrote:

    > I saw a website where I guy made his own back by mounting a document
    > scanner where the film back would go.



    That would work for a CIS scanner, but not a CCD
    scanner. And CIS scanners only capture intensity
    (ie., monochrome,) not color. (They capture color
    by using R/G/B LED lamps that fire once per scanline.)

    CIS scanners are relatively low-res. 2400 optical
    is about the best you're going to find (eg., Canon
    Lide-80.)


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafeb, Mar 14, 2005
    #4
  5. P. Meschter

    bob Guest

    rafeb wrote:
    >
    >
    > bob wrote:
    >
    >> I saw a website where I guy made his own back by mounting a document
    >> scanner where the film back would go.

    >
    >
    >
    > That would work for a CIS scanner, but not a CCD
    > scanner. And CIS scanners only capture intensity
    > (ie., monochrome,) not color. (They capture color
    > by using R/G/B LED lamps that fire once per scanline.)



    I found the webpage. It is a CCD scanner, and it is color, but it's not
    a view camera:

    http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html

    Bob
    bob, Mar 14, 2005
    #5
  6. P. Meschter

    rafeb Guest

    bob wrote:
    > rafeb wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> bob wrote:
    >>
    >>> I saw a website where I guy made his own back by mounting a document
    >>> scanner where the film back would go.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That would work for a CIS scanner, but not a CCD
    >> scanner. And CIS scanners only capture intensity
    >> (ie., monochrome,) not color. (They capture color
    >> by using R/G/B LED lamps that fire once per scanline.)

    >
    >
    >
    > I found the webpage. It is a CCD scanner, and it is color, but it's not
    > a view camera:
    >
    > http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html




    The longest CCD chips I've been able to track
    down are a bit over 3" long and have around
    12,000 to 14,000 pixels (per color.)

    For a scanning back you need to place the CCD array
    right up against the focal plane, where the film
    would be. There are scanning backs for 4x5 cameras
    that will image, say, a 3x5" area on the film plane.
    (See PhaseOne, BetterLight, Dicomed, Imacon.)

    CCD flatbed scanners have a complete optical system,
    usually with several mirrors and a small lens just in
    front of the CCD itself that projects an image
    of the "line" being scanned onto the CCD chip.

    CIS scanners by comparison, have no lens and no
    mirrors, and the imaging array is as wide (or wider)
    than the object being scanned. Hence the description,
    "contact image sensor."

    Two very different technologies.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafeb, Mar 14, 2005
    #6
  7. > >
    > >> I saw a website where I guy made his own back by mounting a document
    > >> scanner where the film back would go.


    Not a back...and here are a few reasons why it cannot be. The camera would
    have to let a lot of light through the lens to work with a scanner's sensor.
    The page mentions that a ground glass might work for collecting the image on
    the focal plane....then the image would have to be collected a bit at a time
    from there. Maybe in a studio where you have control and nothing
    moves....and where you can add more light.

    The Mamiya ZD will have a 22mp chip and it's on the small end of the medium
    format range. Think of how big the file would be for an 8x10? Oh...and the
    Mamiya will cost $12k or more. I have thought of getting more quality by
    shooting film and scanning the negative. I was thinking medium format...but
    the same holds true for sheet film cameras too.
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 14, 2005
    #7
  8. P. Meschter

    rafeb Guest

    Gene Palmiter wrote:


    > The Mamiya ZD will have a 22mp chip and it's on the small end of the medium
    > format range. Think of how big the file would be for an 8x10? Oh...and the
    > Mamiya will cost $12k or more. I have thought of getting more quality by
    > shooting film and scanning the negative. I was thinking medium format...but
    > the same holds true for sheet film cameras too.



    The situation isn't nearly as desperate for
    MF film scanning. You can get a used LS-8000
    for under $1000 on eBay, or a used Polaroid/
    Microtek 120 for even less.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafeb, Mar 14, 2005
    #8
  9. P. Meschter

    P. Meschter Guest

    Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10 digital
    screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    Thanks.
    Paul


    "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    news:JMkZd.126$...
    > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
    > works for release soon?
    > Thank you.
    > PM
    >
    >
    P. Meschter, Mar 14, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <OLnZd.139$>, P. Meschter
    <> wrote:

    > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10 digital
    > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    > Thanks.
    > Paul


    Short answer? No.

    I could go on about how current technology doesn't scale up that well,
    or what expected yields would be.... but no. If it was out there, the
    effects on on the industry would be dramatic. I don't expect anything
    like that anytime soon (like, my lifetime).
    Scott Schuckert, Mar 14, 2005
    #10
  11. P. Meschter

    Sheldon Guest

    "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    news:OLnZd.139$...
    > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
    > digital
    > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    > Thanks.
    > Paul
    >
    >


    It will probably happen, but at what cost?
    > "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > news:JMkZd.126$...
    >> Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
    >> works for release soon?
    >> Thank you.
    >> PM
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Sheldon, Mar 14, 2005
    #11
  12. It will take totally new technology. Currently chips for the sensor cannot
    be made that large. The market won't exist. The most powerful digital
    cameras currently are the ones on satellites for NASA and .... rumors say...
    the CIA. Suppose they have a chip that is as large as a wafer permits.... 5
    inches square maybe. Inclusions inherent to the wafer making process means
    they will make more bad ones than good ones. Only the government can pay the
    price for the few that are successful.

    What the future holds is impossible to see. Will extra terrestrial
    manufacturing allow larger wafers? Will we see sensors made without sensors?
    Who knows. I won't wait...I will buy what I can now.


    "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    news:OLnZd.139$...
    > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10

    digital
    > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    > Thanks.
    > Paul
    >
    >
    > "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > news:JMkZd.126$...
    > > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
    > > works for release soon?
    > > Thank you.
    > > PM
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 15, 2005
    #12
  13. Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing to
    interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.

    You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and then
    you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.



    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    news:yUpZd.3553$u76.1316@trndny08...
    > It will take totally new technology. Currently chips for the sensor cannot
    > be made that large. The market won't exist. The most powerful digital
    > cameras currently are the ones on satellites for NASA and .... rumors

    say...
    > the CIA. Suppose they have a chip that is as large as a wafer permits....

    5
    > inches square maybe. Inclusions inherent to the wafer making process means
    > they will make more bad ones than good ones. Only the government can pay

    the
    > price for the few that are successful.
    >
    > What the future holds is impossible to see. Will extra terrestrial
    > manufacturing allow larger wafers? Will we see sensors made without

    sensors?
    > Who knows. I won't wait...I will buy what I can now.
    >
    >
    > "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > news:OLnZd.139$...
    > > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10

    > digital
    > > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    > > Thanks.
    > > Paul
    > >
    > >
    > > "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > > news:JMkZd.126$...
    > > > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in

    the
    > > > works for release soon?
    > > > Thank you.
    > > > PM
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    hotchkisstrio, Mar 15, 2005
    #13
  14. I don't see the array as working because there will be space between the
    sensors.

    Oh...and in case some people think that by extra terrestrial I mean
    alien....nope. I mean that there was once some talk about making wafers in
    space so that they could get larger and cleaner.

    "hotchkisstrio" <> wrote in message
    news:d15b0p$e5b$...
    > Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing to
    > interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.
    >
    > You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and then
    > you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    > news:yUpZd.3553$u76.1316@trndny08...
    > > It will take totally new technology. Currently chips for the sensor

    cannot
    > > be made that large. The market won't exist. The most powerful digital
    > > cameras currently are the ones on satellites for NASA and .... rumors

    > say...
    > > the CIA. Suppose they have a chip that is as large as a wafer

    permits....
    > 5
    > > inches square maybe. Inclusions inherent to the wafer making process

    means
    > > they will make more bad ones than good ones. Only the government can pay

    > the
    > > price for the few that are successful.
    > >
    > > What the future holds is impossible to see. Will extra terrestrial
    > > manufacturing allow larger wafers? Will we see sensors made without

    > sensors?
    > > Who knows. I won't wait...I will buy what I can now.
    > >
    > >
    > > "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > > news:OLnZd.139$...
    > > > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10

    > > digital
    > > > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    > > > Thanks.
    > > > Paul
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:JMkZd.126$...
    > > > > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in

    > the
    > > > > works for release soon?
    > > > > Thank you.
    > > > > PM
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 15, 2005
    #14
  15. rafeb <> writes:

    >CIS scanners by comparison, have no lens and no
    >mirrors, and the imaging array is as wide (or wider)
    >than the object being scanned. Hence the description,
    >"contact image sensor."


    Depends on how liberal you are about the definition of "lens". You need
    *something* to transfer the image from the plane of the platen (where
    the paper is) to the image sensor, which is about 1 cm away. The sensor
    is not really "in contact" with the image.

    I've seen a taken-apart Canon LiDE scanner. In it, the transfer optics
    is actually a long array of thousands of very tiny individual lens
    systems arranged in a two rows. I think each individual unit in this is
    a GRIN lens (gradient index glass rod cut to a specific length). Each
    unit is set up to produce a *non-inverted* image that is life size with
    a specific subject and object distance. You get thousands of
    overlapping fields of view, and because the images are all life size and
    non-inverted, they merge together into one 8.5 inch long but very narrow
    image of the paper on the platen.

    If you take the scanner apart, the part I'm talking about looks like a
    black plastic strip and not much else. You need to look at the thing
    under magnification to see the thousands of individual clear apertures,
    and even more carefully to see the images it produces. But it works.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Mar 15, 2005
    #15
  16. P. Meschter

    paul Guest

    bob wrote:

    > rafeb wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> bob wrote:
    >>
    >>> I saw a website where I guy made his own back by mounting a document
    >>> scanner where the film back would go.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That would work for a CIS scanner, but not a CCD
    >> scanner. And CIS scanners only capture intensity
    >> (ie., monochrome,) not color. (They capture color
    >> by using R/G/B LED lamps that fire once per scanline.)

    >
    >
    >
    > I found the webpage. It is a CCD scanner, and it is color, but it's not
    > a view camera:
    >
    > http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html



    I saw that before, what a hoot! Man that guy had fun. I love the garage
    door while opening!
    paul, Mar 15, 2005
    #16
  17. P. Meschter

    paul Guest

    I can imagine some other technology coming around. It might be a piece
    of cake some day soon to make them that big.

    Gene Palmiter wrote:

    > I don't see the array as working because there will be space between the
    > sensors.
    >
    > Oh...and in case some people think that by extra terrestrial I mean
    > alien....nope. I mean that there was once some talk about making wafers in
    > space so that they could get larger and cleaner.
    >
    > "hotchkisstrio" <> wrote in message
    > news:d15b0p$e5b$...
    >
    >>Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing to
    >>interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.
    >>
    >>You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and then
    >>you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>"Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    >>news:yUpZd.3553$u76.1316@trndny08...
    >>
    >>>It will take totally new technology. Currently chips for the sensor

    >
    > cannot
    >
    >>>be made that large. The market won't exist. The most powerful digital
    >>>cameras currently are the ones on satellites for NASA and .... rumors

    >>
    >>say...
    >>
    >>>the CIA. Suppose they have a chip that is as large as a wafer

    >
    > permits....
    >
    >>5
    >>
    >>>inches square maybe. Inclusions inherent to the wafer making process

    >
    > means
    >
    >>>they will make more bad ones than good ones. Only the government can pay

    >>
    >>the
    >>
    >>>price for the few that are successful.
    >>>
    >>>What the future holds is impossible to see. Will extra terrestrial
    >>>manufacturing allow larger wafers? Will we see sensors made without

    >>
    >>sensors?
    >>
    >>>Who knows. I won't wait...I will buy what I can now.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:OLnZd.139$...
    >>>
    >>>>Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
    >>>
    >>>digital
    >>>
    >>>>screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    >>>>Thanks.
    >>>>Paul
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:JMkZd.126$...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in

    >>
    >>the
    >>
    >>>>>works for release soon?
    >>>>>Thank you.
    >>>>>PM
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    paul, Mar 15, 2005
    #17
  18. But...what is the motivation? Too few will want a digital 8x10 to make it a
    commercial success and the government might have it's needs met using medium
    format.

    "paul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I can imagine some other technology coming around. It might be a piece
    > of cake some day soon to make them that big.
    >
    > Gene Palmiter wrote:
    >
    > > I don't see the array as working because there will be space between the
    > > sensors.
    > >
    > > Oh...and in case some people think that by extra terrestrial I mean
    > > alien....nope. I mean that there was once some talk about making wafers

    in
    > > space so that they could get larger and cleaner.
    > >
    > > "hotchkisstrio" <> wrote in message
    > > news:d15b0p$e5b$...
    > >
    > >>Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing

    to
    > >>interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.
    > >>
    > >>You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and

    then
    > >>you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>"Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:yUpZd.3553$u76.1316@trndny08...
    > >>
    > >>>It will take totally new technology. Currently chips for the sensor

    > >
    > > cannot
    > >
    > >>>be made that large. The market won't exist. The most powerful digital
    > >>>cameras currently are the ones on satellites for NASA and .... rumors
    > >>
    > >>say...
    > >>
    > >>>the CIA. Suppose they have a chip that is as large as a wafer

    > >
    > > permits....
    > >
    > >>5
    > >>
    > >>>inches square maybe. Inclusions inherent to the wafer making process

    > >
    > > means
    > >
    > >>>they will make more bad ones than good ones. Only the government can

    pay
    > >>
    > >>the
    > >>
    > >>>price for the few that are successful.
    > >>>
    > >>>What the future holds is impossible to see. Will extra terrestrial
    > >>>manufacturing allow larger wafers? Will we see sensors made without
    > >>
    > >>sensors?
    > >>
    > >>>Who knows. I won't wait...I will buy what I can now.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>"P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > >>>news:OLnZd.139$...
    > >>>
    > >>>>Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
    > >>>
    > >>>digital
    > >>>
    > >>>>screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    > >>>>Thanks.
    > >>>>Paul
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>"P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > >>>>news:JMkZd.126$...
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in
    > >>
    > >>the
    > >>
    > >>>>>works for release soon?
    > >>>>>Thank you.
    > >>>>>PM
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 15, 2005
    #18
  19. P. Meschter

    Paul J Gans Guest

    bob <> wrote:
    >Gene Palmiter wrote:
    >> Well....yes and no. Backs can be made to fit anything....but they won't be
    >> big enough to work the same way. You would start with stepping it down to
    >> 4x5 or medium format and then stepping it down further with the back. Since
    >> you would only be taking a small part of the image from the center its hard
    >> to image any benefit to it.


    >I saw a website where I guy made his own back by mounting a document
    >scanner where the film back would go.


    Hmmm. Sounds good for stuff that doesn't move.... ;-)

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Mar 16, 2005
    #19
  20. P. Meschter

    Rob Guest

    P. Meschter wrote:

    > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10 digital
    > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
    > Thanks.
    > Paul
    >
    >
    > "P. Meschter" <> wrote in message
    > news:JMkZd.126$...
    >
    >>Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
    >>works for release soon?
    >>Thank you.
    >>PM
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >


    You will not need a digital back that big as digital works/prints
    differently to a scanned image.
    Rob, Mar 16, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doug Yarnold

    Question Re: 8X10 Printers

    Doug Yarnold, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    986
    Jon Noble
    Jul 29, 2003
  2. Airline Pedestal

    FA: 8x10 ART COLOR NATURE PHOTO 11x14 FRAMED NEW

    Airline Pedestal, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    523
    Airline Pedestal
    Aug 12, 2003
  3. P. Meschter

    8x10 digital back vs. drum scan

    P. Meschter, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    855
    Ilya Zakharevich
    Mar 23, 2005
  4. Mr.Happy

    digital vs. film 8x10 prints

    Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    628
    Mark B.
    Oct 4, 2005
  5. flashlarue
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    718
Loading...

Share This Page