Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive?

Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed scanner?
Thanks.

 

I would suspect the reject rate for large camera CCDs is the culprit.

Gary Eickmeier

 

Is there a difference between a scanning back CCD and a flatbed
scanner CCD? They are both linear (one-dimensional) CCD's, and they
might actually be several small ones. They're not like the large
two-dimensional CCD's used in DSLR's.

 

Counter questions:

1. Is there any such thing as an "MF scanning back"? (This is a serious
question: I've only heard of non-scanning digital backs for MF. Which are
expensive because chip cost goes up exponentially (well, polynomially with a
large exponent) with area.)

2. How many LF scanning backs do you think they've sold?

3. How much do LF scanning backs cost? (I've never even thought about price
of the things; the glacial speed of the things makes them less than
interesting...)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

Anagramm backs for one

 

See:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Dunno if you'd count 6x17 as MF or LF. I counted it as MF since it's a
traditional rollfilm panorama format.

If it's more than a handful, the prices I've seen are a bit steep.
Here's an attempt at a home-made scanning camera, from before the days
of good low cost consumer digicams:

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

The results aren't that great but it was dirt cheap. What I'm
wondering is whether a serious one is really that much more complex.
I just found this too, which is also interesting:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-demo-scanner-cam.html

The 6x17 thing mentioned above is $36,000, though including the camera.

 

There is a lit more to them then a flatbed scanner in that you need to
keep the scan plane really flat if you plan to use any of the lenses
with low f/numbers.

But overall if you were making a lot of them the cost should really be
in the few hundreds of dollars.

As it is you are most likely paying for NRE cost and not production
cost.

Scott

 

Not to mention keeping the damn things cool.

 

Are you talking about keeping the CCD cool, I have never had a problem
with
that as they are very low power devices.

Scott

 

Betterlight backs run from approximently $10K to $25K depending on
resolution and scanning speed (an oxymoron). Older ones appear on Ebay
every once in a while for and go for $2K - $5K. Kodak once was selling
a bunch of Betterlights for a grand apeice and I missed it. They were
either looking at the technology or thinking of buying the company and
did neither. When I had a studio I was really looking at them. Phase
One also made a scanning back that was a little more cumbersome. Aus
Jena had the EyeLike which was a combination scanning and 6mp (if I
remember correctly) still. With the newer sensors available I doubt it
is a big selling product.

Tom

Tom

 

SNIP

In the US$ 10,000 - 35,000 range for the popular PhaseOne series, MF
backs only.
The Betterlight scanning backs (for 4x5 inch) in the US$ 6,500 -
20,000 range.

 

Maybe the new ones. Traditionally a problem, though.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04090701creoleafaptus.asp

"Technology:
Full frame (not in size but in readout method) CCD dual sensor readout (DSR)
for double capture speed (patent pending)
Bluetooth® wireless technology
Cooling fan for efficient heat removal"

 

It's not just the size but the grade of CCD. These are not "million
off a production line Canon or Sony products" these are graded CCDs of
much higher consistency and quality than the DSLR stuff out there. If
you are fanatical about it, you can spec the grade you want and a
medium format CCD 20 meg in grade "A" for lack of a better term would
likely cost $100,000+. Of course, unlike consumer cams you'd know
things like how many dead pixels, true pixel uniformity, etc.

 

These are very precise backs, for stationary objects they are extremely
sharp, better than any 35mm based DSLR, some say better than 4x5 film.
The scanning part has more of a comparison to level of a Creo scanner
than your average flatbed. Check out www.betterlight.com. Just an
admirer

Tom

 

Hmm, looks like they're less expensive than before (54MP model starts
at $6.5K) but does anyone use Creo scanners any more? Are they really
that much better than the $500 Epson?

Here's an older 500 megapixel unit for a mere $9K:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260040299680

 

No wait, they're using the Sigma marketing trick of describing
R,G,B as separate pixels. Resolution of that unit is 3750x5000
or 18.75MP.

Oops, 12000x15990, or 192 MP.

 

Paul Rubin schreef:

is there a brand that doesn't?

 

I don't know of any other brands that do that. I realize most
digicams use Bayer sensors and therefore can't available themselves of
the trick, but there are many 3-ccd video cameras and scanners that
don't use Bayer sensors, whose manufacturers don't use the trick. The
Betterlight back is essentially a specialized type of scanner and
should specify resolution the same way it's specified for other
scanners.

 

If you are taking about the cooling fan there is a lot more then the
CCD that will be producing heat, the the motor and image processor.
The CCD is pretty minor.

Scott

 

I WAS referring to to the OP in reference to digital backs in general.
You were the one that got into the CCD thing.