Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8x10 digital back?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:32:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
works for release soon?
Thank you.
PM

More about : 8x10 digital back

Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:03:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
> Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
> works for release soon?
> Thank you.
> PM
>
>
March 14, 2005 10:03:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Related resources
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:03:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
March 14, 2005 10:03:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:03:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
March 14, 2005 11:14:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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!
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:35:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> >
> >> 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.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:35:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:55:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
> Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
> works for release soon?
> Thank you.
> PM
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:55:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <OLnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com>, P. Meschter
<pmcsp@fast.net> 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).
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:55:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"P. Meschter" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
news:o LnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com...
> 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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
>> Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
>> works for release soon?
>> Thank you.
>> PM
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 3:21:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
news:o LnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com...
> Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
digital
> screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
>
> "P. Meschter" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
> > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
> > works for release soon?
> > Thank you.
> > PM
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 3:21:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yUpZd.3553$u76.1316@trndny08...
> It will take totally new technology. Currently chips for the sensor cannot
> be made that large. The market won't exist. The most powerful digital
> cameras currently are the ones on satellites for NASA and .... rumors
say...
> the CIA. Suppose they have a chip that is as large as a wafer permits....
5
> inches square maybe. Inclusions inherent to the wafer making process means
> they will make more bad ones than good ones. Only the government can pay
the
> price for the few that are successful.
>
> What the future holds is impossible to see. Will extra terrestrial
> manufacturing allow larger wafers? Will we see sensors made without
sensors?
> Who knows. I won't wait...I will buy what I can now.
>
>
> "P. Meschter" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:o LnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com...
> > 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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> > news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in
the
> > > works for release soon?
> > > Thank you.
> > > PM
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:10:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 15b0p$e5b$1@news01.intel.com...
> Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing to
> interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.
>
> You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and then
> you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.
>
>
>
> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:yUpZd.3553$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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> > news:o LnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
> > digital
> > > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
> > > Thanks.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > "P. Meschter" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in
> the
> > > > works for release soon?
> > > > Thank you.
> > > > PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
March 15, 2005 6:10:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 15b0p$e5b$1@news01.intel.com...
>
>>Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing to
>>interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.
>>
>>You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and then
>>you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:yUpZd.3553$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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:o LnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com...
>>>
>>>>Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
>>>
>>>digital
>>>
>>>>screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"P. Meschter" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>works for release soon?
>>>>>Thank you.
>>>>>PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:05:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> 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
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 3:12:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:r8adneqlM4fM_6vfRVn-1g@speakeasy.net...
> 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" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:D 15b0p$e5b$1@news01.intel.com...
> >
> >>Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing
to
> >>interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.
> >>
> >>You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and
then
> >>you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>news:yUpZd.3553$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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:o LnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com...
> >>>
> >>>>Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
> >>>
> >>>digital
> >>>
> >>>>screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
> >>>>Thanks.
> >>>>Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"P. Meschter" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>>>works for release soon?
> >>>>>Thank you.
> >>>>>PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:11:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob <not@not.not> 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
March 16, 2005 6:06:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
>
>>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.
March 16, 2005 6:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
>
>>Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or in the
>>works for release soon?
>>Thank you.
>>PM
>>
>>
>
>
>

They do use an array of CCD's to record images off telescopes.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:06:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hmm. You could use a Canon CCD to "scan" the full 8x10 range, of course
this would only work for landscapes or things that hold still for long
periods of time.

I thought you meant Alien technology! ;-)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kmsZd.4159$db6.4083@trndny02...
> I don't see the array as working because there will be space between the
> sensors.
>
> Oh...and in case some people think that by extra terrestrial I mean
> alien....nope. I mean that there was once some talk about making wafers in
> space so that they could get larger and cleaner.
>
> "hotchkisstrio" <paulyhotchkiss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 15b0p$e5b$1@news01.intel.com...
> > Why not a large array of "canon" sized CCD sensors with post processing
to
> > interlace the results? That's the only way I could see this happening.
> >
> > You'd need at least a 12 inch wafer just to make an 8x10 sensor, and
then
> > you'd need to make about 100 of them just to get 1 working model.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:yUpZd.3553$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" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:o LnZd.139$Kf4.35587@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > > Ummm, no gang. I was thinking bigger than that. I meant a full 8x10
> > > digital
> > > > screen up in the 100 megapixel range. Anything happening there?
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "P. Meschter" <pmcsp@fast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:JMkZd.126$Kf4.34356@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > > > Has anyone heard of an 8x10 digital back either available now or
in
> > the
> > > > > works for release soon?
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > PM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
!