Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

High res CCD camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:14:42 PM

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

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a CCD camera with the following specs (or better)
11 Mpixel (4008 x 2672)
dynamic range: 12 bit (66dB) monochrome
Firewire interface
price: about 18k $US (or less)

Redlake is offering a camera with similar parameters:
http://www.redlake.com/es11000.html

Does anyone know a company offering a "better" camera?
The price is the limiting factor here, so I'm mainly interested in higher
resolution and/or wider dynamic range.

Cheers,
Tom

--
Thomas Gutzler
Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory
University of Western Australia

More about : high res ccd camera

Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:14:43 PM

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:14:42 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a CCD camera with the following specs (or better)
> 11 Mpixel (4008 x 2672)
> dynamic range: 12 bit (66dB) monochrome
> Firewire interface
> price: about 18k $US (or less)
>
> Redlake is offering a camera with similar parameters:
> http://www.redlake.com/es11000.html
>
> Does anyone know a company offering a "better" camera?
> The price is the limiting factor here, so I'm mainly interested in higher
> resolution and/or wider dynamic range.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
Have a look at canon EOS 1D mark 11 N
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:14:43 PM

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

Thomas Gutzler wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a CCD camera with the following specs (or better)
> 11 Mpixel (4008 x 2672)
> dynamic range: 12 bit (66dB) monochrome
> Firewire interface
> price: about 18k $US (or less)
>
> Redlake is offering a camera with similar parameters:
> http://www.redlake.com/es11000.html
>
> Does anyone know a company offering a "better" camera?
> The price is the limiting factor here, so I'm mainly interested in
> higher resolution and/or wider dynamic range.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
See:
http://www.sbig.com

the Research STL-11000M/CM camera is 4008 x 2672:
http://www.sbig.com/sbwhtmls/online.htm
and is only $9,000 for class 1 research grade cooled system.
Output is, I believe, 16-bit, but I could not find
that on the page. It is a top performer in the
astrophotography world. It only has a USB interface.

Roger Clark
Related resources
September 14, 2005 6:14:44 PM

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

"Neil Ellwood" <carl.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.09.14.09.22.24.715621@btopenworld.com...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:14:42 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm looking for a CCD camera with the following specs (or better)
>> 11 Mpixel (4008 x 2672)
>> dynamic range: 12 bit (66dB) monochrome
>> Firewire interface
>> price: about 18k $US (or less)
>>
>> Redlake is offering a camera with similar parameters:
>> http://www.redlake.com/es11000.html
>>
>> Does anyone know a company offering a "better" camera?
>> The price is the limiting factor here, so I'm mainly interested in higher
>> resolution and/or wider dynamic range.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
> Have a look at canon EOS 1D mark 11 N
>
The EOS 1D/1Ds mk.II are not CCD cameras. They may well do the job but are a
different device.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:14:45 PM

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

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:rIydnaxZ1YqWkbXeRVn-oA@rogers.com...
>
> "Neil Ellwood" <carl.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.09.14.09.22.24.715621@btopenworld.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:14:42 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a CCD camera with the following specs (or better)
>>> 11 Mpixel (4008 x 2672)
>>> dynamic range: 12 bit (66dB) monochrome
>>> Firewire interface
>>> price: about 18k $US (or less)
>>>
>>> Redlake is offering a camera with similar parameters:
>>> http://www.redlake.com/es11000.html
>>>
>>> Does anyone know a company offering a "better" camera?
>>> The price is the limiting factor here, so I'm mainly interested in
>>> higher
>>> resolution and/or wider dynamic range.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tom
>> Have a look at canon EOS 1D mark 11 N
>>
> The EOS 1D/1Ds mk.II are not CCD cameras. They may well do the job but are
> a different device.
>
>
Canon has acheived getting nearly artifact free images from their sensors
(CMOS). I've not seen better from Nikon or the others using CCD sensors. I
think it's the on board processing more than anything. I'm not sure they
could do any better given what has to be processed with the Bayer color
array. So, I'm not sure of the OP CCD requirement.
-S
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:14:46 PM

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:38:47 -0400, "SimonLW" <nospam@donet.com>
wrote:

snipped
>>
>Canon has acheived getting nearly artifact free images from their sensors
>(CMOS). I've not seen better from Nikon or the others using CCD sensors. I
>think it's the on board processing more than anything. I'm not sure they
>could do any better given what has to be processed with the Bayer color
>array. So, I'm not sure of the OP CCD requirement.
>-S

Nikon use a CMOS sensor in the D2X

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/

Looks like they think they need CMOS for their flagship camera to.


****************************************************

"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."

Samuel Johnson
"Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756
September 15, 2005 1:08:25 AM

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:14:42 +0800, "Thomas Gutzler"
<tgutzler@ee.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm looking for a CCD camera with the following specs (or better)
>11 Mpixel (4008 x 2672)
>dynamic range: 12 bit (66dB) monochrome
>Firewire interface
>price: about 18k $US (or less)
>
>Redlake is offering a camera with similar parameters:
>http://www.redlake.com/es11000.html
>
>Does anyone know a company offering a "better" camera?
>The price is the limiting factor here, so I'm mainly interested in higher
>resolution and/or wider dynamic range.
>
>Cheers,
> Tom

Fingerlake Instruments. Maybe.
Sbig.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:32:27 AM

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

> See:
> http://www.sbig.com
>
> the Research STL-11000M/CM camera is 4008 x 2672:
> http://www.sbig.com/sbwhtmls/online.htm
> and is only $9,000 for class 1 research grade cooled system.
> Output is, I believe, 16-bit, but I could not find
> that on the page. It is a top performer in the
> astrophotography world. It only has a USB interface.
>
> Roger Clark

Now that's a good one. The SBIG cameras are the bread and butter for serious
amateur (and some professional) astronomers. (I use the SBIG ST-2000XMI for
extreme low-light industrial applications. Applications, for which one
cannot (yet) use a CMOS based image device.)

But I think, the original poster does not yet know what he's looking for. He
did not specify whether he intends to use a C-mount device, Peltier cooled
CCD, and/or high frame rate. I only whish that people could be more specific
what they are actually have in mind. Maybe they should explain their
application rather than tell us that they are looking for a 66db camera at
12-bit. Especially for 18k, he should be able to get the right device if he
were asking the right questions ;-)

Gregor
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:19:40 PM

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

Hi,

thanks for all the replies, I found some interesting new products.
Unfortunately they all seem to have just a USB interface, which makes
image readout a really long procedure. Even with USB 2.0 is seems to take
25s for an 11MPixel image to download
(http://www.fli-cam.com/downloads/Downloadtimes.PDF), which I don't
understand. We need real time acquisition (10fps) in low res (binning) for
alignment and we need to take at least 2 images per secound in high
resolution which obviously requires firewire or CameraLink. This is
probably the part where another large amount of money goes to.
We also need a large (and linear) dynamic range. CMOS can't do that as
good as CCD.
Seems Redlake is still ahead.

Cheers,
Tom
--
Thomas Gutzler
Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory
University of Western Australia
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:19:41 PM

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

Thomas Gutzler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for all the replies, I found some interesting new products.
> Unfortunately they all seem to have just a USB interface, which makes
> image readout a really long procedure. Even with USB 2.0 is seems to
> take 25s for an 11MPixel image to download
> (http://www.fli-cam.com/downloads/Downloadtimes.PDF), which I don't
> understand. We need real time acquisition (10fps) in low res (binning)
> for alignment and we need to take at least 2 images per secound in
> high resolution which obviously requires firewire or CameraLink. This
> is probably the part where another large amount of money goes to.
> We also need a large (and linear) dynamic range. CMOS can't do that as
> good as CCD.
> Seems Redlake is still ahead.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom

Hi Tom...

Now you have me really confused... course that's not hard to do, old,
long retired, and stroke damaged, so I have a valid excuse :) 

Confused about 25 seconds to move 11 megs via usb 2 is out of the
question. I move 40 meg pictures (virtually) instantly!

Is it possible that you're not really talking about usb speed, but
rather the card reading/writing time? Because it so, then your quoted
time is still really slow, but within the realm of an honest mistake. :) 

And if that's the case, then if your application uses the
camera/computer together then why write/read any flash memory at all?

Just move it from the camera to the computer and it will surely be
fast enough to satisfy anyone :) 

Apologies if I've misunderstood your situation.

Ken
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:28:33 PM

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

Hi Gregor,

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:32:27 +0800, GTO <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> But I think, the original poster does not yet know what he's looking
> for. He did not specify whether he intends to use a C-mount device,
> Peltier cooled CCD, and/or high frame rate.

We don't care about the mount, because we're not going to have lenses
directly
attached to the camera at the moment - it's still an experimental setup.
Cooling is less important, because we intend to have short integration
times
(and thus high frame rates). As I wrote in my other email, we want to use
binning to achieve a higher frame rate to adjust the setup and then take
some
high resolution images as fast as possible with exposure times of, say,
10-100 ms.

> I only whish that people could be more specific what they are actually
> have in mind. Maybe they should explain their
> application rather than tell us that they are looking for a 66db camera
> at
> 12-bit. Especially for 18k, he should be able to get the right device if
> he
> were asking the right questions ;-)

You are right. Maybe he should have done that.
We want to record holograms of tissue - visible laser light scattered by a
sample,
then colimated and interfered with a reference beam. Looking at the
interference
pattern, it's possible to draw conclusions about the composition of the
sample.
Enough reason for a high dynamic range, I guess - and of course, the
bigger the
resolution, the bigger the field of view. -> Less images for a certain
area.

Cheers,
Tom
--
Thomas Gutzler
Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory
University of Western Australia
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:45:17 PM

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

http://www.betterlight.com/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04020304phaseonepback...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0303/03031103fujifilmmfbac...

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

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/rsystem/digitalmod...



I had looked into this technology last month and in fact have since tossed
all my references to these cameras and camera backs. However, worldwide I
did immediately find about 10 different manufacturers of high resolution
backs and systems to upwards of 100 Megapixels in various configurations.

I have included three different manufacturers referenced products above and
I suggest you go the manufacturers sites for viewing of the various options
that they have an the software they have. I suspect that with a little bit
of Googling, for about 4 or 5 hours, you'll be able to come up with a list
of units and then you just need to contact their representatives for access
to evaluation units.


"Thomas Gutzler" <tgutzler@ee.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:o p.sw4ji2gpc6uvff@tonnyx.ee.uwa.edu.au...
> Hi,
>
> thanks for all the replies, I found some interesting new products.
> Unfortunately they all seem to have just a USB interface, which makes
> image readout a really long procedure. Even with USB 2.0 is seems to take
> 25s for an 11MPixel image to download
> (http://www.fli-cam.com/downloads/Downloadtimes.PDF), which I don't
> understand. We need real time acquisition (10fps) in low res (binning) for
> alignment and we need to take at least 2 images per secound in high
> resolution which obviously requires firewire or CameraLink. This is
> probably the part where another large amount of money goes to.
> We also need a large (and linear) dynamic range. CMOS can't do that as
> good as CCD.
> Seems Redlake is still ahead.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
> --
> Thomas Gutzler
> Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory
> University of Western Australia
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:54:11 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:50:51 +0800, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Thomas Gutzler wrote:
>> Unfortunately they all seem to have just a USB interface, which makes
>> image readout a really long procedure. Even with USB 2.0 is seems to
>> take 25s for an 11MPixel image to download
>> (http://www.fli-cam.com/downloads/Downloadtimes.PDF), which I don't
>> understand.
>
> Hi Tom...
>
> Now you have me really confused... course that's not hard to do, old,
> long retired, and stroke damaged, so I have a valid excuse :) 
>
> Confused about 25 seconds to move 11 megs via usb 2 is out of the
> question. I move 40 meg pictures (virtually) instantly!
>
> Is it possible that you're not really talking about usb speed, but
> rather the card reading/writing time? Because it so, then your quoted
> time is still really slow, but within the realm of an honest mistake. :) 

Ken,

I couldn't find any information about the amount of RAM integrated to the
camera but I assume that it's just enough to store one or two images. I
assume there is no such thing as a memory card in cameras like that.
Looking at the datasheet of the Kodak KAI-11000 CCD sensor, it is possible
to get framerates of 2.5fps (Single output) or 4.6fps (Dual output), since
the chip is using a pixel clock of 28 MHz. I would instantly fire the
engineer
that makes the memory of such a camera to its bottleneck.
I know that USB 2.0 should be able to transfer 480 Mbit/s. That's why I
can't
really understand the 25 secounds. Anyway, USB transfer rate drops, if
other USB
devices are used at the same time (mouse, keyboard etc). That's why I'd
prefer
firewire.

> Apologies if I've misunderstood your situation.

Apologies if I didn't get your point :) 

Tom
--
Thomas Gutzler
Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory
University of Western Australia
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:54:12 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:54:11 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote:

> I know that USB 2.0 should be able to transfer 480 Mbit/s. That's why
> I can't really understand the 25 secounds. Anyway, USB transfer rate
> drops, if other USB devices are used at the same time (mouse,
> keyboard etc). That's why I'd prefer firewire.

Are you sure that all of your USB 2.0 equipment is actually USB
2.0 High Speed? USB 2.0 Full Speed is much slower, about the same
speed as USB 1.x, and could account for the slow transfer rate
you're getting. I don't know enough about card readers to know if
that might be your bottleneck (if you're using them) but I've
noticed that B&H sells card readers or adapters from the same
manufacturer (Sandisk, I think) with different speed ratings.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:41:02 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:46:44 +0800, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:54:11 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote:
>
>> I know that USB 2.0 should be able to transfer 480 Mbit/s. That's why
>> I can't really understand the 25 secounds. Anyway, USB transfer rate
>> drops, if other USB devices are used at the same time (mouse,
>> keyboard etc). That's why I'd prefer firewire.
>
> Are you sure that all of your USB 2.0 equipment is actually USB
> 2.0 High Speed? USB 2.0 Full Speed is much slower, about the same
> speed as USB 1.x, and could account for the slow transfer rate
> you're getting.

Now I'm confused. Are you saying there is
- USB 2.0 Full Speed which is 'the same' as USB 1.x
- USB 2.0 High Speed which is much faster than USB 2.0 Full Speed?

Anyways, I don't have equipment right now. It's all theory. The camera
manufacturer company sais that it takes 25 secounds. I didn't prove that.
And I don't want to :) 

Tom

--
Thomas Gutzler
Optical+Biomedical Engineering Laboratory
University of Western Australia
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:41:03 PM

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

Thomas Gutzler wrote:
[]
> Now I'm confused. Are you saying there is
> - USB 2.0 Full Speed which is 'the same' as USB 1.x
> - USB 2.0 High Speed which is much faster than USB 2.0 Full Speed?

Unfortunately, that is the case. Very misleading! To get the maximum
speed you need hi-speed versions of everything. But it's worth it (at
least for downloading from SD or CF memory cards to your PC). For more
information, please see:

http://www.everythingusb.com/usb2/faq.htm

David
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:41:03 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:41:02 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote:

>> Are you sure that all of your USB 2.0 equipment is actually USB
>> 2.0 High Speed? USB 2.0 Full Speed is much slower, about the same
>> speed as USB 1.x, and could account for the slow transfer rate
>> you're getting.
>
> Now I'm confused. Are you saying there is
> - USB 2.0 Full Speed which is 'the same' as USB 1.x
> - USB 2.0 High Speed which is much faster than USB 2.0 Full Speed?

Yes, at least as far as trasnsfer speed is concerned. That has
caused much confusion, and it probably was intentional, as the USB 2
logos usually don't distinguish between the two types. USB 2 Full
Speed and USB 2 High Speed may have some advantages over USB 1.x,
but for most people the primary advantage would be speed, and there,
USB Full Speed doesn't help in any meaningful way.

> Anyways, I don't have equipment right now. It's all theory. The camera
> manufacturer company sais that it takes 25 secounds. I didn't prove that.
> And I don't want to :) 

Then that camera is insufficient for your purposes. But you knew
that all along from the camera's spec's. Whether it had a USB 1,
USB 2 Full Speed, USB 2 High Speed, Fire Wire or a SCSI port, 25
seconds to transfer one image is far too slow for what you need.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 11:25:45 AM

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

> We don't care about the mount, because we're not going to have lenses
> directly
> attached to the camera at the moment - it's still an experimental setup.

You need to consider your optical setup before you buy your imaging device.
The resolution of the lens, working distance and required magnification will
determine whether your choice of CCD size and the amount of square pixels
makes sense. If it is an experimental setup you should consider C-mount
since you can get a huge amount of different adapters and lenses for a
C-mount setup.

> Cooling is less important, because we intend to have short integration
> times
> (and thus high frame rates). As I wrote in my other email, we want to use
> binning to achieve a higher frame rate to adjust the setup and then take
> some
> high resolution images as fast as possible with exposure times of, say,
> 10-100 ms.
>

There are many CCD imaging devices you could use. 10 to 100 ms per exposure
is not a problem. The problem is fps. Since you were asking for an IEEE 1394
interface, I assume that you would like to have around 20 fps at full
resolution. (For holography, you will need a high frame rate!) That's not
too easily accomplished at very high resolution. But you may also consider
1Gbit LAN, which seems to compete with Firewire cameras these days.

> You are right. Maybe he should have done that.
> We want to record holograms of tissue - visible laser light scattered by a
> sample,
> then colimated and interfered with a reference beam. Looking at the
> interference
> pattern, it's possible to draw conclusions about the composition of the
> sample.
> Enough reason for a high dynamic range, I guess - and of course, the
> bigger the
> resolution, the bigger the field of view. -> Less images for a certain
> area.
>

With visible light, you mean monochromatic light in the visible spectrum.
Right? What wavelength? Some CCD's have a better response at certain
wavelengths than others. Look at the spectral response curves and the
quantum efficiencies
(http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/digitalimaging/conce...).
Again, the application narrows down the selection. And don't forget about
the optics (see above).

Another link of interest could be
http://www.fairchildimaging.com/main/prod_fpa_ccd_area....

Gregor
!