50th anniversary

[agripix]

G'Day:

I think Bojan has a point about future sensors. R&D costs must be recovered with current product, but R&D goes on.

My neighbor's father-in-law works for a cell phone engineering company in Canada (inside a secure facilty which he says would make the Military green with envy), and he says his design 'division' is FOUR product releases out - make that about 2012-2014. (There are other more futuristic divisions.) His product works now, and although he was extremely tight-lipped, he said it has such a list of features, even the best current PDA/Cell/Camera/TV/GPS combo will be obsolete.

Market resistance to price always changes over time via inflation, so perhaps the Hasselblad et al Gurus/Number Crunchers have already figured that in 2010 or so, the price resistance to a bigger sensor back will be the same or less than it is now for the CFV in present form. (Maybe sensors in their present incarnation will be obsolete.)

Jurgen put it best, I think. If you are thinking about a DB, do it now. Don't wait for the next train to reach the station, because it may not be a train, and it may go to the airport.

Cheers,

Colin

PS Or buy 1000 rolls of film, more or less, and a highbrow flat bed scanner.

 

[afranklin]

Hi Bojan,

> Do you imagine that Nikon will leave this area to Canon?

Actually, yes. Nikon doesn't have the budget that Canon has. And, the Nikon lense mount is narrower than the Canon EOS (which was fortunately redesigned from the FD), and it narrow enough that typical wide angle lenses will probably not be able to make use of the sensor's increased size. That's one reason why the Kodak versions of the Nikon cameras with the full frame sensor seemed to have "failed", severe vignetting with wide angle lenses. But, perhaps, new optical designs can make up for this unfortunate phenomenon of the narrower Nikon lense mount.

Regards,

Austin

 

[wbulte]

Hi Marc,

Do you mean to say that a 645 sensor would be constructed out of two seperate silicon chips? That implies one would need to take two *matched* sensors. Which means their processing in the chip foundry must be as close as possible the same. This ensures the sensitivity etc is as much as possible matched. The 2nd problem is that one would need to have the fotoelements extremely close to the edge of the chip, at least on one side. Otherwise you would find yourself with a 'dead zone' in your image. Cutting wafers with that accuracy is not normally a requirement in a chip foundry. 3rd problem is that these 2 chips would need *extremely* accurate alignment in both X, Y and Z axis. 4th problem is that you loose one edge of the sensor for external connection. The so called bonding wires are normally connected to 'pads' on the outside of the chip. You need quite a few of those to get decent signal quality out of the chip. You would be surprised how many ground pins a chip needs, this only gets worse for high-speed analog stuff. We do not want analog noise in our pictures do we?

I could go on, but I think this already shows the complexities involved.

These days we can process wafers of 8" and 12" diameter in a chip foundry. I am not sure what wafer size the sensors are produced with, I *guess* on 8". So sticking a 645 sensor (or even a 56x56mm fullframe one for that matter ;-) is quite possible with todays wafer fabs.

It is probably an interesting exercise for the audience to "floorplan" as much 645-sized sensors on a 8" wafer. This is most likely what dictates sensor sizes more than anything else. On a wafer you want efficient packing of sensors. A wafer including processing carries a fixed price, the number of sensors on that wafer does not matter (much; each needs individual testing in the fab, which adds cost).

So, I personally think this 2-chip approach is not a solution used in real life.

Wilko

 

[najobskalf]

Austin, that's an interesting comparison - of which I was not aware until now. I suppose I keep clutching at straws! And I have faith in the Chinese.

 

[jotloob]

Austin

And the HASSELBLAD H-SYSTEM is too "narrow" to accept a bigger sensor (like 49x49) or bigger , and therefore HASSELBLAD will do everything to prevent any bigger sensor , because otherwise they are lost .
But technical progress can't be stopped by HASSELBLAD just because Christian Poulsen does not want it .
I am very curious how HASSELBLAD will manange the future .

 

[gjames52]

Full Frame Sensor>

Technically I am sure it is possible, and would probably bet that it has already been in the pipeline, as I know first hand how far ahead many items are developed before they reach the market place. The electronic industry has to function that way or they die. They have to milk each stage as long as they can to make a profit.

Until recently CFV's would fly off the shelf, now there is a price rebate here for $1,000.00 and in Europe they are also tossing in as 40mm lens. One could speculate several scenarios. One they can't sell them anymore, there is a new model ready for market, or they are bailing out of the V market.

Today, Calumet only lists four V lenses for sale and little else!

Live for today as they say.

Regards:

Gilbert

BTW-when I get my crystal ball back I will have a better answer!

 

[jotloob]

Gilbert

The price rebates here in Europe are very different and therefore I do not believe that this situation is somewhat dangerous . Patience is the mother of satisfaction .

 

[fotografz]

Yes, it is a dual read out to increase speed, not two separate chips nit together.

Austin, why aren't you working for these people? The way you comment on the engineering they all seem so completely incompetent ... a pack of monkeys making high tech imaging instruments comes to mind. I do wonder that my backs work at all the way you tell it.

I also do not understand that technical progress is a huge square sensor. How is that progress? Because Hasselblad V and Rollie's are square formats? These current files are already huge and the resolution is incredible ... a 39 multi-shot is beyond huge.

IMO, progress is useable ISO 3200 sensitivity. Progress is lightening fast capture and huge buffers for event and fashion work. Progress is accurate computerized white balance that equals current manual procedures. Progress is low temperature and long exposure performance.

Stuff like the DAC correction is real progress. Progress is the advent of the Kodak micro-lens sensor technology being employed by Hasselblad and Phase One, which is probably how Nikon can now finally make a full frame DSLR (if they actually are), and it's how Leica was able to make the M8

 

[qnu]

Marc,

Progress, for the company, would not be a huge square sensor per se, but the increased sales/income such a thing might bring.

Progress, for us photographers, would be to be able to continue using our V-Systems because the digital backs available do no longer limit the usefulness of these machines.

These cameras themselves are by no means old fashioned or even obsolete. The only thing they lack is a proper (as in: non-limiting) digital back.

If, on top of that, sensors and the electronics improve as well, so much the better.

 

[polypal]

Marc A. Williams (Fotografz) wrote on May 14:

' 2007 - 10:31 pm,Austin, why aren't you working for these people? The way you comment on the engineering they all seem so completely incompetent ... a pack of monkeys making high tech imaging instruments comes to mind. I do wonder that my backs work at all the way you tell it. '

I know from experience that a lot of teams that design hardware consist of very talented and educated people but often lack the input from someone who knows what goes on in the potential goup of users.

This has led to a number of disasters that would have been funny if they were not so tragic.

Once in a while when such a disaster has happened the need for more
input from the potential group of users leads to a change in the designer and development teams.

 

[gjames52]

Once in a while when such a disaster has happened the need for more
input from the potential group of users leads to a change in the designer and development teams.>

Automobile technicians have argued(and cursed)that point many times, for many years. Only a few times have the all knowing engineers consulted them.

Many of the engineers that I have met have a very limited field of knowledge and do not always understand the total endeavor of which they are developing a component for.


Regards:

Gilbert

 

[wbulte]

Hi Marc,

Your IMO section is interesting. Interesting as in "interesting engineering challenge".

Usable 3200 ISO sensitivity -> make sure you have sensitive, and extremely low-noise analog electronics. Lightning fast capture -> very high speed digital processing -> high clock speeds required. And guess what: high speed digital electronics produces a lot of noise. Which your sensitive analog electronics _really_ could do without. Catch-22.

I'm curious (and I'm sure Austin will chime in) if the current sensors do already have considerable amounts of mixed electronics, so analog and digital on a single chip. The reason why you want that is because going off-chip (e.g. off the sensor chip) onto another chip (e.g. for processing) is A. slow, B. requires wiring (which in turn emits more noise), C. consumes valuable chip real-estate and D. uses more power. More power -> warmer sensor -> more noise -> need for active cooling increases -> which needs even more power from the battery etc etc. Ad nauseam..

I do not think Austin claims monkeys are designing the digibacks, I think he tries to get to the point that technical excellence in a lot of cases is not economical, has too long a time-to-market, is too expensive, cannot be economically mass-produced etc.

(Austin, does DECchip 21064 still ring a bell in this context? ;-)

Wilko

 

[fotografz]

"I think he tries to get to the point that technical excellence in a lot of cases is not economical, has too long a time-to-market, is too expensive, cannot be economically mass-produced etc. "

Didn't mean for that to sound snarky, and putting it in that context, it sounds more realistic. But when stated as "being unacceptable", it belies all those factors of the real world.

It is a balance between getting the tools into hungry hands, and getting it perfect. By the time it's perfect, something else has filled those hungry hands, and the company goes bust or loses huge amounts of market share (Nikon)

Or conversley, it's rushed to market with to many flaws, the product is rejected and the company goes bust ( Kyocera/Contax).

Nothing I've experienced from Hasselblad has been insurmountable and kept the job from being done, and wasn't fixed pretty quickly with firmware/software updates.

The progress I'm seeking in the above post is not easy, but should be doable since it's being done. They have gotten to ISO 1600 with MF backs, and the new 800 speeds are very good. Canon's latest iteration, the 1DMKIII sports ISO 6400.

 

[simonpg]

Marc said: <<<<Hasselblad is focused on the high end professional market that has the business base to invest in these tools. As Willy Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "It's where the money is".

Much of our musings on this subject is backward aimed ... to be able to use our hard earned V gear collected over the years that we've come to love. >>>>

Touch&eacute; Marc!

So, sooooooo true! And in line with your apt comments, we "hear what we want to hear!"

I'm a classic ex&le of the amateur enthusiast now a proud owner of an extensive V series kit - for many years I longed for the ultimate 6x6 kit and in the meantime used a nice Bronica SQA system. I aspired to use what was obviously designed for the most demanding professionals - not by specific intent, but that was the upshot. Until such gear was available used and then the segment was under digital "revolution" pressure, such gear was really out of my reach - or at least my kit would have been comparatively skinny if not for the "digi-revolution".

Now many keen amateurs like me begin to crave for the digital generation gear; but, alas that too is initially (at least) way out of our reach - time may change that as it did with the V series generation gear.

Whatever the future holds, my V series kit is hardly likely to ever become redundant.

 

[jotloob]

Mark wrote
## IMO , progress is useable ISO 3200 sensitivity . Progress is lightening fast capture and huge buffers for event and fashion work . Progress is accurate computerized white balance that equals current manual procedures . Progress is low temperature and long exposure performance .
Stuff like the DAC correction is real progress . Progress is the advent of the Kodak micro-lens sensor technology being employed by Hasselblad and Phase One , . . . . . ##

Marc , I fully agree . But I would rather call that improvements , because these demands from photographers are well and long enough known to the sensor makers .
So , I don't want to do hair-splitting . You are absolutely right , there are still a lot of things missing in the todays high-end backs . Some of them shurely more important , than increasing the sensor size .
I am very curious , what the future will bring .

 

[simonpg]

Good point Jurgen.

I am just hoping that in this industry the manufacturers / developers actually first enhance / improve what they offer now (and what we may have already invested in at a big cost) before just releasing the next up-sized version.

Technology companies are good at ignoring current product weaknesses and just pushing ahead hard to pump out newer "bigger" versions while we keep dealing with getting maximum value out of what we already bought!

 

[uaiomex]

Jurgen wrote:
You are absolutely right , there are still a lot of things missing in the todays high-end backs . Some of them shurely more important , than increasing the sensor size .
I am very curious , what the future will bring .
---

I think increasing sensor size should be top priority. Not for the sake of increasing pixel count, but because this would get the glass to work as it was designed. If this is not important, I don't know what it is. Just ask those lucky photogs how do they feel about their full frame digital EOS cameras.

And please, do not forget that the more you compress the capture of real life (smaller area of imprint, either chemical or electronic), the more you lose in tonality and dynamic range.

Eduardo

 

[gjames52]

Technology companies are good at ignoring current product weaknesses and just pushing ahead hard to pump out newer "bigger" versions while we keep dealing with getting maximum value out of what we already bought!>

Simon:

A sad commentary on todays world.

I believe that your observation stems from the current trend in todays business world, spawned by a fast paced throw away society. Cheaper is better. Many people no longer bother with maintaining or repairing an item, just replace it, to get the "latest and greatest". However, those of us that own fine equipment know that is grave misconception that ignores the value of money well spent. How often do you hear someone ask or imply that you paid too much for something, but in time you made one purchase of an item and they have purchased several. Another truism you get what you pay for, one good one or a lot of the same junk!

As long as the consumer accepts the trend will continue to blaze a trail downhill.

Regards:

Gilbert

 

[fotografz]

"I think increasing sensor size should be top priority. Not for the sake of increasing pixel count, but because this would get the glass to work as it was designed. If this is not important, I don't know what it is."

They do work as designed with the 645 sized sensors. These sensors have a 1.1X lens factor which makes a 50mm a 55mm in terms of field-of-view ... hardly a huge loss.

Eduardo, I think this is retro thinking driven by sentimentality and/or economics. We want to preserve the past technologies because they served us so well, and are still viable because they were so good ... or because we already own them.

But I question whether retro fitting these cameras and lenses to digital applications is a wise thing to perpetuate?

Simon's comment is more to the point, and seems to be exactly what Hasselblad is concentrating on: making what innovations they have work even better ( I can attest to that ). I think Phase One is doing a pretty good job of that also with their new P plus series of backs. So is Leaf with their new Aptus "S" improvements. None of the sensors got bigger, but the use of them got better... in some cases a lot better in a pretty short amount of time.

IMO, the company that is asleep at the wheel is Zeiss. Or they were blocked by a bad business deal with Kyocera. Or both. It's interesting to note that all five of the new AF digital lenses designed for the Hy6 will come from Schneider not Zeiss.

On the Leaf web site touting the AFi (their version of the Hy6) sporting an Aptus back, it is noted that existing Rollie lenses will work, but Leaf highly recommends the use of the new Schneider AFD (auto focus digital) lenses to achieve maximum image performance.

Where the hell is Zeiss in the world of still photography? Making retro lenses for Nikons, and manual glass for M mount cameras and a few AF lenses for the crappy little Sony (Minolta) digido camera ... and the "classico" MF lenses you can't seem to buy anywhere.

 

[qnu]

Well... the only thing that makes V-System cameras and lenses "retro" is that the too small sensors make them so.
(Cause and effect, and all that.)

There's nothing "retro" about the cameras and lenses themselves. They "were" not good, they are (!) good.
The only thing is that these sensors are too small.

There is no reason to obsolete these cameras. And they only are because the then owners decided there was money in a 645 film (!) camera, so all money was commited to that project.
Now they're 'stuck' with this (excellent) H-Series. And compliments to the New Hasselblad for making it so it saved the company. But it would not be sensible to reduce potential sales by offering things that keep the V-System working as well. So the V-System now is, not retro, but left in a lurch.

If anywhere, the "retro" bit was in that business decision, that lead to the H-System (because, the visionaries had decided, there was no money in digital photography).