Re: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
Shough, Dean wrote: I was wondering if there is in the market any real camera back vendor; I think that Imacon, Leaf, CreoScitex, etc. are making 4 and 16 shoots digital camera backs that can produce indeed files at 4000x6000 pixels, BUT that size is reached by interpolation! I believe that the Kodak DCS Pro Back with 4000 x 4000 pixels is the largest commercial, single shot camera back available. But aren't those really just 4000 x 4000 *sensors* (not pixels), and since each pixel is made up of an R, G B (and usually an extra G) sensor, it would mean that it's really just 1000 x 1000...the rest is interpolation. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
For an estimated 13,000+ UK pounds, I think I would be wanting at least 4Kx4K pixels :-) Yes, the DCS Pro back is definitely a 16Mp device. Try here for a quick summary: http://photo.askey.net/news/0009/00091901kodakproback.asp Harvey wrote: But aren't those really just 4000 x 4000 *sensors* (not pixels), and since each pixel is made up of an R, G B (and usually an extra G) sensor, it would mean that it's really just 1000 x 1000...the rest is interpolation. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
No, the Kodak back does not use interpolation to achieve 4k x 4k But aren't those really just 4000 x 4000 *sensors* (not pixels), and since each pixel is made up of an R, G B (and usually an extra G) sensor, it would mean that it's really just 1000 x 1000...the rest is interpolation.
RE: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
What information can you reference that says that? Their brochure shows it as a single sensor, not three sensors and a beam splitter. If that is true, then it either take three successive shots, using different color filters for each shot, or it is NOT a true 4k x 4k pixel back, but a 4k x 4k sensor back. It says no where in the documentation I have (user's guide and product sheet) that it is a multi-exposure back. I would conclude, without any further information, that is does use a color quad, and does interpolate the color information as was speculated in the other post. BTW, it would be 2000 x 2000, not 1000 x 1000... ;-) No, the Kodak back does not use interpolation to achieve 4k x 4k But aren't those really just 4000 x 4000 *sensors* (not pixels), and since each pixel is made up of an R, G B (and usually an extra G) sensor, it would mean that it's really just 1000 x 1000...the rest is interpolation.
RE: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
Austin wrote: ... I would conclude, without any further information, that is does use a color quad, and does interpolate the color information as was speculated in the other post. BTW, it would be 2000 x 2000, not 1000 x 1000... ;-) So, pro photographers are being asked to pay an extortionate amount for a device which will only give about 180 pixels per inch on an 11 x 8 printout, from something originally taken on say a Hasselblad?? I understand your concerns and explanation of sensor operation, but if the DCS Pro really only gives a 'true' 4Mp, surely the ouput will give the game away - no-one in their right mind would pay that much for it. I must be missing something obvious.. (It's Friday, so my brain may be out of gear..) mt
Re: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
Mark T. wrote: Austin wrote: ... I would conclude, without any further information, that is does use a color quad, and does interpolate the color information as was speculated in the other post. BTW, it would be 2000 x 2000, not 1000 x 1000... ;-) So, pro photographers are being asked to pay an extortionate amount for a device which will only give about 180 pixels per inch on an 11 x 8 printout, from something originally taken on say a Hasselblad?? I understand your concerns and explanation of sensor operation, but if the DCS Pro really only gives a 'true' 4Mp, surely the ouput will give the game away - no-one in their right mind would pay that much for it. I must be missing something obvious.. (It's Friday, so my brain may be out of gear..) mt I don't think you're missing anything. It's why all these cameras do well with broad color objects (like cars) and don't do well with finely detailed subjects, like distance landscapes in winter with lots of tree branches. It's a matter of interpolation...broad areas are easier to interpolate more accurately than areas of tiny detail. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
kmh wrote: No, the Kodak back does not use interpolation to achieve 4k x 4k But aren't those really just 4000 x 4000 *sensors* (not pixels), and since each pixel is made up of an R, G B (and usually an extra G) sensor, it would mean that it's really just 1000 x 1000...the rest is interpolation. How can you say that if there is only one sensor per color and a pixel is made up of 4 sensors (an extra G). Beyond Kodak's claims that is. They cannot pack that many sensors into a capture device with current technology. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Any real 4000x6000 camera back???
--- Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: or it is NOT a true 4k x 4k pixel back, but a 4k x 4k sensor back. Depends on how the advertiser defines a pixel ... ;) Yeah, I've thought about that...and I don't know any definition of color pixels that only includes one of the three colors...obviously, BW is a single value...but these cameras aren't monochrome... 24 bit color pixels consist of one 8 bit value of each of the three colors... 36 bit of one 12 bit value of each of the three colors...and that's a LOT more data than you get out of the sensor! A 4k x 4k sensor, say at 8 bits/site (for sake of ease)...gives you 16,777,216 bytes. A file that is 4k x 4k x 24 bits/pixel (8 bits for each color) gives you 50,331,648 bytes. Obviously, all that data isn't original image data, it had to be created somehow...
