um, 22 megapixel CCD

[Mday]

[=http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp[/l]

nuff said

 

[Aquaman]

linkage

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[DanFungus]

*drool*

 

[vetteguy]

Too bad you could never view the whole picture at once on your monitor!

 

[Adul]

droolage! how big a file would that produce?

 

[tjdavis1138]

Good night, :Q

 

[vetteguy]

Originally posted by: Adul
droolage! how big a file would that produce?

Well, let's see...32bbp x 22,000,000 pixels = 704,000,000 bits / 8bits/byte = 88,000,000 bytes /1024 = 85,937kbytes/1024 ~= 84 megabytes.

Of course, my math could be way off there, but I think that should be right.

In other words, my "big" 128MB memory stick suddenly holds 1.5 pictures. :Q

 

[MrBond]

In other words, my "big" 128MB memory stick suddenly holds 1.5 pictures. 🙁

If you can afford a camera with a 22MP CCD, you can afford a couple 1gb microdrives or one of those photowallets that holds like 3 GB of pictures 🙂

With 6 mp cameras going for ~$800, 22mp is scary 🙂

 

[ElFenix]

1.5 x 2 inches! i wonder how hard that is to make?

 

[Mark R]

Ah. Finally an image sensor capable of producing photos which can be enlarged to larger than 10x8 without becoming grainy.

If anyone is interested here is a link to the datasheet for the smaller version of this sensor http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/kaf16802ce.pdf Kodak don't appear to have the datasheet for this particular device on their website.

They don't display the price sadly, but their defect specifications must demonstrate the difficulty with making these devices - the small one is specified to have less than 3000 dead pixels, and less than 15 dead columns.

 

[pdo]

and you would probably wait 2 minutes between each shot.😉

 

[Gunbuster]

Its a digital back, so you would have it hooked up to a laptop or desktop, and a $$$$$ med. format camera.

No mention of its equivalent shutter speed or image readout time is a bit scary

My guess is it will run at least $5,000, maybe up to $20,000 range

 

[Mark R]

It's little baby brother (the 16 MPx CCD) has a read out time of 2 seconds - I would guess that this one probably is 3 seconds. Sensitivity is quoted at 25 ISO for the back.

The camera back that this CCD goes in is very interesting - The 'light' model features just the CCD, but the standard and Hi-res models use some ingenious techniques to improve the quality of the image. All models, of course, feature standard methods of improving quality such as Peltier cooling of the CCD to reduce thermal noise.

Like most image sensors these CCDs use a Bayer filter on the front of the sensor - each pixel only responds to either red, green or blue - half are usually green. These are arranged in a grid fashion. The problem with this is that you do not get full colour information for each point in the image - you have to interpolate the colour data across the pixels to form full coloured pixels. You also may have problems with coloured fringing due to moire.

To get around this problem, the higher-end model backs, have tiny motors which move the CCD (by up to 1 pixel width in each direction), so that full RGB data is available for each pixel (4 shot), and also for the space between each pixel (16 shot).

What's more is that the CCD and back are specified to have a full 14 bit colour depth per channel (42 bit colour). With all the enhancements activated and the automatic tiling system (to enlarge the effective sensor area) files can be produced with 160million pixels - in 48 bit colour format these files are approx 1GB each (and that's for the old 16 MPx back!)

[Edited - minor corrections]

 

[owensdj]

vetteguy, I think your calculations are correct, but that image size is only for a bitmap. The images will be stored using JPEG compression which makes them far smaller than that.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Mark R
It's little baby brother (the 16 MPx CCD) has a read out time of 2 seconds - I would guess that this one probably is 3 seconds. Sensitivity is quoted at 25 ISO for the back.

The camera back that this CCD goes in is very interesting - The 'light' model features just the CCD, but the standard and Hi-res models use some ingenious techniques to improve the quality of the image. All models, of course, feature standard methods of improving quality such as Peltier cooling of the CCD to reduce thermal noise.

Like most image sensors these CCDs use a Bayer filter on the front of the sensor - each pixel is made up of 4 seperate neighbouring subpixels (1 red, 1 blue and 2 green subpixels per pixel). These are arranged in a grid fashion. The problem with this is that you do not get full colour information for each point in the image - you have to interpolate the colour data from the subpixels to form full coloured pixels. You also may have problems with coloured fringing due to moire.

To get around this problem, the higher-end model backs, have tiny motors which move the CCD (by up to 1 sub-pixel width in each direction), so that full RGB data is available for each sub pixel (4 shot), and also for the space between each subpixel (16 shot).

What's more is that the CCD and back are specified to have a full 14 bit colour depth per channel (42 bit colour). With all the enhancements activated and the automatic tiling system (to enlarge the effective sensor area) files can be produced with 160million pixels - in 48 bit colour format these files are approx 1GB each (and that's for the old 16 MPx back!)

Wow. Totally awesome! 😀

Anyway, /me thinks that some technological advancement is going to have to appear in the area of laptop hard drives and/or removable storage, since right now you could hope to get only 2 or 3 images of over 1GB each on to a DVD+R. Also, some 3GIO gigabit ethernet cards are in order, because it would take near to forever to transfer said images from one's laptop to one's main system (which presumably would have a RAID 5 array of many of those 300GB SATA drives). 😉

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: owensdj
vetteguy, I think your calculations are correct, but that image size is only for a bitmap. The images will be stored using JPEG compression which makes them far smaller than that.

While you could probably choose to use JPEG compression I'm sure you could capture the images in the uncompressed TIFF format.


Lethal

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: owensdj
vetteguy, I think your calculations are correct, but that image size is only for a bitmap. The images will be stored using JPEG compression which makes them far smaller than that.

While you could probably choose to use JPEG compression I'm sure you could capture the images in the uncompressed TIFF format.

Lethal

Considering that the CCD in question is designed for high end medium format cameras (presumably to be used in studios considering its low ISO speed), I doubt that the users thereof would want to reduce the quality of their image any by applying a lossy JPEG compression to it. Rather, they'd use TIFF with lossless compression, or some other format capable of storing the extra bits per channel of color information that the CCD is capable of acquiring (TIFF and Photoshop's proprietary format are both capable of up to 16 bits per channel, and maybe more). Of course, I'm really not "in the know" when it comes to high end digital stuff, but this is all based on simple logic, considering that the data from that CCD would be used to make 16x20 and possibly larger prints. 🙂

 

[mithrandir2001]

Damn, that's about enough to fully capture all the detail in a 6x9cm medium format frame.