Canon Develops 8 X 8 Inch Digital CMOS Sensor

dh003i writes "Canon has developed a 8 x 8 inch CMOS digital sensor. It will be able to capture an image with 1/100th the light intensity required by a DSLR and will be able to record video at 60 fps in lighting half the intensity of moonlight. There are already many excellent quality lenses designed to cover 8 x 10 inches, although Canon may develop some of their own designed specifically for their requirements."

Coming soon?

[Bryansix]

The article did not explain if this would be incorporated into a camera anytime soon. Also I wonder how it compares to the Hasselblad digital backs and cameras. http://www.hasselbladusa.com/ [hasselbladusa.com]

what we could get?

[Fri13]

Moonlight on the earth surface or moonlight of the moon?

Taking photos of the moon is same thing as taking photos of the bright sunlight of theearth surface. Like 1/125 f:11 ISO 100.

No but really, that is impressive but depends from the aperture and lens quality do we get better than f:0.4 or something. But that just means the A/D conversion is impressive at that size of sensor so we might see very noiseless ISO of 250 000 setting.

But there really is demand to get a old formats back. Especially if the megapixel amount would be same as with negative. What is not going to happend because Canon likes more to make bigger sensors than tight megapixels. Thing about A4 (197x210mm) sized full size architecture camera. On such negative with ISO 50-100 you can capture more details than what you could even think about with digital cameras.

Re:no resolution

[Bryansix]

Actually, they use software to merge the photos. Otherwise the photos would suck.

Re:back to old style camera sizes?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

For architectural photography, and many landscapes, nothing, but nothing, beats a view camera. If you take a picture of a building with a standard DSLR, the picture will look like a pyramid, because the film plane was at an angle to the building. With a view cameras, with swings and tilts, you can have the lens and film plane parallel to the walls of the building, giving you a much more natural look.

Re:Resolution...?

[m2shariy]

RTFA: This follows last week's development announcement of Canon's 120 megapixel 29.2 x 20.2mm APS-H CMOS sensor. They are different sensors.

Re:back to old style camera sizes?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Lenses for 8" x 10" (and 4" x 5") cameras have both the the aperture iris and shutter (which uses an adjustable mechanical clockwork) built in. Plus, they need a lot of extra film plane coverage, to allow for swings and tilts.

Re:no resolution

[shams42]

Ahem. Remember that you have to account for the Bayseian Filter in front of the sensor.

It's not a "Bayseian filter" [sic], it's a Bayer matrix [wikipedia.org].

Re:no resolution

[Whiternoise]

That's not the whole story. The actual size of the HST sensor is something like 45mm square (or maybe diagonally). Hubble takes amazing pictures for a few reasons. 1. It's got an 8 foot (2.4m) collecting mirror, so its light gathering prowess is amazing compared to normal cameras - like most telescopes. This means that the sensor is only effective because Hubble can direct so much light onto it. 2. It tracks the sky - like motorised ground based telescopes it is incredibly good at pointing in the same place for extended periods of time. So it can take longer exposures to get more light in. The Deep Field was taken with exposure times of roughly 1200 seconds, for instance. I assume it could expose for longer if it was at a Lagrange point and didn't have to contend with orbiting the Earth. 3. It's in space.. so there is very little in the way of light pollution (besides the sun!) and no atmospheric diffraction limit. Presumably they also make "panoramas" of the images to make them appear larger in print. The famous "Pillars of Heaven" shot is certainly not one image.

Re:back to old style camera sizes?

[LordKronos]

Last time I looked, which waasn't that long ago, there were two DSLR tilt-shift lenses on the market, they cost about $3,000, and the coverage they had was unimpressive.

It must have been a quite a LONG time ago, because Canon has had 3 tilt-shift lenses available for years. The were released in 1991, and are still available today. A few years ago they added a 4th lens to the batch (and updated one of the old models with a
new version). So your choices are:

17mm f/4
24mm f/3.5
45mm f/2.8
90mm f/2.8

Also, when I checked a few years ago, the cheapest one was under $1500. Today they range from $1200 to $2200.

Re:no resolution

[hedwards]

That's not true. Canon's professional cameras have larger sensors combined with higher pixel counts, however, once you hit a certain point where you're out resolving the lens, you're not going to get a whole lot out of adding more pixels without enlarging the area by more than that. Which is why the full frame 35mm format will always be capable of having more pixels than the APC-S or 4/3 formats will, at some point you hit the point of out resolving the lens at which point you're only option is to go larger. No technical wizardry in chip or in the camera hardware will ever make up for that.

Same goes for lens aberrations of various sorts, you can make them less obvious, but at the end of the day, you're still sacrificing image quality and counting on the camera system to do the right thing. But you're still going to lose detail and introduce other image problems.

Re:Coming soon?

[blhack]

What you're saying is absolutely insane, I'm sorry.

The sensor in my copier costs, what, $10? Maybe?

You're talking about replacing that with something that would likely cost over $100,000 as well as well as the optics to support it.

The sensor in a fax machine and the sensor in a camera are *totally* different things.

Re:back to old style camera sizes?

[ffreeloader]

The 35mm tilt/shift lenses provide nothing like the range of flexibility provided by a view camera.

I've looked at both and a DSLR + tilt/shift lens is a poor substitute for a view camera if you are looking range of adjustment, quality of image, and the size of print possible without pixelation or blurring. The DSLR sensor is just too small and the 35mm tilt/shift lenses 2 axes of adjustment cannot compare with the 3 axes of adjustment available in a view camera. Plus, the view camera has a much greater range of adjustment. There's really no comparison between the two.

Re:Coming soon?

[shawb]

Bigger CCD does not necessarily mean higher pixel counts. In this application it means that each pixel will receive more photons per exposure, allowing for much better low light photography (I.E. less grainy.) Making larger CCDs previously meant higher latency (and therefore more motion blur or related distortion, in addition to lower framerate in video applications) due to limits in the speed of transfer of electrons in the medium. The innovative bit here is that Canon apparently came up with a circuit design that eliminates this latency.

Re:Shutter speed

[rssrss]

Large Format View Cameras do not use focal plane shutters like DSLRs. They use blade type shutters mounted in the lenses. The real use for high sensitivity will be to allow for smaller apertures and greater depth of field.