Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive?

George Kerby wrote:

> Not to mention keeping the damn things cool.

Are you talking about keeping the CCD cool, I have never had a problem
with
that as they are very low power devices.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

On 10/15/06 9:55 AM, in article
1160924159.691503.121590.DeleteThis@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Scott W"
<biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed
>> scanner?
>> Thanks.
>
> There is a lit more to them then a flatbed scanner in that you need to
> keep the scan plane really flat if you plan to use any of the lenses
> with low f/numbers.
>
> But overall if you were making a lot of them the cost should really be
> in the few hundreds of dollars.
>
> As it is you are most likely paying for NRE cost and not production
> cost.
>
> Scott
>
Not to mention keeping the damn things cool.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed scanner?
> Thanks.

I would suspect the reject rate for large camera CCDs is the culprit.

Gary Eickmeier
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

Gary Eickmeier <geickmei.TakeThisOut@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> > Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed scanner?
> > Thanks.
>
> I would suspect the reject rate for large camera CCDs is the culprit.

Is there a difference between a scanning back CCD and a flatbed
scanner CCD? They are both linear (one-dimensional) CCD's, and they
might actually be several small ones. They're not like the large
two-dimensional CCD's used in DSLR's.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

On 10/15/06 11:40 AM, in article
1160930454.307826.243460.TakeThisOut@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Scott W"
<biphoto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>
>> Not to mention keeping the damn things cool.
>
> Are you talking about keeping the CCD cool, I have never had a problem
> with
> that as they are very low power devices.
>
> Scott
>
Maybe the new ones. Traditionally a problem, though.

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

"Technology:
Full frame (not in size but in readout method) CCD dual sensor readout (DSR)
for double capture speed (patent pending)
Bluetooth® wireless technology
Cooling fan for efficient heat removal"
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote in message
news:egtf7o$bua$1@nnrp.gol.com...
SNIP
> 3. How much do LF scanning backs cost? (I've never even thought
> about price of the things; the glacial speed of the things makes
> them less than interesting...)

In the US$ 10,000 - 35,000 range for the popular PhaseOne series, MF
backs only.
The Betterlight scanning backs (for 4x5 inch) in the US$ 6,500 -
20,000 range.

--
Bart
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed scanner?
> > Thanks.
>
> I would suspect the reject rate for large camera CCDs is the culprit.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

It's not just the size but the grade of CCD. These are not "million
off a production line Canon or Sony products" these are graded CCDs of
much higher consistency and quality than the DSLR stuff out there. If
you are fanatical about it, you can spec the grade you want and a
medium format CCD 20 meg in grade "A" for lack of a better term would
likely cost $100,000+. Of course, unlike consumer cams you'd know
things like how many dead pixels, true pixel uniformity, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

Scott W wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
> > Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed scanner?
> > Thanks.
>
> There is a lit more to them then a flatbed scanner in that you need to
> keep the scan plane really flat if you plan to use any of the lenses
> with low f/numbers.
>
> But overall if you were making a lot of them the cost should really be
> in the few hundreds of dollars.
>
> As it is you are most likely paying for NRE cost and not production
> cost.
>
> Scott

These are very precise backs, for stationary objects they are extremely
sharp, better than any 35mm based DSLR, some say better than 4x5 film.
The scanning part has more of a comparison to level of a Creo scanner
than your average flatbed. Check out www.betterlight.com. Just an
admirer

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

"tomm42" <tmonego DeleteThis @wildblue.net> writes:
> These are very precise backs, for stationary objects they are extremely
> sharp, better than any 35mm based DSLR, some say better than 4x5 film.
> The scanning part has more of a comparison to level of a Creo scanner
> than your average flatbed. Check out www.betterlight.com. Just an admirer

Hmm, looks like they're less expensive than before (54MP model starts
at $6.5K) but does anyone use Creo scanners any more? Are they really
that much better than the $500 Epson?

Here's an older 500 megapixel unit for a mere $9K:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260040299680
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
> Hmm, looks like they're less expensive than before (54MP model starts
> at $6.5K) but does anyone use Creo scanners any more? Are they really
> that much better than the $500 Epson?

No wait, they're using the Sigma marketing trick of describing
R,G,B as separate pixels. Resolution of that unit is 3750x5000
or 18.75MP.

> Here's an older 500 megapixel unit for a mere $9K:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260040299680

Oops, 12000x15990, or 192 MP.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed
> scanner?

Counter questions:

1. Is there any such thing as an "MF scanning back"? (This is a serious
question: I've only heard of non-scanning digital backs for MF. Which are
expensive because chip cost goes up exponentially (well, polynomially with a
large exponent) with area.)

2. How many LF scanning backs do you think they've sold?

3. How much do LF scanning backs cost? (I've never even thought about price
of the things; the glacial speed of the things makes them less than
interesting...)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

In article <egtf7o$bua$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:

> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> > Is there really more to them than the stuff that goes in a good flatbed
> > scanner?
>
> Counter questions:
>
> 1. Is there any such thing as an "MF scanning back"? (This is a serious
> question: I've only heard of non-scanning digital backs for MF. Which are
> expensive because chip cost goes up exponentially (well, polynomially with a
> large exponent) with area.)
>
> 2. How many LF scanning backs do you think they've sold?
>
> 3. How much do LF scanning backs cost? (I've never even thought about price
> of the things; the glacial speed of the things makes them less than
> interesting...)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Anagramm backs for one

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> writes:
> 1. Is there any such thing as an "MF scanning back"? (This is a serious
> question: I've only heard of non-scanning digital backs for MF. Which are
> expensive because chip cost goes up exponentially (well, polynomially with a
> large exponent) with area.)

See:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Dunno if you'd count 6x17 as MF or LF. I counted it as MF since it's a
traditional rollfilm panorama format.

> 2. How many LF scanning backs do you think they've sold?

If it's more than a handful, the prices I've seen are a bit steep.
Here's an attempt at a home-made scanning camera, from before the days
of good low cost consumer digicams:

http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html

The results aren't that great but it was dirt cheap. What I'm
wondering is whether a serious one is really that much more complex.
I just found this too, which is also interesting:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-demo-scanner-cam.html

> 3. How much do LF scanning backs cost? (I've never even thought about price
> of the things; the glacial speed of the things makes them less than
> interesting...)

The 6x17 thing mentioned above is $36,000, though including the camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive?