 |
|
|
|
Next: tag
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 525
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
David J. Littleboy 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
Betterlight backs run from approximently $10K to $25K depending on
resolution and scanning speed (an oxymoron). Older ones appear on Ebay
every once in a while for and go for $2K - $5K. Kodak once was selling
a bunch of Betterlights for a grand apeice and I missed it. They were
either looking at the technology or thinking of buying the company and
did neither. When I had a studio I was really looking at them. Phase
One also made a scanning back that was a little more cumbersome. Aus
Jena had the EyeLike which was a combination scanning and 6mp (if I
remember correctly) still. With the newer sensors available I doubt it
is a big selling product.
Tom
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Oct 05, 2005
Posts: 12
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:53 am
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Paul Rubin schreef:
> 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.
is there a brand that doesn't?
>
> > 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 1029
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:04 am
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"mark" <mspan.RemoveThis@mad.scientist.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> is there a brand that doesn't?
I don't know of any other brands that do that. I realize most
digicams use Bayer sensors and therefore can't available themselves of
the trick, but there are many 3-ccd video cameras and scanners that
don't use Bayer sensors, whose manufacturers don't use the trick. The
Betterlight back is essentially a specialized type of scanner and
should specify resolution the same way it's specified for other
scanners. >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2006
Posts: 704
|
(Msg. 19) Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:39 am
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
George Kerby wrote:
> On 10/15/06 11:40 AM, in article
> 1160930454.307826.243460.DeleteThis@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Scott W"
> <biphoto.DeleteThis@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
If you are taking about the cooling fan there is a lot more then the
CCD that will be producing heat, the the motor and image processor.
The CCD is pretty minor.
Scott >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 09, 2007
Posts: 381
|
(Msg. 20) Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:37 am
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 10/16/06 8:39 AM, in article
1161005940.878876.81220.DeleteThis@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Scott W"
<biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> George Kerby wrote:
>> On 10/15/06 11:40 AM, in article
>> 1160930454.307826.243460.DeleteThis@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Scott W"
>> <biphoto.DeleteThis@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
>
> If you are taking about the cooling fan there is a lot more then the
> CCD that will be producing heat, the the motor and image processor.
> The CCD is pretty minor.
>
> Scott
>
I WAS referring to to the OP in reference to digital backs in general.
You were the one that got into the CCD thing. >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 05, 2005
Posts: 12
|
(Msg. 21) Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Paul Rubin schreef:
> "mark" <mspan.RemoveThis@mad.scientist.com> writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> > is there a brand that doesn't?
>
> I don't know of any other brands that do that. I realize most
> digicams use Bayer sensors and therefore can't available themselves of
> the trick,
How so/ They count every R.G or B they measure as a pixel, don't they?
> but there are many 3-ccd video cameras and scanners that
> don't use Bayer sensors, whose manufacturers don't use the trick. The
> Betterlight back is essentially a specialized type of scanner and
> should specify resolution the same way it's specified for other
> scanners. >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 1029
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"mark" <mspan.RemoveThis@mad.scientist.com> writes:
> > I don't know of any other brands that do that. I realize most
> > digicams use Bayer sensors and therefore can't available themselves of
> > the trick,
>
> How so/ They count every R.G or B they measure as a pixel, don't they?
Those R,G,B's are at spatially separate locations and therefore
counting them is not a trick. They are real pixels. >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 17, 2006
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 23) Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Paul Rubin schreef:
> "mark" <mspan.RemoveThis@mad.scientist.com> writes:
> > > I don't know of any other brands that do that. I realize most
> > > digicams use Bayer sensors and therefore can't available themselves of
> > > the trick,
> >
> > How so/ They count every R.G or B they measure as a pixel, don't they?
>
> Those R,G,B's are at spatially separate locations and therefore
> counting them is not a trick. They are real pixels.
hmmmm, a pixel is a spatially seperate location?
maybe life just isn't as simple as it used to be... >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 23, 2005
Posts: 86
|
(Msg. 24) Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl DeleteThis @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.)
Yes, or at least there was. Not sure if any are available new now.
> 2. How many LF scanning backs do you think they've sold?
About 1000 at a guess.
> 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...)
$25000US on up.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (0  9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. >> Stay informed about: Why are MF/LF scanning backs so expensive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Problem scanning DVD - When I try to scan some of my backup DVDs with CDspeed the scanning program closes without doing anything. Is this a problem with the disks, the files or the scanning program? Other disks scanned at around the same time scan as normal. Diskcs that won't....
Scanning old Photos - Anyone here have any experience with the Canon LiDE 600F as a photo scanner? And, how is the software? TIA -- There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
