The Megapixel Race

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:05:02 -0400, ASAAR <caught RemoveThis @22.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:38:20 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> Why would LF film be gone, if it weren't being replaced by
>>> digital?
>>> Those who shoot LF are doing it because LF offers what they want.
>>> Why would it disappear before something came along that offers the
>>> same thing?
>>
>> If sales of 35mm film continues to plummet, the earnings may drop
>> far enough to make the production of not only 35mm film
>> impractical,
>> but other film types as well. In a sense, even today LF isn't
>> pulling its weight, and the cost of its production is subsidized by
>> sales of 35mm film.
>>
>> Now that I think of it, the same thing might be what allows the
>> better DSLR lenses to sell for only moderately high prices as
>> opposed to the stratospherically high prices of Leica lenses. By
>> selling a huge number of 350D, 20D, D70 and D50s compared to the
>> pro
>> bodies, more of the higher quality lenses will be sold, keeping
>> their prices more reasonable than if they were only sold to pros
>> for
>> use with their pro body cameras. This could also be another of
>> several already stated reasons for Canon wanting to reduce the
>> price
>> of the 5D, as 5D owners will probably spend more money for lenses
>> than if they get a 350D or 400Xti instead.
>
> True enough, I suppose.
> I was thinking that LF shooters will pay the price to get what they
> want.

And I was thinking the film makers have probably not considered the
bottom line with regard to Large Format for quite a while. Even if it
comes to that, it's a display of their capabilities that might be some
of the best public relations they could invest in.

--
Frank ess
"In this universe there are things
that just don't yield to thinking
-plain or fancy-Dude".
-J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

Frank ess <frank.TakeThisOut@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
> And I was thinking the film makers have probably not considered the
> bottom line with regard to Large Format for quite a while. Even if it
> comes to that, it's a display of their capabilities that might be some
> of the best public relations they could invest in.
>

I think film makers are simply subsideraries of larger entities and these
larger entities see them as low margin revenue sources. As soon as the margin
hits zero they will be eliminated (or sold).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:38:20 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> Why would LF film be gone, if it weren't being replaced by digital?
>> Those who shoot LF are doing it because LF offers what they want. Why
>> would it disappear before something came along that offers the same
>> thing?
>
> If sales of 35mm film continues to plummet, the earnings may drop
> far enough to make the production of not only 35mm film impractical,
> but other film types as well. In a sense, even today LF isn't
> pulling its weight, and the cost of its production is subsidized by
> sales of 35mm film.

You know this latter "fact" how? It's extraordinarily poor business
practice. Unless you are talking only of economies of scale, or
amortizing fixed costs. But I doubt that any company is producing LF
film due to those reasons.
>
> Now that I think of it, the same thing might be what allows the
> better DSLR lenses to sell for only moderately high prices as
> opposed to the stratospherically high prices of Leica lenses. By
> selling a huge number of 350D, 20D, D70 and D50s compared to the pro
> bodies, more of the higher quality lenses will be sold, keeping
> their prices more reasonable than if they were only sold to pros for
> use with their pro body cameras. This could also be another of
> several already stated reasons for Canon wanting to reduce the price
> of the 5D, as 5D owners will probably spend more money for lenses
> than if they get a 350D or 400Xti instead.

This could be true, or not. Canon's reasons for reducing the price on
the 5D are many, most likely. Certainly higher end camera sales suggests
higher end lens sales.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

Greg "_" wrote:
> In article <8o6dncDnJJcScqPYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>,
> John McWilliams <jpmcw.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> *If* I understand it, I disagree: At some point in the future, there
>> will be a digital camera (not limited to military) that will out-resolve
>> an 8 x10.

>
> Dreamer.

Accurate prognosticator.

You could look it up. Google is your friend.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

John McWilliams <jpmcw DeleteThis @comcast.net> writes:
> >> *If* I understand it, I disagree: At some point in the future,
> >> there will be a digital camera (not limited to military) that will
> >> out-resolve an 8 x10.
> > Dreamer.
> Accurate prognosticator.

Microprocessor chips are made on 12" wafers right now. Such a wafer
could hold a 7.5" x 9.37" die, giving 8x10 proportions and only
slightly less area. Even if yield wasn't perfect and some pixels here
and there had to be interpolated, such a thing would surely outresolve
8x10 film. It might also be possible to use beamsplitters to expose
the same image on two separate such sensors through the same lens
simultaneously, so sensels on each would fill in the defects in the
other. That might be necessary if there had to be areas in the sensor
reserved for getting the data out.
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:15:25 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

>> If sales of 35mm film continues to plummet, the earnings may drop
>> far enough to make the production of not only 35mm film impractical,
>> but other film types as well. In a sense, even today LF isn't
>> pulling its weight, and the cost of its production is subsidized by
>> sales of 35mm film.
>
> You know this latter "fact" how? It's extraordinarily poor business
> practice. Unless you are talking only of economies of scale, or
> amortizing fixed costs. But I doubt that any company is producing LF
> film due to those reasons.

Do you enjoy being belligerent? Note "may drop" and "In a sense".
How does that make it appear that I'm claiming these suppositions to
be absolute fact? And what I said is NOT an attempt to explain why
LF film is being produced, but why it may not be in the future.
Many film types have already been discontinued, and the trend will
continue, although I wouldn't try to predict the rate. What I'm
talking about isn't quite economies of scale. I recall reading
several years ago that some factories that produced film shut down
after trying to get by for awhile with fewer production lines.
Eventually, declining sales made it too unprofitable to keep even
one line running full time. I don't know the business well enough
to know this for a fact, but assume that the film that was produced
was not only slit into 35mm reels, but was used to produce MF and LF
film, and that by far the majority of the film produced was for 35mm
cameras and/or 35mm movie film stock. Hollywood is well along the
road converting from film to digital, and the public is fleeing film
in droves, so its a matter of time (others can guess the number of
years) before the lowering demand for all types of film shuts down
most of its production. There will probably still be some small
boutique shops producing MF and LF film, but it probably won't be
what most of today's photographers are shooting with, and the
already high prices will probably become quite a bit higher. I
don't think that will force most of the photographers to abandon LF,
as I don't seen any digital alternatives on the near horizon. But
due to the higher costs, the number of LF devotees will probably
dwindle if they can't replenish their ranks with newcomers as fast
as they lose others to various forms of attrition, old age being one
of the bigger reasons. I don't have any "facts" to prove any of
this, and you or others can disagree and I won't demand that you
prove your case with facts. But if anyone has any good data that
can reasonably predict the film industry's future (and digital too)
I'd be interested in hearing/reading it.


>> Now that I think of it, the same thing might be what allows the
>> better DSLR lenses to sell for only moderately high prices as
>> opposed to the stratospherically high prices of Leica lenses. By
>> selling a huge number of 350D, 20D, D70 and D50s compared to the pro
>> bodies, more of the higher quality lenses will be sold, keeping
>> their prices more reasonable than if they were only sold to pros for
>> use with their pro body cameras. This could also be another of
>> several already stated reasons for Canon wanting to reduce the price
>> of the 5D, as 5D owners will probably spend more money for lenses
>> than if they get a 350D or 400Xti instead.
>
> This could be true, or not. Canon's reasons for reducing the price on
> the 5D are many, most likely. Certainly higher end camera sales suggests
> higher end lens sales.

You're on a roll tonight if you're assuming that I don't think
that the reasons are "many, most likely". Did you miss "This could
also be another of several already stated reasons", or did you just
want to agree to a degree with what I said without appearing to, or
were you just in a disagreeable mood?
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:15:25 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>> If sales of 35mm film continues to plummet, the earnings may drop
>>> far enough to make the production of not only 35mm film impractical,
>>> but other film types as well. In a sense, even today LF isn't
>>> pulling its weight, and the cost of its production is subsidized by
>>> sales of 35mm film.
>> You know this latter "fact" how? It's extraordinarily poor business
>> practice. Unless you are talking only of economies of scale, or
>> amortizing fixed costs. But I doubt that any company is producing LF
>> film due to those reasons.
>
> Do you enjoy being belligerent? Note "may drop" and "In a sense".
> How does that make it appear that I'm claiming these suppositions to
> be absolute fact? << Snipped bits out >>

Wasn't commenting on "may drop", as LF film, and eventually 35mm film
will be a niche market. Not dissimilar to vinyl records and Betamax.

Was challenging the statement that LF film's production was being
subsidized by 35 mm. And after thinking more about it, it's likely to be
closer to that than I thought.

> Did you miss "This could
> also be another of several already stated reasons", or did you just
> want to agree to a degree with what I said without appearing to, or
> were you just in a disagreeable mood?

Some of each, but mostly the latter. My bad.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> John McWilliams <jpmcw.RemoveThis@comcast.net> writes:
>>>> *If* I understand it, I disagree: At some point in the future,
>>>> there will be a digital camera (not limited to military) that will
>>>> out-resolve an 8 x10.
>>> Dreamer.
>> Accurate prognosticator.
>
> Microprocessor chips are made on 12" wafers right now. Such a wafer
> could hold a 7.5" x 9.37" die, giving 8x10 proportions and only
> slightly less area. Even if yield wasn't perfect and some pixels here
> and there had to be interpolated, such a thing would surely outresolve
> 8x10 film. It might also be possible to use beamsplitters to expose
> the same image on two separate such sensors through the same lens
> simultaneously, so sensels on each would fill in the defects in the
> other. That might be necessary if there had to be areas in the sensor
> reserved for getting the data out.

Thanks, Paul. I don't have the tech background to know what's possible
right now. It's only a matter of time before there's such a beast, and
then it's a question of how much does it cost? And is there a real
demand at any price.

John
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

rafe b wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:z7ydncp4qYVGV93YnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > Thanks, Paul. I don't have the tech background to know what's possible
> > right now. It's only a matter of time before there's such a beast, and
> > then it's a question of how much does it cost? And is there a real demand
> > at any price.
>
>
> I think that's the crux of the matter. The folks at
> Ludicrous Landscape have already done a comparison
> of the Hasselblad 39 Mpix sensor vs. scanned LF
> (I think it was 4x5").
>
> There are (at least) two and probably several more
> classes and varieties of LF users:
>
> 1. those who simply enjoy working with classic gear
> 2. commercial and architectural work.
>
> I don't know the overall volume of film sold into
> either of these markets. But the 2nd of these two
> will need to be served until something better comes up.
> Since it is a *commercial* application, my guess is
> that the media will remain available for a while.
If it is done like it is in the electronics industry they will announce
when the last of a given film type is to be made and people can do a
last buy. This happens a lot when you have a product that uses a given
IC that is going out of production, you then have to figure how many
more of your product you are going to sell in its product life and buy
enough stock to cover that number.

But nobody can force an industry to keep making something they no
longer want to make.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:50:19 -0400, "SimonLW" <nospam.DeleteThis@donet.com>
wrote:

>The manufacturers STILL keep pushing the megapixel count higher and higher.
>After reading what I'd consider an unfavorable review of yet another 10mp
>compact camera, I'd say they went beyond the current limits. Perhaps the
>average camera shopping consumer still gets wrapped up in the numbers game,
>but many enthusiasts will be wary of the less then stellar image
>performance.
>
>I say its time for the sensor manufacturers to research the development of
>larger sensors for compacts. Not necessarily APS size, but 1/2 APS size
>(quarter area), or at least use the 2/3 size again. This may impact the size
>of the super small cameras, but I'd wager that there are many users who want
>a good performing camera who don't want to lug a SLR and a bag of lenses
>around.
>
>The SLR format is reaching a limitation of a different kind. The APS sensors
>of 10-12 megapixels are capable of resolving nearly 90 lines per mm. This is
>beyond the range of nearly any consumer zoom and even some high end zooms
>and a few primes. I wonder if they will push APS sensors beyond 12mp just to
>play the numbers game or will full frame be the next step.
>
>The next few years of digital will be interesting!
>
>-S
>



The number of Pixels sell digital camera there is no escaping it.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0643-3, 25/10/2006
Tested on: 26/10/2006 11:35:30 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z7ydncp4qYVGV93YnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Thanks, Paul. I don't have the tech background to know what's possible
> right now. It's only a matter of time before there's such a beast, and
> then it's a question of how much does it cost? And is there a real demand
> at any price.


I think that's the crux of the matter. The folks at
Ludicrous Landscape have already done a comparison
of the Hasselblad 39 Mpix sensor vs. scanned LF
(I think it was 4x5").

There are (at least) two and probably several more
classes and varieties of LF users:

1. those who simply enjoy working with classic gear
2. commercial and architectural work.

I don't know the overall volume of film sold into
either of these markets. But the 2nd of these two
will need to be served until something better comes up.
Since it is a *commercial* application, my guess is
that the media will remain available for a while.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:07:16 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> >> already high prices will probably become quite a bit higher. I
> >> don't think that will force most of the photographers to abandon LF,
> >> as I don't seen any digital alternatives on the near horizon.
> >
> > Sorry, but can't you get LF resolutions already nowadays with scanning
> > backs? They should be in the 120+ MP range.
>
> They're not on *my* near horizon, nor on the near horizons of
> most of the current LF users I'd guess. First there would have to
> be a dramatic reduction in cost as well as a matching increase in
> operating convenience. But isn't 120mp well below what's needed to
> duplicate what you can get from the largest LF? Most people accept
> that good 8mp sensors in DSLRs are comparable to FF 35mm film, and
> 24mm x 36mm is a bit under 1.5 square inches, so 120mp could be used
> to replace 120 / 8 * 1.5, or about 22 square inches. Yeah, that's
> good enough to replace 4" x 5" but it wouldn't come close to
> matching 8" x 10". You did say 120+ so how high above 120mp do the
> scanning backs go? Are there any yet that are about 400mp or 500mp?
> If there are, how much real (not virtual disk) memory do you think
> computers would need to keep Photoshop from exploding?
My largest image to date is 392 MP, takes a bit less then 2 minutes to
load it into Photoshop elements. This photo would produce a print 5
1/2 feet square at 300ppi, more then what most people would ever need.
It is a bit of a pain editing it but not too bad and I only have 1 GB
of ram in my system.

Since a lot of people scan their LF film the image size is something
that has to be dealt with now in any event.

I would think most people shooting LF would be happy with images that
are on the order of 80-120 MP. Whereas a 8 x 10 LF camera has 4 times
the area of a 4x5 it tends to be used at higher f/numbers and this
greatly reduces the resolution.

Currently the largest prints I can easily have done are 30 x 60 inches
and this is only at 254ppi, so a file size of 116 MP is enough.

The people who are using LF cameras for product shoots would probably
be very happy with 80MP, that should be more then enough for any
magazine ad even a two page spread. In fact 80MP is over kill you
should be able to use a 23MP image for a two page spread without any
problems.

Other then the pain of using a scanning system the problem with the
scanning backs is they cost about 20 times too much.


Scott
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race 

"Alfred Molon" <alfredDELETE_molon.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fab09aebf5013a798b1aa@news.supernews.com...
> In article <23i0k2t90lf4u5eurf4j6ottji0mpqgt6o.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, ASAAR says...
>
>> already high prices will probably become quite a bit higher. I
>> don't think that will force most of the photographers to abandon LF,
>> as I don't seen any digital alternatives on the near horizon.
>
> Sorry, but can't you get LF resolutions already nowadays with scanning
> backs? They should be in the 120+ MP range.


There are at least two or three major problems with
scanning backs:

1. Max. sensor length around 3.5" -- so they
don't even cover the "full" 4x5" area.
2. Long exposure times.
3. High cost
4. Support infrastructure (control unit, laptop, etc.)

Scanning backs are mainly used for indoor, studio work
and for art reproduction, though a few brave souls use
them for landscapes (eg. Stephen Johnson.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Megapixel Race