Roy
Well-known member
They may be DSLRs but If you need medium format then the Bigger Hassy H is the way to go ...
Is There A 100 Mb Sensor on the Horizon?
- Thread starter Warren D
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Roy
Well-known member
And true 16bit is noticably better
Ok, 100mp camera, what about the computer to process all the pictures, and how about printers?
Roy
Well-known member
My PC computer handles 100-200mp images well...
Roy
Well-known member
You wont see much difference ...
Which application would require 100mp?/medium format?
Roy
Well-known member
I shoot product/commercial.
if you give an Art Directot 100mp then he wants 150.
if you give an Art Directot 150mp then he wants 200.
Even for just Portrait high megapixels makes touch ups easier.
Unlike some other software Photoshop has no problem with big files...
FILE SIZES -- I shoot the X2D-100C in 16 bit. The files come from the camera as 3FR RAW (ave file size 211MB), which are converted to fff RAW (ave file size 147MB) when imported using Hasselblad Phocus 3.7.1. "Normally" I make basic tone and colour adjustments in Phocus and then export the files I want to work on at 16-bit TIFF files using the Hasselblad RGB* Source Colour Space (ave file size 513MB). These are all Full image size resolutions.
I owned/used the X1D-ii 50C before I received the X2D-100C -- this is a 50MP sensor and the average file sizes were: 3FR 108MB, fff 82MB, and 16-bit TIFF 272MB
Comparing these file sizes to the 45.7MP 14-bit RAW file from a Nikon Z9 - one sees 14-bit Lossless RAW NEF 52.6MB and full sized 16-bit TIF 220-273MB (I save in the highest quality from PS/LRC - these could quite well be 16-bit rather than 14-bit after processing)
On average a 14-bit RAW file would be ~60-70% of a 16-bit fff RAW file size.
A 100MP 14-bit sensor could reasonably be expected to deliver file sizes 2.2x those from the Z9 lossless RAW. So 116mb Lossless RAW.
The "obvious" other point is I take far far fewer shots with the X2D than my Z9 -- and this is because I use each camera for different use cases -- Z9 - action/wildlife and shooting fast; X2D-100C - portraits/landscape and other stationary/slower moving stuff that does not require fast AF.
PRINTING -- the basic difference is the maximum size of print one can achieve at 300 ppi (not dpi) from a 100MP and a 50MP sensor AND then the quality of the printer and paper then makes the difference. Roughly a 100MP allows an image to be printed with 2x the area of a 50MP image. AND since the image file is larger one can crop in further before there is loss of resolution.
I like to use an XPAN crop 65:24 (2.70:1.00) for many of my landscapes -- a 3:2 FX sensor leave less pixels cropped away than when cropping in on a SMF (4:3) sensor - yes one is only cropping away dead space but the difference is marginal on the long edge ... (crop down to 55% vs 45% on the short edge)
PROCESSING AND STORAGE - YES - one needs a lot of storage space. But nowhere near as much as when one shoots videos. AND YES a full-spec'd Apple Mac Studio Ultra has NO issues with these very large files -- I have processed many 50-100 image focus stacks taken with the X2D-100C and not had an issue. The good news for me is that my 16" MBP (Intel based) also has not issues -- yes it is slower, but it has no issues with these files. Sure one needs to carry external large SSD/HHD for storage/back-up.
VIDEO with 100MP sensor -- is pointless as a planned option There are far far better tools than a camera with a 100MP sensor to choose when planning to shoot videos. I am one of those who hope that Hasselblad are able to avoid adding video to the X2D, via firmware updates. When I plan to shoot vids these days I prefer the Z9 over all my other tools - I can pair it with a field recorder and timesync source or just add a good quality shotgun mic to secure very useable audio. The X2D has no such audio capabilities on board or audio-input port and these would need to be addressed if anyone wanted to use the X2D for a vid shoot. YES - I know the GFS-100s have video capabilities, but I have not seen any commercial output shot using this body. AS I say there are far far better options available at a fraction of the cost. Sure having on board video allows opportunistic vids to be taken -- but for the focal length typically used with these camera a smartphone can do as good a job.
Thank you for the detailed explanation to my and others' questions.
Mark
Interesting for me learning about those specialized tools.
Those art directors have an appetite…
The big bill boards are all going digital, so resolution could be lower, no?
Those art directors have an appetite…
The big bill boards are all going digital, so resolution could be lower, no?
The problem with digital bill boards is that the image changes to fast and some at night are to bright. Can't remember the last image on a digital bill board but the old fashioned bill board down the street from me never changes and I remember that one, it's for Power Ball and the other side is for Mega. I would think the printed bill boards would require the higher resolution.
R_Warshaw
Member
When PhaseOne came out with a 100mp sensor a while back I attended one of their sales events and was able to shoot with the camera in controlled light fitted with a supperb lens on a tripod. The files were spectacular as was the price tag. I expect that the current 150mp back is equally good for it's intended purpose. If I were still shooting architecture commercially I'd consider it worth the price. Now since what I can print is constrained by the 44 inch width of my printer such a camera would be massive overkill. I shoot a 5:4 aspect on my D-850 because I prefer it for composition but a secondary benefit is that I don't have to worry so much about corner sharpness on some oi my lenses. In this case fewer megapixles are a benefit. Horses for courses.......
One agency I work with insists on Medium Format and it's for the dynamic range, not the resolution. The subject is product (cowboy hats) and the photos are used for print (catalogs, magazine ads, and posters). I ship over an SSD full of RAWs and they do all the editing. My point is, at the commercial high-end of things it's rarely if ever the resolution anymore, but rather other desirable aspects of the files. This is true in cinema too, btw. The movement is towards larger sensors but not necessarily higher resolution. The sensor perennially dominating the Oscars is a 15mp FF sensor.
So you’re suggesting the Z10 might be a bigger sensor and ZtoZ adapter for a whole new line up of Z lenses..
What's a Z10?
I haven't heard that Nikon is planning an MF body, but that would require new lenses if they did. As a rule, large opening lenses can be adapted to smaller ones (eg FF lenses on APS-C body) but not the other way around.
I'm not sure what the business case for Nikon is to introduce an MF system. It's a very low-volume, specialized use-case. They are IMO much better off filling in the FF and APS-C mirrorless lineup and maybe making a more cine-oriented hybrid like Canon did with the R5C or even the Sony FX3. That's where the money is.
All of this talk about 100+MP cameras has me thinking about looking into film scanners for 4x5 sheet film and getting my field camera back out of the trunk.
Does anyone here know of any film scanners that can handle and get the most out of 4x5 sheet film?
Does anyone here know of any film scanners that can handle and get the most out of 4x5 sheet film?
Roy
Well-known member
To get the most out of 4x5" film you need a barrel scanner ...
R_Warshaw
Member
The Hasselblad Flextite x-5 scanner is capable of scanning 4x5 film. without the need for wet-mounting as required for drum scanners. It has a curved film path to insure flatness. Unfortunately they are no longer made but should be available used. More recently PhaseOne has been selling a scanning station that uses the 150 megapixel back. I use an old D-810 with a macro lens on a copy stand and a surplus 4x5 enlarger film holder and a color-corrected lightbox and get good results. Color negative scans require fussy post-processing to be useful though. I use an external monitor for focusing so I don't have to put the setup on the floor or use a ladder. I've seen a commercial system out there consisting of a light source in a box, film holders and a camera mount that might make sense if you were doing a lot of scans - can't think of the name at the moment. I considered myself to be a good analog printer back in the day but I can do a much better job printing from scans using a digital workflow. I still make gum prints but that's a whole other story.
O
Well-known member
10 years ago i was told 36 to 60 mp will be the FF normal entry level sensor size so get prepared for it, well it took just a little longer than expected and we now have seen 36 to 60 mp sensors in 35mm FF be the norm.
The need to improve glass to suite higher resolution sensors is one thing, reselling Z glass and bodies to all FX owners and newbie's is going to also fill the gap somewhat of lots of lost volume sales over the past few years, added to that increased prices and massive cost reduction all sing the same song of change is a coming while preserving margins.
Getting the glass ready before the sensor development is wise.
Is 100 mp looming, well based from what my gut is telling me 45-60mp will be entry level with 80-90 mp or even 100mp sensors in 35mm FF coming is absolutely on its way, just the timing as to when is not clear.
The cameras manufactures design technology priority years ago used to be 80% stills 20% video if at all any video.
Today and particularity going forward camera manufactures design technology priority is more like 80% video 20% stills.
Its even evident in glass design.
Bottom line absolutely there will be larger sensors like 100mp when is the question.
Managing pixel density and image stabilization is important equally as is stacked sensors.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon came out with a MF sensor camera that is not impeded with the sensor being to close to the lens.
Only an opinion
Warren D
Well-known member
I have an Epson V700 that will do up to 8x10. I've scanned pretty much everything from 35mm to 8x10 chrome and negs on it. It does a decent job, you have to go beyond the defaults to get the most out of it. Does it match a Tango drum scanner? No, but a lot less expensive! Scanning is an art unto itself and I'm sure I could improve under a master.
R_Warshaw
Member
I used the ScanScience kit for fluid mounting with the Epson 750 for a while. It worked well and the fluid had the added advantage of suppressing scratches and fine cracks in the emulsion. The smelll and reading the Prooduct Safety Data Sheet were finally too much even for my well-ventilated darkroom and I moved on. I own a Mamiya Press camera with a few fikm holders and lenses and trot it out ocaisionally. The shop I have develop the resulting film provides scans and only returns the actual negatives if yoju specifically request them.
Roy
Well-known member
I consider the Negatives at least as important than the digital scans.
This processor would be unaccepatable to me ...
R_Warshaw
Member
As they are to me, I always have him send the negatives and do my own digitizing.