Don Haines said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Aglet said:
KeithBreazeal said:
I can see the 8x10 format making a comeback. This is awesome news!!!
you can see it here
now if you have enough scratch for that itch.. ;D
http://largesense.com/
I thought this was really cool until I found the $106,000 price. Ouch! Still cool, but unobtainable for mortals. Neuro probably keeps one on a shelf in the laundry room.
WAIT A MINUTE!
The Canon sensor is the worlds largest at 20cm square, but this 8X10 sensor would be 20cm by 25cm.....
Something does not compute
---
The silicon wafers used by my "Fabs" are either 200mm or 300mm ...BUT... there are also 500mm sizes for specialty systems (i.e. very large vector-based CISC/RISC/DSP chips aka Array processors) which need a very large die size. I think I remember seeing that 500mm one at one of Lockheed Martin's subsidiaries who made custom chips for government customers. Curtis Wright and of course Teledyne-Dalsa also are starting to use larger than 300mm wafer sizes.
The largest sensors can be multi-chip OR single-die slices and if I remember correctly the largest single die slice is a 340mm by 340mm for a 16k by 16k resolution satellite-specific CMOS chip -- I think it was made my Thales or Dassault for a French commercial imaging satellite. Because it used outside-of-sensor-area DSP circuits, it needed to be 34cm by 34 cm in order to fit on a 500 mm wafer. Last i heard is the company was selling 16k x 96k images at 15000+ Euros per area scan and that they are booked solid for satellite time! SOMEONE HIGH UP is most certainly booking up all the time so that no-one else gets the imagery!
---
Now those of you wondering about my sources...A source BY DEFINITION is generally unconfirmable and untrustworthy! You need MULTIPLE SOURCES to confirm ANY rumour of any type! Ergo, I like to cultivate multiple anonymous "sources" which hopefully have "real data" which can at the very least, be cross-checked and correlated to come up with a MOST-LIKELY SCENARIO. I have television media training (i.e. a Diploma in Broadcast Television) which means I was taught to DIG DEEP and CORRELATE MULTIPLE DATA SOURCE so that any given "fact" can be given a specific weight. SOME SOURCES are "Better" than others so I give them more weight. Other sources are newer and have no track record with me and I give hem much less weight.
I also have enough technical education that I can at least Quantify the legitimacy of SOME TYPES OF TECHNICAL DATA specifically relating to camera gear, imaging sensors, computer processing techniques and technology, computer memory and online/offline storage systems and aerospace/UAV/drone systems. THOSE are in my area of expertise.
Soooooo......using a simple spreadsheet and a basic 1-to-10 weighting system you give ALL facts a weight based upon the NUMBER of disparate sources that are giving said fact out (i.e. Canon is testing an MF camera!). If 7 sources out of 10 are giving me that fact, and 4 of those sources are in Japanese sensor engineering related to or known by people at Canon or its subsidiaries, then I can use a Mean and Average-based scoring system to tell me that BY WEIGHTED AVERAGE, a lot of high quality sources are telling me Canon is making a big sensor! Then If at least two OTHER sources from say....a flourite-related sub-systems manufacturer and a magnesium/aluminum tubing supplier tells me something of a certain diameter and length is going to certain factories in Japan, then I need to add that weight in too!
Ergo, Canon is a making VERY BIG LENSES for a VERY BIG SENSOR and it's for a near 65mm system....Sooooo...SEE how this works?...Correlation MAY HAVE a specific causation and by digging even further, I get to see if a specific causation is actually related to said correlations...i.e. Canon is making a large-sensor MF Stills or Video Camera and thus needs big tubed-lenses, lots of heavy indium-coated flourite glass, big magnesium bodies and big sensors !!!
