# Go big, go REALLY BIG. LARGE FORMAT DIGITAL CAMERA - LargeSense



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2015)

_Move over, medium-format, there's a new back comin' to town!_
Packin' 12 million big, fat, 75-micron pixels on a 9 x 11 INCH sensor and a base ISO of 2100.

I wasn't super-thrilled with my P1 test experience, altho very good gear, better bang/buck from the pentax kit, IMO. I've been thinking about REAL large format digital for a while, apparently someone else has been thinking about it hard enough to make it happen.

MF is not all that much bigger than typical 35mm format, kinda like comparing FF vs APSC crop body. There's a noticeable difference sometimes, but it's not huge.

These large sensor backs from http://largesense.com/ are in a completely different league.
The camera's still in the prototype stage, nearing production from what I've learned and a 5x5 inch version is also planned in various versions.

http://largesense.com/products/4x5-large-format-digital-back-ls55/

here's a direct link to the info page for the 9x11:

http://largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/

I won't disclose other technical info at this time as parameters are subject to change. Suffice it to say, this could be an extremely capable and impressive camera in many respects, providing a type of image you just can't do with present digital imaging systems.
It looks like it's going to be a lot of fun to work with.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 12, 2015)

I tried to read their blurb, but the text kept jumping up and down as their images at the top were different size when they changed. Truly amateur performance, and they want to convince me they have the technical know to make such a camera when they don't even know how to make a web site thats readable?


----------



## KateH (Jul 12, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I tried to read their blurb, but the text kept jumping up and down as their images at the top were different size when they changed. Truly amateur performance, and they want to convince me they have the technical know to make such a camera when they don't even know how to make a web site thats readable?



It is my understanding that building websites and designing CCDs are in fact different skills that are performed by entirely different people within an organization


----------



## zim (Jul 12, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I tried to read their blurb, but the text kept jumping up and down as their images at the top were different size when they changed. Truly amateur performance, and they want to convince me they have the technical know to make such a camera when they don't even know how to make a web site thats readable?



Jumping seems fixed ,for my browser anyway, almost like they must have been reading CR! Maybe it's a sign of how responsive their support will be


----------



## sanj (Jul 12, 2015)

KateH said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to read their blurb, but the text kept jumping up and down as their images at the top were different size when they changed. Truly amateur performance, and they want to convince me they have the technical know to make such a camera when they don't even know how to make a web site thats readable?
> ...



Absolutely true. BUT the company should ensure that the website looks and works well.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2015)

KateH said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to read their blurb, but the text kept jumping up and down as their images at the top were different size when they changed. Truly amateur performance, and they want to convince me they have the technical know to make such a camera when they don't even know how to make a web site thats readable?
> ...



Although you might not know it, digital cameras have software running the entire camera.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 13, 2015)

somebody is developing a NINE x ELEVEN INCH SENSOR and a (now corrected) _javascript error on a website is the focus of discussion?!?_ ???


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 13, 2015)

Aglet said:


> somebody is developing a NINE x ELEVEN INCH SENSOR and a (now corrected) _javascript error on a website is the focus of discussion?!?_ ???



Given potential vaporware, you gotta look at context.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2015)

Aglet said:


> somebody is developing a NINE x ELEVEN INCH SENSOR and a (now corrected) _javascript error on a website is the focus of discussion?!?_ ???



Actually, I posted because the site linked to was unreadable, so how could the camera be discussed? From what I was able to read while the screen was jumping around, it was 8 X 10, not 9 X 11.

Its also 12 mp, and 24 FPS. I have a lens all ready for it  Actually, I believe its a 4 X 5 lens, but its the closet I can afford, having paid $1 at a estate sale.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> From what I was able to read while the screen was jumping around, it was 8 X 10, not 9 X 11



I believe it said that they refer to it as the closest common format, 8x10, but that it is 9x11.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2015)

It looks just the thing for carrying around in your pocket  I mean pickup truck.

It makes the Canon 800mm L look puny with its 1meter bellows extension.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > From what I was able to read while the screen was jumping around, it was 8 X 10, not 9 X 11
> ...



It was hard to read with the jumping around. Now I've reread it, and the sensor is 9 X 11, but I suspect that it crops to 8 X 10 for actual output. They also say the red knob rotates the sensor from portrait to landscape.

They say they have a 4 X 5 coming next year that has a 5 X 5 sensor. That way, it can crop to portrait or landscape I think.


I'd suspect that in the right hands, it will produce some very nice images, but it isn't easily portable. with 4K video at 24 fps, it might make it into some movies.

As a Engineer, I find it fascinating.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2015)

Don't really understand the fuss here: Sinar have been doing LF digital backs since the late 90's.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Don't really understand the fuss here: Sinar have been doing LF digital backs since the late 90's.



Betterlight too, but do they have 8X10? I thought they were producing 4X5.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> with 4K video at 24 fps, it might make it into some movies.



Though with a native ISO north of 2000 at 1/24 you're definitely going to be dealing with heavy ND or shooting very stopped-down for anything approaching daylight.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 13, 2015)

I don't know a whole lot about Large Format. But why would the base iso be so high?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Don't really understand the fuss here: Sinar have been doing LF digital backs since the late 90's.
> ...



True. Much more versatile than a 10x8



AcutancePhotography said:


> I don't know a whole lot about Large Format. But why would the base iso be so high?



Because the pixels are so large. 

A 'fast' 10x8 lens starts at f8, and some stop down to f128. Remember than on a 10x8 300 mm is the 'standard' focal length.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Because the pixels are so large.
> 
> A 'fast' 10x8 lens starts at f8, and some stop down to f128. Remember than on a 10x8 300 mm is the 'standard' focal length.



Wow. I guess it really is pretty different from 35mm stuff. ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Because the pixels are so large.
> ...



Yea, including lugging one around ! The IQ from this thing could be unreal, but I would think it is so impractical that its main uses will be copy work.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Don't really understand the fuss here: Sinar have been doing LF digital backs since the late 90's.



48 X 36mm = 1.9 X 1.4 inches, not exactly large format. While they may mount to a 4X5 camera, they are not 4 X 5 sensors, much less than 9 X 11 inches. The speeds are specified in exposures per *minute which* is not in the same league as 24 FPS. 

There are large scanning backs, but image capture speeds are measured in minutes.

I don't believe there is a cmos sensor in production quite like this, except for prototypes like the large 12 X 12 cmos sensor Canon made for astronomy.

Of course, it will take a entire 12 in wafer to make one sensor. The large pixel size is likely there to minimize excessive waste. I wonder how many wafers it will take to get a good one?

As to price, if you have to ask, you can't afford it.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Don't really understand the fuss here: Sinar have been doing LF digital backs since the late 90's.
> ...



Yes you are quite right, I was referring to scanning backs that gave the full 5x4. Other than this LF digital backs have been quite small, the original for Sinar with seperate r, g, and b filters on a disc was 20mm x 20 mm and cost about £30,000 ! 

A case of 'if you can't beat 'em join 'em' now I guess, these LF backs are actually DMF. 

Didn't realise that this new camera is a single CCD sensor. Wow ! That will take some culturing.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 15, 2015)

Now that's my kind of mirrorless.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Jul 16, 2015)

Gee, didn't I see one of these on FleaBay as an import? I think they were going to throw in a bunch of free stuff like SD cards, lens brush and a useless bag that didn't fit the camera, oh, and a pick up truck to haul it all in. 
I put a bid in for it but it's not over. ;D ;D


----------



## Aglet (Dec 4, 2015)

So they've manage to get some video out of the thing now:

".. full sensor readout of the LS911 saved as 16 bit TIFFs, then converted to 4k UHD and 1080p. The TIFFs were edited in PhotoShop, Alien Skin Exposure 6 and Adobe Premiere. Adobe Premiere was used to combine the video." 

http://largesense.com/blog/2015/12/first-large-format-digital-video/


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 4, 2015)

This finally has some potential. The existing "LF" backs are just MF mounted for LF bodies, not true LF backs. Scanning backs are impractical. There are also options for putting a dSLR on a LF camera: talk about crop sensor! I'd be interested in a LargeSense for my 4x5" AS. I wonder what pricing looks like. Could not find a word on that on the website. There are some things that a TS lens cannot do, such as simultaneous tilt, swing, and rise, both at front and rear standards.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 4, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I am totally clueless about this sort of thing. How would the images differ? Shallower depth of field, lower noise? Or is it something to do with perspective?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> KateH said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


Different people writing different software in a different language... For example I am very good at writing software for process control and data logging while I know diddly squat about creating websites.... One task will be done very well, the other will be slow and amateurish....


----------



## scyrene (Dec 4, 2015)

Incidentally, although it all seems too good to be true, I'd love to see what a sensor like that could do for astrophotography - especially as it lacks an IR filter.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 6, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



The original capture is larger - much larger. Theoretically improved gradients, the other things we associate with "IQ". All from a lens which doesn't have to be anything like as good as the ones on a tiny format. 

Shallower depth of field ? Theoretically, but not in practice as there aren't the speed of lenses out there for this format. 35mm / FF provides the shallowest dof due to the combination of sensor size and very fast lenses available. 

Lower noise ? I guess it could be amazing at very high ISO, but who uses a large format camera at high ISO ? 

There isn't any difference on the perspective per se. 

So why do it ? I guess because they can.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Ah, ok


----------



## deleteme (Dec 7, 2015)

Reading the description of the sensor describes what seems to be a scientific sensor of some sort. It has no AA filter, no IR filter no CFA, no micro lenses.
IOW it is a monochrome sensor with high IR response.
Describing it as having 24FPS capture implies a rolling shutter type of capture as opposed to some leaf shutter/processor combo that makes it sound like an uber Sony.

Adapting a scientific sensor of this type to a field usable product most likely (if it actually exists) is a very complicated project. Power source (probably needs to be quite large), processing and data storage and the integration of all the functions into a usable interface is not trivial.

Large format is a different fish. I worked in these formats up to 5x7 and would be delighted with even a 6cm square sensor. But I also have to acknowledge the fact that I would be very unhappy with anything less than the color, speed and UI that I enjoy with today's cameras.


----------



## Aglet (Dec 8, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Lower noise ? I guess it could be amazing at very high ISO, but who uses a large format camera at high ISO ?



you have no choice, I think the sensor's base ISO is ~2000! 
from what I can tell, huge pixels and relatively shallow charge well so I'll be very interested to see what the SNR / DR is in final form. I expect about 12 to 13 stops initially.


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 16, 2015)

Apparently price is targeted at US$50K (4x5") or $100K (8x10"). A bit steep, IMHO, particularly for a 6.7 MP sensor. No idea who the target audience is. Off buying some film tomorrow.


----------

