[surfar]

An attempt to explain Fuji GFX 50s sensor size - why 43,8 mm × 32,9 mm - and why is APS-C so common? | Fuji X Forum


Stumbled across this, interesting but highly technical(for my mind anyway!).

[photoptimist]

Yep! Chip space is just about the most expensive real estate in the world. Worse, the bigger you make a chip the higher the chance of a surface defect and the fewer useable chips you get from a wafer.

There are some chipmakers producing much larger sensors. Dalsa makes a 250 Mpix monochrome CCD that's 96mm x 82mm. It would be cool to put one of those in a view camera housing!

[wildman]

"Why is the Fuji GFX50s using a 43,8mm x 32,9mm sensor and not something larger like a real 6x6cm sensor?"

I often wonder why we insist on using the old film formats to describe sensor formats as if the two different technologies are comparable in performance?
For instance it may be that a modern "full frame" sensor gives performance equal to, or better than any 120 film format. So if you want, say, the performance you would get from your Rollei TLR using 120 plusx, in digital, get a K-1 not a 645Z.

Just as a more or less arbitrary point of reference I just assume, for all practical purposes, that my 16mp K-5 is more or less comparable to 135 film back in the day.

[photoptimist]

"Why is the Fuji GFX50s using a 43,8mm x 32,9mm sensor and not something larger like a real 6x6cm sensor?"

I often wonder why we insist on using the old film formats to describe sensor formats as if the two different technologies are comparable in performance?
For instance it may be that a modern "full frame" sensor gives performance equal to, or better than any 120 film format. So if you want, say, the performance you would get from your Rollei TLR using 120 plusx, in digital, get a K-1 not a 645Z.

Just as a more or less arbitrary point of reference I just assume, for all practical purposes, that my 16mp K-5 is more or less comparable to 135 film back in the day.

Interesting!

So far, there's no equivalent to "Plus-X" in the semiconductor world in which a given design for the sensor is made in large sheets and then cut down to cellphone, P&S, 35mm, medium format, and large format sizes.

Sure, large format substantially outperforms smaller format but at this stage in the silicon sensor technology roadmap, new sensors substantially outperform older sensors, too. For example, I'd bet that today's best smartphone cameras rival the early 35 mm full-frame cameras in resolution, ISO, and dynamic range despite the 7X crop factor between them. A 35mm sheet of the sensor stuff in the latest smartphones would probably best a 4x5 large format camera. What further complicates the format size equivalence issue is that smaller sensor cameras often get new sensor technologies first. That makes comparing format sizes hard at the moment.

I'd bet film used to be that way too until Kodak, Fuji, etc refined their emulsions and developers. I can't help but believe that the early film emulsions varied significantly in terms of grain size, sensitivity, and dynamic range such that a TLR loaded with a low-performance film produced worse images than a 110-format camera loaded with the best film. That seems to be where we are in digital.

At some point, the sensors are likely to hit technological limits in which this year's sensors aren't really much better than last year's sensors. For example, there's nothing that semiconductor makers can do to get around the basic physics of light and the statistical noise inherent in the low numbers of photons flying around on a moonlit night. Once sensor performance plateaus, it will be easier to make format comparisons based on pixel size and pixel count.

[wildman]

What further complicates the format size equivalence issue is that smaller sensor cameras often get new sensor technologies first. That makes comparing format sizes hard at the moment.

There's also a 800 pound gorilla in the room that few seem to consider when comparing film to digital.

In film you capture a more or less static image and in digital you capture, not an image, but rather raw numerical data and that raw data, unlike film, is almost infinitely manipulable. In other word it's not a comprehensible image to humans until software and/or Photoshop says it's comprehensible .

To me even if there was no difference technically between film and digital this difference in the nature of the data being generated is a paradigm shift from film to digital. I think it's fair to say advanced post processing can be an art form in it's own right.

[surfar]

advanced post processing can be an art form in it's own right

Yes, the raw can be "anything"....whatever suits the eye of the manipulator.


Nostalga aside, the tech we are open to at present is truly amazing as is the pace at which its changing.

[wildman]

Yes, the raw can be "anything"....whatever suits the eye of the manipulator.

Yes - numerical photography, for the lack of a better expression, is so much more malleable and precise than chemical photography.
It surprises me so many seem to be willing to accept the limits of film and impose them on digital rather than accepting digital on it's own terms.
To me it's throwing away half the creative and technical potential of the image. I'm not talking about extreme post processing like HDR tone mapping but just normal photo realistic image correction.

---

Last edited by wildman; 10-20-2016 at 08:44 PM.

[reh321]

Yes - numerical photography, for the lack of a better expression, is so much more malleable and precise than chemical photography.
It surprises me so many seem to be willing to accept the limits of film and impose them on digital rather than accepting digital on it's own terms.
To me it's throwing away half the creative and technical potential of the image. I'm not talking about extreme post processing like HDR tone mapping but just normal photo realistic image correction.

It totally depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I do not consider myself to be an artist. I am not trying to create anything. I am trying to record the world I experience, so modifying the image from what my camera recorded is going contrary to my goals.

[wildman]

so modifying the image from what my camera recorded is going contrary to my goals.

The question still remains: if you did want to "modify the image from what the camera recorded" - which is the better technology for this purpose film or digital?

[tim60]

Yep! Chip space is just about the most expensive real estate in the world. Worse, the bigger you make a chip the higher the chance of a surface defect and the fewer useable chips you get from a wafer.

There are some chipmakers producing much larger sensors. Dalsa makes a 250 Mpix monochrome CCD that's 96mm x 82mm. It would be cool to put one of those in a view camera housing!

That is a big chunk of a wafer, especially when you think of wafers always being circular, making a lot of waste space around the sensor areas.

[reeftool]

Yes - numerical photography, for the lack of a better expression, is so much more malleable and precise than chemical photography.
It surprises me so many seem to be willing to accept the limits of film and impose them on digital rather than accepting digital on it's own terms.
To me it's throwing away half the creative and technical potential of the image. I'm not talking about extreme post processing like HDR tone mapping but just normal photo realistic image correction.

I think that is because the camera manufacturers are still thinking film. They have made 35mm film the official yardstick of the industry even though the majority of photographers today have never shot a single roll of film. It amuses me that even phone camera lenses are labeled as "28mm equiv" view and that spec is absolutely meaningless to 90% of the people using them. It is beginning to bite them in the butt as the younger generation is only interested in the quality of their smartphone shots and the only camera they are interested in other than their phone is a GoPro or something similar.

[DeadJohn]

...I am trying to record the world I experience, so modifying the image from what my camera recorded is going contrary to my goals.

Film, CMOS, and CCD sensors all have different characteristics than the human eye. What you experience can be different than what the camera records. Some post-processing techniques are intended to make a more "realistic" image, other techniques create a more "artistic" image.

[wildman]

I think that is because the camera manufacturers are still thinking film.

I wonder if the industry is just pandering to it's perceived photo base rather like a politician panders to it's political base - pandering keeps them in business.

the younger generation is only interested in the quality of their smartphone shots and the only camera they are interested in other than their phone is a GoPro or something similar.

I think the kids are spot on. They know what "photography" means to them and, much to the chagrin of the industry, it's not a clumsy, bloated, complex DSLR with 2000 bucks worth of glass rattling around in a camera bag. I only wish the industry would get it and get on with designing real, practical, shooters gear optimized for those of us who are serious about available light still photography.

[reeftool]

I think the kids are spot on. They know what "photography" means to them and, much to the chagrin of the industry, it's not a clumsy, bloated, complex DSLR with 2000 bucks worth of glass rattling around in a camera bag. I only wish the industry would get it and get on with designing real, practical, shooters gear optimized for those of us who are serious about available light still photography.

I couldn't have said it better.

[wildman]

I couldn't have said it better.

Thank you - I consider that high praise.