Help, I'm back in the film world!
- Thread starter StreetShooter
- Start date
- Status
What the.... 
StreetShooter
Senior Member
Zapp: Bought it for $380 (advertised in Singnet Classifieds)
Megaweb: Thanks for the links. They were very useful.
Megaweb: Thanks for the links. They were very useful.
Originally posted by Zoomer
They could make it with a 0.25 micron process, save $$$.
Don't think CCD makes up a large % of the cam's cost anyway.
Doesn't matter what micron or nanometer size is used - the cost of the silicon is determined by the square area, in which case, a 24x36mm area piece of silicon will be very expensive. Why manufacturers strive for smaller and smaller processes - today 0.18 micron, tomorrow 0.13 micron, then 9 nanometer (0.09 micron) - is to squeeze more out of a given size of silicon wafer. Common wafer sizes are 200mm diameter and 300mm diameter - by moving from a 0.25 micron to a 0.18 micron process, a manufacturer can get an estimated 40-50% more product(CPU/processor, memory, etc.)
Right now, I believe that the CCD/CMOS IS a major cost of a digicam's components. And for the DSLRs, the processing power and hi-speed busses needed to transfer the data from CCD/CMOS to processor to storage is also another big factor.
For more info on CCD/CMOS:-
DPReview Glossary on CCD/CMOS Sensor types
Some film recommendations based on extensive use.
C41's (Negative print)
Fuji Superia 100
Good solid general purpose film, blue green cast and excellent grain structure.
Kodak Supra 100
Excellent all round emulsion, grain not quite as fine as Superia 100. Yellow orange colour cast that's excellent for sunsets and people.
Fuji Superia Reala
My perferred all round 100 ISO emulsion, excellent skin tones and cheaper here in Perth than Kodak Supra. Very good for landscapes and animals too. Similar grain structure than Superia 100.
Fuji Superia 400
The only decent 400 ISO colour film that's easy to obtain in the prosumer class.
Kodak Portra 160NC
I use loads of Portra for wildlife when accurate colour and true to life contrast is required. Excellent for portraiture and as a wedding emulsion it's hard to beat.
Kodak Portra 160VC
Vivid colour version of 160NC, more saturated colours and more contrast than 160NC.
Fuji Press 800
As close to perfection in 800 ISO as you can get. Does not tolerate underexposre well.
Kodak Royal Gold 1000
Great stuff when using a flash, not as fine grained as Press 800 and doesn't tolerate underexposure at all. Great for astrophotography and some theatre work.
Chromes (Slide)
Fuji Velvia
High Contrast 50 ISO with very high saturated colour levels. Has noticable green/blue cast. Very fine grain takes a lot to beat for landscapes with lots of green tones now that KM25 is gone.
Kodak E100S
My preferred 100 ISO chrome emulsion. Not as over the top as Sensia II with more accurate true to life colour and a medium contrast. Fine grain and takes 16x20 and larger prints if properly exposed.
Fuji Astia - 100 ISO
Really nice for portraiture, takes flash well and is more muted than Provia and Velvia.
Kodak Professional Ektachrome E200
200 ISO Stunning stuff when you need a mid speed chrome for lower lighting conditions.
Kodak E100SW
Great stuff for working outdoors when it's cloudy. The oversaturated colour blows out on sunny days but gives extra punch for drab days. Good grain and takes flash well.
Fuji Provia 400F (RHP-II)
A stunning 400 ISO chrome film for those times where you need extra speed. Excellent fine grain for speed and good saturation and colour tone. Good stuff for weddings and low light conditions.
Kodak Professional Ektachrome EPJ 320T
Tungsten balanced 320 ISO chrome emulsion. Good grain structure and the best thing for accurate reproduction of theatre work where you'll get faithful rendition of what you see on stage. Needs fast glass (F2.8 or better) and don't use flash. Expensive but lovely for Tungsten balanced work.
Black and White film
Kodak Tech Pan
The finest grain film produced bar none. Stunning stuff that is rivalled only by Ilford PanF. Fickle to develop and requires real skill to get a good shot with.
Ilford PanF plus
50 ISO film that has one of the finest grain structures ever produced. Far finer than Velvia. Excellent for landscapes and fine arts.
Ilford Delta Professional 100
My general 100 ISO b/w film preference. Almost nil grain, excellent tonality and stunning reproduction of almost anything. Has to be exposed correctly or it will really punish the photographer. Not an emulsion for the novice.
Ilford HP5 400 ISO
Crisp 400 ISO film with very fine grain. Punchy tones and a really nice feel to the images.
Kodak Tri-X 400 ISO
One hell of an emulsion. Grainy and high contrast when worked over in the tank. Produces the quintessence of 60s look and feel. Golf ball grain compared to modern emulsions (hell this stuff was developed in the mid 50s and hasn't changed since) that are very pleasing on the eye.
Ilford Delta Professional 3200
3200 ISO film that when exposed correctly and developed with care is capable of superb results for such a high speed emulsion. Works best if pulled back to 1600 ISO.
Ilford XP2 Super
400 ISO Chromagenic (C41) process b/w film. I prefer XP2 over T400CN as it's a far more versatile emulsion and has better tonality when used properly. Can be very hard to find shops that stock it.
Kodak T400CN
Kodak's answer to Ilford XP2 introduced about a decade after XP2.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
The cost of raw silicon is cheap. It's the wafer sandwiches which are expensive.
The reason for going to smaller processes is not to save money on silicon, but to improve speed and performance. Basically the closer you can cram the transistors together, the shorter distance the electrons have to move and therefore the faster the circuits perform.
For CCD's I understand that the cost increases exponentially with size. Not sure what the reason for this is, but I would surmise that it is because the bigger the CCD, the more likely you are to make rejects.
The reason for going to smaller processes is not to save money on silicon, but to improve speed and performance. Basically the closer you can cram the transistors together, the shorter distance the electrons have to move and therefore the faster the circuits perform.
For CCD's I understand that the cost increases exponentially with size. Not sure what the reason for this is, but I would surmise that it is because the bigger the CCD, the more likely you are to make rejects.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
Ian, that's kind of guide that's REALLY helpful to me. Not the features table, which I honestly found hard to digest anyway. Thanks for your comments.
Agree with you on this - after all, if you want to really debate this, silicon is nothing more than pure sand. BUT! to make (grow) a silicon wafer (especially the larger sizes) takes a specialised fab and cost mucho moola.
True but i would go on to say that speed and performance increases are closely related by-product of the smaller processes. The overriding factor is the volume gained. Take this example - if a wafer can produce 100 chips, and there is a 20% error rate, you can only expect 80 workable chips out of the wafer (which is a FIXED cost). Suppose those chips sell for $100, the total profit is then $8,000. Now a process improvement allows the same wafer to produce 200 chips but error still remain at 20% - the output is now 160 chips. Assuming same price, the profit is now $16,000. Same wafer, same wafer cost, different process, double production, double profit. Now because of the smaller process, the chip can be made faster, therefore, the price can be increased as well - more product, higher price ... wah!!!
Your assumption is correct - the larger the surface area of the CCD chip, the more chances that it contains an error, so the yield of the wafer will drop. To cover the cost of the wafer + production, the good CCDs will have to be priced higher to offset.
Anyway, this is going way OT, so I shall stop here
Hi
I know this is slightly OT, but this is surely an interesting topic
On the issue of full frame CMOS / CCDs for digital SLRs, I'm not sure if the limitations are only financial or production issues.
Remember Olympus's claim that the E10 / E20's redesigned lens allows parallel rays of light to hit the sensor perpendicularly for optimal image capture? While doing some research on Leica cameras and the rangefinder design, i recently came across an interesting snippet that seems to augment Olympus's thinking from an objective point of view.
I've also read some discussion on DPReview some time back discussing Contax's attempt at a full frame sensor and this theory of optimal capture only from parallel light rays hitting the sensor came up again and again.
Anyway here's part of the the Leica FAQ that discusses the possibility (or improbability) of a digital Leica rangefinder in the M series.
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/faq.html#Anchor-Limits-30189
The rest of the FAQ on the same page offers a very interesting indepth look at the science behind photography and Leica cameras in general, so you may want to read the entire thing as well....
A few standard disclaimers:
1) i'm no optic wizard and can't vouch for the accuracy of that portion of the article. Intepret wat u read according to your own reasoning, and draw your own conclusions, as I have drawn mine. But feel free to share your thoughts with the forum about it!
2) This posting is for discussion's sake, and will possibly do nothing to enhance the quality of your photographic work.
I know this is slightly OT, but this is surely an interesting topic
On the issue of full frame CMOS / CCDs for digital SLRs, I'm not sure if the limitations are only financial or production issues.
Remember Olympus's claim that the E10 / E20's redesigned lens allows parallel rays of light to hit the sensor perpendicularly for optimal image capture? While doing some research on Leica cameras and the rangefinder design, i recently came across an interesting snippet that seems to augment Olympus's thinking from an objective point of view.
I've also read some discussion on DPReview some time back discussing Contax's attempt at a full frame sensor and this theory of optimal capture only from parallel light rays hitting the sensor came up again and again.
Anyway here's part of the the Leica FAQ that discusses the possibility (or improbability) of a digital Leica rangefinder in the M series.
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/faq.html#Anchor-Limits-30189
The rest of the FAQ on the same page offers a very interesting indepth look at the science behind photography and Leica cameras in general, so you may want to read the entire thing as well....
A few standard disclaimers:
1) i'm no optic wizard and can't vouch for the accuracy of that portion of the article. Intepret wat u read according to your own reasoning, and draw your own conclusions, as I have drawn mine. But feel free to share your thoughts with the forum about it!
2) This posting is for discussion's sake, and will possibly do nothing to enhance the quality of your photographic work.
Originally posted by Zoomer
They could make it with a 0.25 micron process, save $$$.
Don't think CCD makes up a large % of the cam's cost anyway.
CCDs ARE expensive to make. And the bigger it is, the lower the yield. It's just like LCDs, very difficult to make a good CCD with an acceptable amount of dead pixels. The rest of the camera like the AF module, lenses etc are already available, and having been around for so long (in film cameras), cost should not be that big of an issue.
Regards
CK
- Status
Similar threads
