Seitz scanning camera offers 160 megapixels

Seitz's 160-megapixel 6x17 Digital camera

(Credit: Seitz)

Got $45,600 burning a hole in your pocket? Try out Seitz Phototechnik's 160-megapixel 6x17 Digital camera. And save a bit more of your allowance for a lens, too.

The mammoth device is able to take an image measuring 60x170mm, a big notch up from high-end SLRs with a 24x36mm frame. It's got huge handgrips on either side that cry out to be grasped, but it's 18 inches wide and weighs 10 pounds, so it looks either like a great workout or tripod material to me.

It can be purchased with a tablet PC to operate it, too. That's doubtless handy, because a single high-resolution file is 307MB in raw format, the company said.

The 6x17 Digital employs a digital scanning back made by Dalsa. Scanning cameras employ a linear light sensor detector similar to that used in flatbed scanners; it moves across the field of view to take the photo rather than using a two-dimensional sensor that captures the entire scene simultaneously. It's a good way to get high resolution, but it comes at a cost: it takes a single second to take a full-resolution 7,500x21,500-pixel image.

(Via Gearfuse.)

[fazalmajid]

The film equivalent costs $2000

That's the price for a used Fuji G617 or a new Fotoman 617. Scanned, the film yields a 250 megapixel image.

[Galaxy5]

Interesting development - we've arrived at Large Format resolution

Before I begin, fazal should realize one thing: megapixels is not
a
measure of information - simply the total number of pixels in an
image. I can use Photoshop to create a 300 megapixel image of
a 5 megapixel original - both files contain exactly the same
information.

Several years ago, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer tested Bill's
Heidelberg Tango with fine-grained films to find out the point
at which scanned film gives diminishing returns. It turns out that
depending on the lens, 2500-3000dpi was about where you ran
out of detail on film and were simply adding more pixels to the
same information.

At 2500dpi, my scanned 4x5 film is about 300MB - or roughly
what this camera produces from its sensor. I'm not arguing the
superiority (lugging around a 4x5 kit will give you a hernia as
quick as this camera will) of film or digital - they're both
suitable tools in certain circumstances - but to be a film pariah
is unproductive. Both formats have a place - and digital is
increasingly capable.

For landscape work, I still prefer the chemical palette and
batter-less simplicity of working with a view camera and film -
but when it comes time to print, I vastly prefer working with a
scanned digital file.

[Galaxy5]

One other thing...

This camera uses a scanning back. Unfortunately, that makes it ill-
suited to any subject that moves.

For the studio market, this could be a great tool, but I'm not sure
which studios are really going to need more than 20 megapixels,
even with still shots.