size. I just should have stuck with that wording.
Your correction prompted me to do some research - which is always a
good thing - and I was really shocked by the size difference in the
SENSOR between the RED (which is the same, basically as the 7D) and
the full-sensor size of the 5D. I didn't do the math, but the 5D looks
almost 3x bigger - 864mm in area instead of only 329mm in area. OK, so
the math is 2.6 bigger. That's a sizeable difference.
Compare it to my DVX100a, which is kind of impossible to do since it
has three chips, not one, but what's the area of a third of an inch
chip? Some more research shows that it is a scant 4.4mm by 3.3mm! Ack!
That means - let's see, area equals pi R squared...kidding - 14.4mm in
area
So you compare 14.4 to 864 and it's 60x the size.
In my research I discovered that there is a camera chip that is
actually 94mm x 94mm! Let's get three of THOSE babies in a RED
competitor without a rolling shutter.
On Oct 16, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Wilson Chao wrote:
> AFAIK, the trend in semi-pro DSLRs is toward larger physical sensors
> with larger rasters. The only reason I'm nitpicking, is that some
> products (notably consumer cameras, but also Red) are touting their
> high pixel count, while underplaying their low sensitivity/high noise.
>
> Other than my small correction, you're spot on!
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Hullfish
> <steve4lists@veralith.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the correction, Wilson, honestly.
> >
> > But are there such things?
> >
> > Does anybody make a large raster camera with a small sensor?
> >
> > I may have used the wrong word - substituting raster for sensor -
> but
> > the point is that if you don't have a larger "chip" that's recording
> > the image, you don't get all the prettiness. It's not really about
> > whether it's 6 Megapixels or 24, but that the size of the imaging
> > sensor is bigger AND that the individual sensing "units" are also
> > bigger (hence the sensitivity.) Apart from my misuse of the word
> > raster for sensor, I also think that the individual "pixels" or
> > whatever the "atoms" of a sensing device are called, are also
> bigger,
> > allowing for the sensitivity to be increased.
> >
> > But the size of the sensor is what allows for the depth of field and
> > the proper focal lengths on the lenses.
> >
> > For example, on my Hasselblad, I need like a 600mm lens to make it
> > look like a 200mm lens on my Nikon. A smaller negative size or
> sensor
> > amplifies the effect of the lens length. Correct?
> >
> > On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Wilson Chao wrote:
> >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > I'm with you, but with all due respect, you erred in attributing
> > > the Canon's picture quality to its large RASTER size. In fact, its
> > > lesser DOF, increased sensitivity, and lower noise are due to
> large
> > > PHYSICAL sensor size, not RASTER size. A full frame 6 megapixel
> > > camera would equal a full frame 24 megapixel camera in DOF, ISO,
> and
> > > S/N, all other factors being equal.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Wilson
> > >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
Avid L2, Where the Answers are.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment