DSMC == FF35

[joakim_hansson]

I've been informed that sensor size not pixel size affects Dynamic Range. In which case 2k would just be lower resolution, not better.

Traditionally - the bigger the pixel, the better the DR.
The pixel can be compared with a bucket, the bigger it is the more it can hold.
-So on a sensor with few pixels, each pixel has a lot more size than on a sensor with many pixels. For example in a 1920x1080 pixel (2k) arrangement on a S35 sensor each pixel has more tolerance / DR than on a 4k S35 sensor for instance. If the sensor quality is the same.
So a 2k S35 sensor normally has more DR than a 4k S35 sensor.

That´s why I´d rather see fewer than more pixels on the sensors. :emote_hippie:

 

[Daniel Browning]

Traditionally - the bigger the pixel, the better the DR.

That is the traditional view, but it is not necessarily the case, as explained here:

Myth busted: small pixels have worse performance than large pixels

Most of the statements about pixel size are based on flawed measurements such as "100% crop". When image analysis is performed correctly, we generally see that dynamic range stays the same with smaller pixels (and same sensor size). If it does get worse (and it's hard to say because smaller pixels usually have higher technology), it is a much smaller difference than the flawed measurements lead us to believe.

 

[joakim_hansson]

That is the traditional view, but it is not necessarily the case, as explained here:

Myth busted: small pixels have worse performance than large pixels

Most of the statements about pixel size are based on flawed measurements such as "100% crop". When image analysis is performed correctly, we generally see that dynamic range stays the same with smaller pixels (and same sensor size). If it does get worse (and it's hard to say because smaller pixels usually have higher technology), it is a much smaller difference than the flawed measurements lead us to believe.

Hopefully that´s true, but I hardly believe so.
Anyways - exciting times ahead

 

[Peter Moretti]

A larger sensor requires more of just about everything.

 

[Juhan Malmstein]

I'd be ripping my hair out ever single day If I had a ff35 sized epic brain and all I could do was 3k @ 30fps and had to PAY to do more. Especially If I knew that it was capable of 6k@100fps. It's like buying a fridge that has 8 locked doors. You buy more than a sixpack of beer and you have to pay to unlock the next compartment. Or like buying a Bugatti Veyron but it only does 55mph UNLESS you pay a lot more. It'd be like elementart school once again where Jim and Jannard are the bullys of the school teasing us and taking our lunchmoney. It's pointless teasing giving the costumers ALL the bang in their hands but telling them that they won't be able to use it unless they gouch up some more $$$. You want 6k@100fps - you buy the ff35mm Epic brain ONCE. Don't need that much bang? Then maybe save yourself 30 000$ and get the 2/3" brain ONCE.

edit: I was simply looking at the problem not from the $$$ pov, but more of the psychological pov. Sometimes giving too much for too little can be a bad thing.

 

[Eki Halkka]

Hopefully that´s true, but I hardly believe so.

It is.

I did an unscientific test some time ago: i took my two still cameras, D90 and IXUS80IS, and took a side by side shot with both, using roughly the same ISO, aperture and focal length.

I then compared the same sensor area in both - here's what i ended up with:
http://hv20.com/showpost.php?p=212753&postcount=28

 

[Eki Halkka]

The pixel can be compared with a bucket, the bigger it is the more it can hold.

Yep - but there are more of the small buckets, which makes up for the difference.

If one large pixel can hold "100", and four small ones covering the same area can hold "25" each, you can add the small pixels together and the end result will be the same: "100".