HV20 + CineForm Recorder + Letus35 < 4000$

[Lawrence Bansbach]

c'mom guys 1/8" not 1/1.8"

Nope, it's 1/1.8 inch. The imaging chip is the Sony IMX017CQE. Because it's about a half inch, DOF will be a little shallower than with a third-inch chip. But still no 24p, and at frame rates higher than 15 fps, the output data rate goes down from 12 to 10 bits. Though 10 bits (as in 10-bit 4:2:2) wouldn't be bad, the full 12 bits would be cool. Maybe Jim could get Sony to make a custom version that does framing rates up to 60 fps (including, of course, 24p) and a 12-bit data rate at 24p and 2K or even 1080p (i.e., 1,920 x 1,080, not 1,440 x 1,080), rather than 15 fps at 2,880 x 2,160. And, by the way, that 300-fps rate has a resolution of 2,880 x 432.

 

[mdo]

Nope, it's 1/1.8 inch. The imaging chip is the Sony IMX017CQE. Because it's about a half inch, DOF will be a little shallower than with a third-inch chip. But still no 24p, and at frame rates higher than 15 fps, the output data rate goes down from 12 to 10 bits. Though 10 bits (as in 10-bit 4:2:2) wouldn't be bad, the full 12 bits would be cool. Maybe Jim could get Sony to make a custom version that does framing rates up to 60 fps (including, of course, 24p) and a 12-bit data rate at 24p and 2K or even 1080p (i.e., 1,920 x 1,080, not 1,440 x 1,080), rather than 15 fps at 2,880 x 2,160. And, by the way, that 300-fps rate has a resolution of 2,880 x 432.

The PDF says the image size is 9.10 mm diagonal. At 16/9 this yields a sensor that is 7.9mm x 4.5mm, which covers the area of about 1/18 of an inch. The PDF says it's: Type 1/1.8, but they don't say that's the size.

 

[Mike Bozulich]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/SensorSizes.png

According to this handy chart (courtesy of wikipedipedia) a 1/1.8 sensor would be 7.18mm x 5.32mm (if it were 4/3 aspect). The diagonal of this would be 8.936mm... which is dang close to 9.1mm stated in the sensor documentation. It sounds like mdo's calculation of 7.9mm x 4.5mm is correct as it results in a diagonal of 9.091mm. 9.1mm is just shy of 3/8"

Whew! In the end, that's a pretty darn big sensor for such a small camera.

 

[zecahue]

mistake of writer...
If you check photos here:
http://www.engadget.com/photos/hands-on-with-samsungs-sc-hmx20c-1080p-camcorder/559822/


you'll see 6.3 - 63mm focal length. At 1/8 inch that will be another digits

Yes u'r right, sorry. Most media sites are covering as 1/8" and it was hard to believe such PS cam with so big sensor, special samsung who produce tiny CMOS sensors. However, this is not the debut of this sensor, the Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 use the same sensor. There are many 1200fps/600fps/300fps samples on the net, but I haven't seem a full HD sample. Seems like a hybrid sensor, not special designed for video nor for photography, so both quality will not be very high. Anyway it has a very impressive frame rate.

I doubt the quality of this sensor for video, Sony use they best sensors in they own cameras and camcorders.

 

[zerrax]

Yes u'r right, sorry. Most media sites are covering as 1/8" and it was hard to believe such PS cam with so big sensor, special samsung who produce tiny CMOS sensors. However, this is not the debut of this sensor, the Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 use the same sensor. There are many 1200fps/600fps/300fps samples on the net, but I haven't seem a full HD sample. Seems like a hybrid sensor, not special designed for video nor for photography, so both quality will not be very high. Anyway it has a very impressive frame rate.

I doubt the quality of this sensor for video, Sony use they best sensors in they own cameras and camcorders.

The Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 can only record 60 fps at 1920x1080
the other faster frame rates are in combination with smaller aspect ratio's
512 × 384 (300 fps), 432 × 192 (600 fps), 336 × 96 (1200 fps)

 

[zecahue]

The Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1 can only record 60 fps at 1920x1080
the other faster frame rates are in combination with smaller aspect ratio's
512 × 384 (300 fps), 432 × 192 (600 fps), 336 × 96 (1200 fps)

Different machines, different specification. But no other known sensor in the market with these capabilities. So, its high possible they use the same sensor.

 

[vsv]

Looks like samsung and casio used same cmos 1/1.8" manufactured bu sony.
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/specification/1737/show.html
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/18689/casio-exilim-pro-ex-f1-test-photos/

 

[maarek]

I am sorry if my first post here, might seem quite hard but your assumption of the hv20 major flaw is so out of order (google rolling shutter and redone) that I felt that I had to respond for the sake of objectivity.

It is a major flaw and for me it makes the camera come down a notch.

 

[oldphart]

...
Scarlet will most likely NOT have a 35mm sensor--not if it is anywhere NEAR "pocketsized".
...

I once had an Olympus Pen F still camera. With a normal or wide angle, it was easily pocket sized. I think we are pretty close to the point in time where the electronics for a digital movie camera will be able to fit in the space occupied by the film and mechanical parts of a 35mm still camera.

The embedded computer to deal with 4k will be bulky and energy hungry for some time yet, but 2k should be approaching the realm of possibility.

 

[Bing Bailey]

There are a lot of posts and speculation about the upcoming Scarlet camera. I too am very excited and I have my own opinions and speculations but a lot of what I am reading here is rediculous--or, to be fair, a little far fetched.

Scarlet will most likely NOT have a 35mm sensor--not if it is anywhere NEAR "pocketsized". I think people are forgetting what a feat it is to have a full frame sensor in a camera as SMALL as Red One. Do some research and look at digital still cameras, they share more in common with the RED cams and the big reason those are so small is that the sensor is equally tiny. Go and find a full-frame still camera and see for yourself how not-pocket sized it is, and while you're at it think about WHY all digital still cameras aren't full framed. Because developing/producing a full-frame sensor is expensive at any pixel count.

Now it is common knowledge that a small sensor equals noise and bad DOF, so o it obviously ain't gunna be tiny, but check out how large Sigma's "pocket-sized" DP1 with an APS-C sized sensor and fixed, non-zoom lens. I believe/hope that the sensor for the Scarlet (which will not be full sized and either 2K or full 1080P) is large but will not be a full 35mm frame and probably not even a full APS (24mm) frame. Even at 16mm with an non-interchangeable lens it would be an engineering feat to create a camera that could be considered pocket sized.

Now to create even more controversy, I think that Scarlet may actually record to tape as well as CF. Unless my math is way off--which it could be, I am not very good at math--a 1080P RedRAW stream could be written to a DV tape, certainly a DVCPRO tape. Now I would prefer a flash solution, and I think there will be one, but tape is reliable (relatively) and cheap and would appeal to some of the key markets of the Scarlet. For example, documentary filmmakers, at least the few that I know, would jump at the chance of picking up a small, professional grade camera that would record in at least 30-40minute chunks, sans interruption, to a medium that didn't require being shuffled off to a computer and could be collected in a bad as they wander around the wilderness. Flash won't work because its too small and expensive and hard drives are too finicky and unreliable. I believe both those should, and will, be expansion options. Or perhaps I am wrong and tape is the expansion option, that certainly would bring down the cost of the camera.

Alright, flame away!

a full frame 35mm film frame is actually a lot smaller than 35mm still frames. its not as big as you think. you're not comparing like with like