Physical Larger Sensors - is it progression?

[Stuart English]

FF35 for movies

FF35 for movies

I think the RED FF 35mm cameras are to compete in the Still Photography market. For guys like me who do both, it's perfect. For movie work, I think the S35 bodies will still be the industry standard because they can use traditional cine lenses, which the FF bodies cannot unless you shoot in cropped mode.

Agreed a S35 sensor is the perfect fit, but there is no reason not to shoot a FF35 sensor in cropped mode with a PL mount and standard cinema lenses.

That gives virtually the same DOF, resolution and post production options as on the RED ONE.

 

[Steve Sanacore]

Yes but Jeff, does standard 35mm cine glass cover a 24x36mm sensor? I didn't think it did.

 

[Auguste Langevin]

The 617 sensor is 3:1, that is the aspect and the pixels are square. 9334 x 3 = 28002.

Really sorry to insist, but I am okay with what you just said (aspect in pixels)
But the size is 186*56 mm (1:3.32)
Is there some sort of anamorphic optic on that one then ?

I really don't know anything on 617 format, is it named after centimeter dimensions : 6*17 cm ? (like 645 is 6*4.5 cm)
If digital sensor is a little smaller than film, as 56 and 42 mm is smaller than 6 and 4.5 cm, I would again say 168 mm width, smaller than 17 cm.

Sorry for bothering you, but the newbie I am is completely lost here.

 

[Stuart English]

Sensor coverage

Sensor coverage

does standard 35mm cine glass cover a 24x36mm sensor?

No, but it will cover enough of the FF35 sensor to allow capture at 4K RAW resolution.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Yes but Jeff, does standard 35mm cine glass cover a 24x36mm sensor? I didn't think it did.

In a horizontal sense, you are correct, but think vertically. You're leaving a lot hanging there with that 24mm height. Anyone who shoots anamorphic glass will want the FF35 as it will allow them greater vertical resolution. With anamorphics, that translates to greater overall resolution for the image.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

There isn't a camera out there that I know of for high end motion or still photography with a sensor that isn't natively daylight balanced.

I think you are wrong, the sony f35 seems to be native 3200k, at least that's what Art Adams is saying here:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/my_first_shoot_with_the_sony_f35/


ciao,
antoine.

 

[Paris Remillard]

Hi Tom,

Needs loads of ND filters, hardly progress, tungsten friendly would be more useful,

Stephen

Well, if you've got 1 1/2 extra stops, then you could throw on an 80b or 80c without penalty. Now you've got a tungsten balanced sensor with the same sensitivity of the current sensor.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Another problem with larger sensors for motion picture work is the increased size, weight and cost of glass to cover them for equal speed.

With a larger sensor, you don't need equal speed: you can get the same or better quality even with a proportionately narrower focal ratio (e.g. T5.6 on FF35 is the same as T1.5 on 2/3").

When light is ample, less ND with smaller apertures will yield more light in total and a higher quality image. In low light, the quality will be equal despite the smaller focal ratio because of the greater area. Of course, if you're paying extra for the larger sensor just for low light capability, then you wont get that benefit unless you also get larger glass. Also, if the larger sensor has lower QE per square micron, the focal ratio must be slightly wider to compensate.

Focal ratio (e.g. T1.3) by itself does not determine light gathering power: only the intensity of light per area. The focal length (e.g. 50mm) divided by the f-number gives the aperture (50/1.3=38.5mm), which is the true light gathering ability of the lens. Combine that with the area of the sensor, QE, and read noise to determine the low light sensitivity.

That's why, for example, you get the same amount of light with a 50mm T5.6 on FF35 as you do with a 14mm T1.5 on a 2/3". The only difference is the QE and noise of the sensor per area; the 2/3" most likely has higher technology in those areas.

As an industrial doc shooter, the 2/3" is going to work best for me. A good fast broad range zoom is much less expensive and more compact for this format than even S35. FF35 is impractical. The larger sensors work better for still shooters.

2/3" is going to work great for me too because of the price. In your situation, you're already buying the largest lenses that you want, so getting a larger sensor would, at best, only give you equal quality in low light. It would be better in ample light, but I bet no one even makes a lens that meets your needs.

 

[Brook Willard]

I plan on buying a 645. To me, the benefits are both creative and functional.

Functionally, I'll be able to shoot in a 24.89 x 14mm four-perforation mode. I'll also be able to do proper anamorphic sizes as well.

Creatively, it'll open me up to using all sorts of different lenses, formats and trying something new. I'll be able to slap that Nikkor 6mm on there without an adapter to get the whole circle in a shot. I'll be able to build a 65mm bayonet mount and use Imax lenses [the 645's sensor is closer to Imax size than the RED ONE's 4K recording area is to S35mm...], etc. I'm excited for both technical nerd reasons and artistic reasons... that thing is going to be great.

So is a larger sensor progress? It may not necessarily be the area that needs progress the most... but it sure isn't a step backwards.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Well, if you've got 1 1/2 extra stops, then you could throw on an 80b or 80c without penalty. Now you've got a tungsten balanced sensor with the same sensitivity of the current sensor.

Hi,

Adding an extra piece of glass never increased quality, needing 2 or 3 filters most of the time can't be a good thing.

Stephen

 

[Häakon]

A larger sensor is absolutely progress. Larger photosites mean less light-starved pixels, which in turn means better noise performance and extended dynamic range. It also means greater resolution, which has the obvious effect of superior detail rendition. Yes, it will mean that eventually you will need glass that covers a larger sensor area than traditional 35mm PL-mount optics. The sooner you can get over that, the sooner you can relish in the aforementioned advantages that a larger sensor brings. If DOF is a concern, there are a plethora of 1/3" chip cameras on the market that can assist you tremendously in this area.

 

[Brook Willard]

Adding an extra piece of glass never increased quality

Unless you're using the oft-misunderstood "Enhancer" filter... :clown2:

 

[Dominic Jones]

Well, if you've got 1 1/2 extra stops, then you could throw on an 80b or 80c without penalty. Now you've got a tungsten balanced sensor with the same sensitivity of the current sensor.

But when was the last time you had spare stops for interiors??! I know you´re assuming the sensor will be a stop and a half faster, and I hope you´re right, but even if so (and personally I think it´s unlikely we´ll see anything like that drastic an increase in sensitivity) that´s going in the wrong direction...

You´re almost always fighting for stop indoors (which is when you´re normally shooting tungsten), and you normally need to filter exterior shots to get a sensible stop anyway - so you´d be much better off with a tungsten balanced sensor and swapping your 0.9ND for an 0.6/85B combo (for instance) when shooting exteriors, where light is plentiful.

Stills cameras are daylight balanced (as are nearly all stills stocks) as flash is 5600K. That´s where the DSMC idealogy falls down slightly - drama, vfx and promo shooters will vastly prefer a 3200K sensor, stills will want 5600K...

 

[Daniel Browning]

Stills cameras are daylight balanced (as are nearly all stills stocks) as flash is 5600K.

The reason has nothing to do with flash, it's because the light itself has less blue in it. The sensor can't see something that isn't there.

A so-called "tungsten balanced" sensor is more blind to red and green so that they are just as weak as blue.

 

[Dominic Jones]

I don't know much about the technical details of sensor production, but the reason that stills stocks have pretty much always been daylight balanced absolutely is due to the use of 5600K flash lighting vs 3200/3400K continuous for moving image interiors - there's no problem with producing tungsten balanced emulsions, after all, yet virtually none are made for stills use.

My point was simply that there is no call for a sensor in the digital stills world balanced to anything other than ~5600K, whereas there is in the motion picture industry. The technical challenges of actually producing such a sensor I do not claim to have any knowledge about, and will happily leave such discussions to others...

 

[oldphart]

I don't know much about the technical details of sensor production, but the reason that stills stocks have pretty much always been daylight balanced absolutely is due to the use of 5600K flash lighting vs 3200/3400K continuous for moving image interiors - there's no problem with producing tungsten balanced emulsions, after all, yet virtually none are made for stills use.

My point was simply that there is no call for a sensor in the digital stills world balanced to anything other than ~5600K, whereas there is in the motion picture industry. The technical challenges of actually producing such a sensor I do not claim to have any knowledge about, and will happily leave such discussions to others...

You could change the balance of the sensor by using two blue sub-pixels to one red and one green instead of the two green of the Bayer pattern. It would be very bad in all other situations than low temperature artificial light.

Incandescent light for high-intensity uses is obsolescent. With modern light sources, you will get much better efficiency and presice control with a daylight colour balance. Cars got halogen headlights first, then it filtered down into different applications. Ten years ago, cars got xenon headlights, it has filtered into a number of applications. Now, cars have LED-based parking and direction lights, and the overhead reading lamps in buses are LED. High-output LEDs are starting to appear in specialty applications like surveillance searchlights. There are already low-power LED movie lights on the markets.

In a few years, homes and offices will be lit with a new generation of solid state lights. In places with very high electricity prices, LED-based lamps are already cost effective.

The halogen lamp fits perfectly with the "buy cheap and throw away" ideology that is now grinding to a halt. Now, sustainability is getting more attention, and a high initial price which is amortized over a very long lifespan will become more attractive. Besides, it is not obvious that LED lights will remain much more costly for very long. The abominations sold as "energy saving" mini-fluorecents were expensive only a few years ago.