Chris Davis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I have a few questions about CMOS sensors, with the rationale below.
1. A sensor that has photosensors of, say three times the surface area as another would not necessarily give you three times the low light sensitivity. All else being equal, how many stops more low light performance would a sensor with three times the surface area give you?
2. How much do CMOS sensors, such as in the RED One cost to manufacture (not including design costs)? I understand the price is mostly determined by the actual area of the sensor. Anyone have an idea of the approximate cost to area ratio, as you go up in area?
3. Sensors tend to have more photosensors as they get bigger. What about if you just make the sensor bigger, with the same amount of photosensors? For example, would cost less to make a 36mm sensor with 3K than one with 6K? If so any guess as to what proportion less?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
I'm a little concerned about what the dynamic range of the Scarlet will be due to the decreased size of the photosensors on the Scarlet 2/3" compared to the RED One. It appears that the photosensors one the Scarlet 2/3" will have about 1/3 the surface area.
The Scarlet 2/3" uses, of course, a sensor that's 10.1mm wide. If I divide this by 3000, it equals about .0036mm photosensor size width. The RED One's sensor is 24.4mm wide. This divided by 4,000 is .006mm photosensor size with. Square .0036 and .006 and it appears that the area of the photosensors of of the Scarlet 2/3" are about 1/3 of that of the RED One. Interestingly, by the same arithmetic, the S35 and FF35 appear to have the same size photosensors as the RED One.
(Of course there is an unknown amount of space between the photosensors, the RED One does more than exactly 4K, and the exact number of photosensors on the RED One is surely published somewhere and I don't know it, but these numbers are just for approximate comparisons).
1. A sensor that has photosensors of, say three times the surface area as another would not necessarily give you three times the low light sensitivity. All else being equal, how many stops more low light performance would a sensor with three times the surface area give you?
2. How much do CMOS sensors, such as in the RED One cost to manufacture (not including design costs)? I understand the price is mostly determined by the actual area of the sensor. Anyone have an idea of the approximate cost to area ratio, as you go up in area?
3. Sensors tend to have more photosensors as they get bigger. What about if you just make the sensor bigger, with the same amount of photosensors? For example, would cost less to make a 36mm sensor with 3K than one with 6K? If so any guess as to what proportion less?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
I'm a little concerned about what the dynamic range of the Scarlet will be due to the decreased size of the photosensors on the Scarlet 2/3" compared to the RED One. It appears that the photosensors one the Scarlet 2/3" will have about 1/3 the surface area.
The Scarlet 2/3" uses, of course, a sensor that's 10.1mm wide. If I divide this by 3000, it equals about .0036mm photosensor size width. The RED One's sensor is 24.4mm wide. This divided by 4,000 is .006mm photosensor size with. Square .0036 and .006 and it appears that the area of the photosensors of of the Scarlet 2/3" are about 1/3 of that of the RED One. Interestingly, by the same arithmetic, the S35 and FF35 appear to have the same size photosensors as the RED One.
(Of course there is an unknown amount of space between the photosensors, the RED One does more than exactly 4K, and the exact number of photosensors on the RED One is surely published somewhere and I don't know it, but these numbers are just for approximate comparisons).