No full sized CCD's

[roxics]

It baffles me that companies like Nikon can produce cameras like the D50 with a CCD that is only 1.5 times smaller then a 35mm film frame and sell it for only $900. But in the video world you can't get chips that big in video cameras that cost $4-10k.

People here are saying one of the most expensive things about the new XLH1 must be the new high definition lens. Well why not use EOS lenses and largers CCD's instead? For $9k they should be able to include larger CCD's rather then a more exacting lens.

I mean the reason you need a hidef completely new lens for the XLH1 is because it uses a small HiDef CCD block. So why not instead use a larger block with a less detailed lens? We all know EOS lenses are capable of that kind of resolution. Canon builds DSLR's with up to 12 megapixels.

I know Canon doesn't use CCD's in their DSLR's, they use CMOS sensors which supposidly can't be used at speeds up to 30fps. But they are a big enough company (bigger then Nikon) that they could get their hands on CCD's fairly inexpensively.

Does this make sense? From what I read so far you really can't or shouldn't use the XL1 or 2 lenses on the XLH1, so why not switch the lens mount to the most common one they have. The EF mount. It would certainly give us more lens options and better control over depth of field. Plus if I understand it right the larger CCD's would produce less noise in the image.

[Anhar Miah]

I think we all dream of a day when we indies could have full 35mm CCDs/CMOS chips , but for now that is a long way away, the only thing close to that is the Arriflex D20 and Dalson Genisis.

Its the cost and bandwidth constraint that is the major problems.

I'm thinking that in the short term (approx 5 to 10 years) 2/3" CCD/CMOS will be in the hands of prosumer, the reason I say this is because of technology trickle down. By that time the pros will probably have access to full 35mm Sensors so they will still maintain that division.

Anhar

[Loki]

a CCD in a video camera has to be more complex than one in a DSLR.

multiple by 3 and you can easily up the cost. A DSLR CCD doesn't need to be read 24 times a second.. or 60 times a second.. or however many times a second with a variable frame rate camera. Dealing with motion is a lot more complex and requires significantly more work for the DSP.

that and, I wish people wouldn't get there ass in a knot with price. You realize there are people behind the technology of these cameras.. and they too need to get paid. As well... there should always be a big price difference between pro gear and consumer gear.

It helps maintain markets that way.

[Flintstone]

I think what roxics meant is not to use DSLR sensors, but rather use existing 2/3" video CCDs on XL sized bodies using existing 35mm EOS lenses. I know Canon has an adapter for EOS lenses, but I beleive he meant that the camera should be designed from the ground up for EOS lenses.

Anhar is right though, in a few years, the trickle down process might eventually give us large CCDs on prosumer cams... only time will tell.

[videoteque73]

When everybody thought that full size CCDs/CMOS were dying in the photography world, Canon presented the EOS 5D with a full 36x24mm CMOS.

CMOS should be easier to manufacture than CCDs. I never thought about a video camera that can use SLR lenses. The first company that do this right, they will have an ace!!!

Imagine a sort of kinetta, with a full size CMOS sensor and native 1920x1080 pixels. All SLR lenses can easily resolve this resolution. Pixels would be big, which would make the camera very light sensitive. Full size sensor would be bigger than 35mm for shallow DOF. If it can record RAW to internal hard disks... mmm!

:happy: :happy:

[Antoine_Fabi]

Now, that would be cool !

[Tzedekh]

I'm thinking that in the short term (approx 5 to 10 years) 2/3" CCD/CMOS will be in the hands of prosumer, the reason I say this is because of technology trickle down.I don't think this will happen for camcorders. If anything, video CCDs have been getting smaller.

[Erik Olson]

FTR, Dalsa Digital Cinemas Origin, Panavision's Genesis and the Arriflex D20 are three separate and distinct systems. The D20 and Genesis both utilize a single Super-35mm sized CMOS and RGB imager respectively.

Origin has a whitepaper talking about their particular technology in addition to conventional CCD and CMOS imaging systems... WHITE PAPER LINK (http://www.dalsa.com/dc/documents/Image_Sensor_Architecture_Whitepaper_Digital_Cinem a_00218-00_03-70.pdf)

e

[Walter_Graff]

CCDs for video are actually very expensive to produce. It's not a manufacturing process where you get one for every one you make. THe industry term is 'yield' and the bigger the CCD the less the usable yield. As for CMOS, they just are figuring out how to make them see motion well.

[dop16mm]

I don't know why video is so hung up with 3 ccd, I know it mattered when chips were inferior, but when digital still cameras can get increadible contrast and colour from one sensor why can't video. 3 2/3" plus the prism won't fit in that size camera head but a single chip would. We could have pro level dof. My first camera, a full size 8mm, yeah full size shoulder mount, had a 2/3" ccd, the wide end of the lens was like 10 or 12mm and had quite a film like look for the time. Now prosumer cams have 1/3" chips and most consumer chips are down to like 1/6'', how big is that, the tip of a match? How can it possibly be cheaper to cram 680,000 pixels onto 1/6" of silicon than onto 2/3".

Now if canon or nikon were to join forces with panasonic, build a camera with a single large sensor, the current half frame dslr would be fine as it is the same size as 35mm movie frame, PL mount for movie lenses, adaptors for still lenses. DVCProHD to P2 and uncompressed SDI out. That is the camera we want they just need the guts to build it. Surely slr chips can handle full motion, most of them do low res movies, the problem is write speed. P2 would solve that.

[Digigenic]

I'd prefer to use APS over 35mm, but that won't happen anytime soon.
I think it's possible that we could see a prosumer camera with 1/2 or 2/3 sensors by 2009. That's assuming a chip engineer doesn't validate Moore's law by producing 1/3 sensors that packs over 12 megapixels and retains just as much sensitivity [DR] detail, low noise, and overall quality as larger sensors.
As with the APS fantasy, I also doubt this will happen anytime soon.
So what are we left with? 1/2 or 2/3.

[Antoine_Fabi]

not because they're not able to produce it...

...but because they dont "want" to produce it.
They all want to protect their high end camcorders...

It will happen soon i think.
There is a huge maket for lightweight 2/3" CCD camcorders.

[Digigenic]

...They all want to protect their high end camcorders...
Well, everyone except for Canon.

It will happen soon i think. There is a huge maket for lightweight 2/3" CCD camcorders.
I'd be real surprised if anyone makes the move before Canon.
Not so surprised if it were JVC and/or Panny around the same time, but I'd have to be put on life support if Sony (who's plenty capable) decided to flex its muscle and make a move to a larger sensor. But of course, it still won't have 24P, so who cares!? :grin:

[Antoine_Fabi]

I agree,

the first between Panasonic and Canon to offer a lightweight 2/3" CCD camcorder...

Canon believes in 24X36 CCDs in digital still cameras...

[mmm]

I agree that a move like this is likely to come from Canon. Canon have shown with the XL H1 that they are prepared to use their DSLR technology in its camcorder line. Once they get a CMOS running in a DSLR that can function at 60Hz, I think they would be happy to move it over to a camcorder. I can't see why they wouldn't, or am I missing something?

[Digigenic]

Canon believes in 24X36 CCDs in digital still cameras...Canon has invested heavily in full frame CMOS, and they are also heavily invested in the APS size as well. They will boost productivity in that segment if they follow Sony's R1 in producing a prosumer model with said sensor. Of course, I find it hard to believe they'd hop scotch over the 1/2 and 2/3 sensors direct to an APS or full frame to put into a camcorder...but who knows...?

...I can't see why they wouldn't, or am I missing something? Of course, we're all missing something...we're all missing the money it would likely take to afford one of these things! :grin:

[mmm]

Of course, I find it hard to believe they'd hop scotch over the 1/2 and 2/3 sensors direct to an APS or full frame to put into a camcorder...but who knows...?

Can you imagine the hype on announcement! If it was sub 10K it would sell like useless crap on ebay!

[roxics]

Just to clarify my original post. I'm not talking about 2/3inch CCD's. Those are quite a bit smaller then even APS sized sensors. For reference
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/SonyDSCR1/Images/sensorscompared.jpg
the one on the left is 2/3"
The one on the right is just slightly smaller then APS which is even smaller then 36x24mm (35mm still photo frame) which is what I'm talking about.

The difference is huge considering DOF control.

[Digigenic]

You won't see it in this segment for a while to come.
Even Panavision/Arri/Dalsa have an assload of issues to work around in order to get whatever vision they capture to our eyes.
The first one we'll see will be the new Superman, shot with the Pan. Genesis.
There is also a t.v. series on ABC "The Night Stalker" using the Genesis, but it's intentionally being used for the harsher characteristics of video and not for cinematic depth. Similar to how Mann used HD in Collateral.

With regard to the sensors designed for DSLR's, even Canon still has trouble with its full frame sensors, i.e. soft edges on wide angles, mushy wide landscape shots with zoom lenses :thumbdown . More of an optics problem than anything, but the solution as Nikon remains insistent on is the APS sensor, "smaller is better".
I believe the largest sensor we'll see trickle down anywhere near this segment will be the APS, which will boast advantages to the full frame systems. However, we won't see this sensor implemented before they hand down a 1/2 and/or 2/3 sensor, which I say is only 1 to 2 camera cycles away.

Now, if we really want to see full frame, There's an HD IMAX cam made by Lockheed Martin, which will probably hit close to the UHD resolution standard (35MP). This means clinical tests will have to be performed before they can even release the damn thing because it'll ouput images that literally confuse the human eye/brain, and has some serious psychological implications as it distorts a person's perception of reality.

[cam]

I DON'T really think Canon can't produce a cmos or ccd APS sensor, cmos sensors for video can be developed as Arri and Panavision do. Canon is by far the biggest producert of cmos sensors and they have pushed this technology to an incredible level during the years.
Their Eos 1d Mark II dslr has an 8 MPixel cmos sensor, shot at 8,5 f/s, has an extremely sophisticated autofocus, the body is sealed agains moisture... all for 3500 euro!!
The for sure own the technology!!! And eventual technical problems can be resolved with some research & development.
It should be perfectly logic for Canon to develope a camcorder with a single aps cmos and use their great dslr lenses plus some other pro-dslr features like sealed body...
We are NOT all blinded!!!
Simply they think it is economically better (for them) to give us these ridicolous camcorders with these micro ccds wich are smaller than ones used in 200$ compact consumer photocameras, and they have the courage to ask us 9000$ for ultra compressed HDV 1/3 inch cameras.
And these 4000$ more than the XL2!!!??? For what??!! The camera is pretty identical they have not even changed that bad VF and I really suspect that even the lens is the same of the XL2 with some minor changes (a special "SR" coating and a slightly improved IS), even with the non compressed output, it costs almost two times the XL2!!!
I think Canon, Panasonic and Sony want to give us technology with the dropper to sqeeze from us as much as possible.
They simply give us these products because they know we buy them, and as we can see in this and other forums, we do it with a smile on our face if only the new model have some more (ridicolous) new feature.
Look at the exponential grow of dslr cameras! Why do you think there have not been a similar grow with video? They must protect the professional market and all that is connected to it (editing, post production...), a rigid system in wich big tv studios have invested much money and aren't very interested in a continuos technical grow and potential new big investments.
They want to keep us in the prosumer market and can't give us a higher quality at a fraction of the price of the professional equipment.
They also ask enormous quantity of money for very cheap features and quality:
Panasonic 8GB P2 cards cost 2000$ each and give us only 8 min. of HD (these cards are simply 4 cheap SD cards in parallel), hdv is really not a great improvement over dv and a big step back about audio, Sonys and Canon are interlaced yet... I'm sick and tired of the interlaced video, a system born with the tv decades ago!

[Antoine_Fabi]

"With regard to the sensors designed for DSLR's, even Canon still has trouble with its full frame sensors, i.e. soft edges on wide angles, mushy wide landscape shots with zoom lenses . More of an optics problem than anything, but the solution as Nikon remains insistent on is the APS sensor, "smaller is better".
I believe the largest sensor we'll see trickle down anywhere near this segment will be the APS, which will boast advantages to the full frame systems. However, we won't see this sensor implemented before they hand down a 1/2 and/or 2/3 sensor, which I say is only 1 to 2 camera cycles away". dixit Digigenic
================================================== =====

I'm out of topic here, but i have to buy a digital SLR for commercial use.
Do you mean i should avoid full frame SLR ?
What is your suggestion then ?

thanks

[Anhar Miah]

@digigenic
Not quite, yes I have read the report about the UHD camera experiments by NHK because the images looked quite real people felt motion sickness (but doesn't indicate that they could'nt tell the difference, however you would still need around 576 megapixels (conservative) to equate to what we see.


read:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

Anhar

PS wow, thats twice I've referenced this, well I guess its not a surprise since many people always have so many misconceptions about the eye

[mmm]

Great article Anhar... I don't think that my left eye resolves that much res though... too much staring at compter monitors in the edit!

[obin]

think of the quality of DOF you would have with a full frame ccd/cmos?

it would be game over, and you would never have to buy a new camera. I think this is one of the reasons they will not sell one.

[Walter_Graff]

Actually more like no one could afford one. Arri has a 1 inch CCD camera. If you have $600,000 you too can have one. What you folks don't seem to grasp is it is very difficult to make larger chips. IT's cost prohibitive for professional cameras and impossible for prosumer cameras unless someone invents nanotechnology to make the CCD's.

[Luis Caffesse]

Oh Walter, stop it with your excuses already!
Don't you see this is a conspiracy keeping us all down??

The only thing standing between me and the perfect movie is a 1 inch CCD chip.
But the MAN won't give me access.
:)

[Walter_Graff]

As much as you joke it was actually offering better technology at cheaper prices that hurt these companies in some ways.