10.20.09

If 2/3-inch sensor is not used anywhere else but pro videocams, Pana/Sony/Canon will likely develop a universal still/video sensor and will be sticking in into mass-market still cams and pro videocams. So 2/3-inch sensor will die, but a full-frame sensor will emerge. A win-win situation.
 
GuyB said:
ignoring the fact that 1/2" type chips are closer to 1/3" physically because its all relative in the end the proof is more about maths, but there is a 1/2-1/3 = 1/6" difference between a 1/3" & 1/2". 1/6" is 50% of the 1/3", BUT, there is the same 2/3-1/2=1/6" difference between a 1/2" and 2/3", and 1/6" is only 33% increase on a 1/2". In simple terms, the 1/6" increase is a bigger % increase from 1/3" than from 1/2", as I said origonally. Increaseing a 1/2" sensor by 50% would make it 3/4" not 2/3"
Click to expand...
Yes, but I didn't think we were talking about "relative percentage of increase", we were talking about whether it was closer to one or the other. And it isn't.

A 1/3" sensor has a surface area of 6.02 square mm.
A 2/3" sensor has a surface area of 11.01 square mm.

That's 5mm2 of difference. The halfway point between those two would be obviously about 8.5mm. Coincidentally, a 1/2" chip has a surface area of 8.51mm2. It's exactly halfway between the two chip sizes. That's what I was saying -- it's exactly halfway between; there's as much of a difference down to a 1/3" chip as there is up to a 2/3" chip.


Unfortunately, I am not up on hotcake sales statistics, so I can't answer your last question. :thumbsup:
 
16:9 chips:
__________
|................... | 9x (ignore dots)
|__________|
16x
y=hypotenuse

we have (16x)^2 + (9x)^2 = y^2 (Pythagoras law)
256x^2 + 81x^2 = y^2

solving for x
x=(y^2/337)^0.5

y=1/3", x=0.0182
y=1/2", x=0.0272
y=2/3", x=0.0363

Area (square inch)= (16x)x(9x)
y=1/3", Area=0.0425
y=1/2", Area=0.1068
y=2/3", Area=0.1899
y=3/4", Area=0.2403

I am happy to have pointed out where my maths is wrong (very happy in fact as its not even the results I expected), but so far I am not seeing a standard 50% increase in area between 1/3, 1/2 & 2/3"
 
GuyB said:
I am happy to have pointed out where my maths is wrong (very happy in fact as its not even the results I expected), but so far I am not seeing a standard 50% increase in area between 1/3, 1/2 & 2/3"
Click to expand...
Far easier to just remember that for identical shapes, then the area increases in proportion to the square of any given linear dimension - here the diagonal. It makes the maths easier to multiply by 6, so the linear measurements become 2, 3 and 4. (6/3, 6/2, and 2*6/3)

The squares are then 4, 9 and 16, so it's a pretty good first approximation to then say that in area terms, each increase in chip size (1/3" to 1/2" to 2/3") leads roughly to a doubling of area. (The diagonals aren't exactly those numbers anyway.) With 2/3" having 4x the area of 1/3".

On the wider issue, I suspect it all comes down to cost. If a full raster 2/3" camera could go on sale for less than, say, £10,000 ex lens in UK prices, 2/3" would be far from dead. That chip size has a lot going for it - sensitivity, depth of field (cf 1/3"), lens availability, and a lot less problems with diffraction limiting the smallest usable aperture.

But if you can't have 2/3", 1/2" is better than 1/3" is my feeling. The main gripe about the EX3 is probably ergonomics, and if tomorrows announcement is a 1/2" EX with the form factor of Panasonics HPX300, a lot of people are likely to be very pleased.
 
Last edited:
I got it worked out much more effectively. I hope this isn't to technical, but I think you boys can handle it.

1/3" = Eh...
1/2" = AWESOME!
2/3" = Fuc% YEAH!!!

Chadfish
 
Your first error is in assuming that a 1/3" chip has any bearing or relationship to 0.333 inches. It doesn't. Neither does 1/2" or 2/3"...

The second error is my horrid mistake of posting the diagonal chip size as the area in square mm! I was looking at the wrong line in my angle of view spreadsheet. The DIAGONAL of the chips in question is 6.02, 8.51, and 11.01mm, not the square mm surface area!
 
Barry_Green said:
Your first error is in assuming that a 1/3" chip has any bearing or relationship to 0.333 inches. It doesn't. Neither does 1/2" or 2/3"...

The second error is my horrid mistake of posting the diagonal chip size as the area in square mm! I was looking at the wrong line in my angle of view spreadsheet. The DIAGONAL of the chips in question is 6.02, 8.51, and 11.01mm, not the square mm surface area!
Click to expand...


ahh, I didn't use mm anywhere. The 'size' of the chip is the diagonal measurement (well not the actual measurement but based on all that tube camera image circle size measurements). 1/3=0.3333 last time I checked
 
harddrive said:
...The squares are then 4, 9 and 16, so it's a pretty good first approximation to then say that in area terms, each increase in chip size (1/3" to 1/2" to 2/3") leads roughly to a doubling of area. (The diagonals aren't exactly those numbers anyway.) With 2/3" having 4x the area of 1/3".....
Click to expand...

But my point was that there is a bigger difference between 1/3-1/2 than 1/2-2/3, I didn't say it was a lot (its about 17%), but it is accurate.

Both changes are a difference of 1/6" diagonal.
Increaseing 1/3" by 1/6" is more significant than increasing 1/2" by 1/6"

Taking it to extremes to make a point. Increasing a 1/6" chip by 1/6" is going to be a bigger % change to the chip than increasing a 1" chip by 1/6".

The bigger the starting point, the least significant the addition of 1/6" makes.
 
Of interest to note: claim of a fix for rolling shutter in an upcoming upgrade to Clip Browser, and... a better IR filter to reduce red-shifted blacks. That last one may be worth considering.
 
Barry_Green said:
I think the day isn't all that far away when paradises like Abel Cine Tech and Spec-Comm are gone, and we're actually buying our broadcast cameras from Best Buy and Wal-Mart, because of pricing pressures. Right now you get a five-year warranty on P2 products. When the low-price marketplace commoditizes camera selling, as it's close to doing, I think you'll see promotions like that go out the window. It'll get to the point where you get a 90 day warranty and no support and you buy it at a box house and you're on your own.

That is not the way things are today.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We were in the same pinch a few years ago. When every company started to make their own films and photos, because the cameras got affordable (DSLRs, Camcorders) it looked like professionals were going to fall like flies. At least in my market.

But the companies realized there is more to it than hardware and came back. All photgraphers and videographers I know are very busy again, despite falling hardware prices.

Same will happen in the hardware market. Yes you can order online or get from Wal-Mart, but if you have a problem once you will gladly buy with a good dealer again and come back to him with your tail drawn in. Nothing replaces good service when you are working professional. And no matter what, a good lens will always cost money.
Indie-guerilla shootings ok, but when shooting professional ads or films on tight timetables will always need good service from dealers.
 
2/3-inch chip, shoulder-mount, and "an adaptor that allows you to use consumer Sony memory sticks". This is an official Sony product! Will Panasonic answer with a P2 adapter for an SD card? No 4:2:2 @ 50 Mbit/s though.
 
Yeah, and it´s a 3 chip (Exmor), which I really appreciate (thou it´s still CMOS).

They say it`s pretty fast. Stop down to 13 at 2.000 Lux and still get usable footage sounds good to me.

1.920 x 1.080: 59.94i, 50i, 29,97p, 25p, 23.98P
1.440x720: 59.94p, 50P, 29,97p, 25p, 23.98P
1.280X720: 59.94p, 50p, 29,97p, 25p, 23.98p
1.440x1080 (25 Mbps): 59.94i, 50i

Frank
 
They should have put higher than 35Mbps in it, but at least we have the nano to save the day. Unlike the Panasonic low cost 2/3", where you get a high quality codec but a compromised sensor configuration, but you can't do squat to the sensor, we get a great sensor and the ability to capture high end codecs via HD-SDI.

What was that about 2/3" cameras being dead???????

Very keen to see some prices on these new bits of kit (the 350 and new MLC SxS cards). With low cost SxS I might not bother using SD anyway. All I really need is 2x32GB more cards for my needs.
 
Just read about a price of about US$20K for the new 350. I think this is a bit high given it is crippled internally to 35Mbps (as a 2/3" unit it should at least have 50Mbps 4:2:2 like the other 2/3" 700/800). It should be about US$15. It might get around $19K street price but I think too many are going to find this one just a bit to much. $6K EX1 to $20K 350 is a big financial leap for many.

They could well be leaving space for a EX5 to fit in that US$12K price range which would basically be the 1/2" version of this 350.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top