Panasonic unveils 4K sensor
- Thread starter _JD_
- Start date
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
I really hope they continue with M4/3 mount.
Barry_Green
Moderator
At 4000 pixels and a pixel pitch of 2.5 microns, that's 10mm, which makes it basically exactly a 2/3" sensor. 2/3" sensors are 9.6mm x 5.4mm.
Darren Levine
Veteran
wait, panasonic is ALIVE?
for the record, i think 2/3" is a great size, for reasons many have stated ad nauseum
if they got the usable ISO up to the 3200-6400 area, kept the artifacting and RS down, it could be a winner
for the record, i think 2/3" is a great size, for reasons many have stated ad nauseum
if they got the usable ISO up to the 3200-6400 area, kept the artifacting and RS down, it could be a winner
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Indeed. Sorry. (when looking at my chart I looked at the diagonal measure, not the width)
Logical progression for Pana is 4K 2/3". They've pretty much had the best line up of 2/3" for the last decade (IMO) and looks like theyre set to continue to be around the top of that market.
I think it's quite possible they already have.......
It would explain why Panasonic have shown such reticence to divulge the HPX600 specifications. Say it's a single 3840x2160 chip and immediately people ask questions about 4K and when - exactly as happened with the Canon C300.
The answer to your question depends on what output you want. If you're talking about 1080 HD, then for resolution, aliasing etc it should be very good. They could use exactly the same read method as the Canon C300 to derive HD - the chip characteristics are the same, it's just much smaller.
The downside would come with sensitivity, it's not going to be as good as a normal 2/3" camera with 3 1920x1080 sensors.
If you're talking about 4K output, then it should be very similar to such as the F5, C500 etc as far as resolution etc goes (as before, the characteristics are the same in terms of pixel count) but being so much smaller than s35, it's native ISO is going to be much lower.
If we assume this is the "why" behind the HPX600 being single chip, maybe the most interesting question raised is whether the HPX600 will be upgradeable to be 4K?
If the answer is yes, this overnight makes the HPX600 a far more interesting proposition if you must be 2/3", but have a future eye on 4K. If the answer is no, it's a 1080 camera, period, then you're probably better off buying one with 3 1920x1080 chips.
Panasonic has stated the HPX600 has a 3K chip.
I'm happy with 2/3" cams. I was really interested in the original Scarlet prototype. It had a single 2/3" CMOS chip. I can't remember if it was a 3k or 4K camera. For whatever reason, RED decided not to build it. Weren't they having issues with the fixed zoom lens?
I'm happy with 2/3" cams. I was really interested in the original Scarlet prototype. It had a single 2/3" CMOS chip. I can't remember if it was a 3k or 4K camera. For whatever reason, RED decided not to build it. Weren't they having issues with the fixed zoom lens?
I heard one reference to that, but it's never really made sense from a design point of view and I think it may have been a guess that grew wings. There's logic to a single 1920x1080 chip (for simplicity) and also to 3840x2160. They're both far more simply processed to give 1080p output.
Hearing an announcement of a 3840x2160 2/3" chip makes it far more likely that's the case, I just don't believe any company would develop such a 3K chip for a single camera, then announce the 4K one so soon after. But as said above, it's only got any advantage over using 3 1920x1080 chips if there's an upgrade path to 4K.
Here's the official Panasonic HPX600 video, that states the chip is 3 megapixels. Watch the video at 2:23.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DUrUZV_JkM
I have to go by the video, as far as info on the chip.
My FS100 has a 3.5 megapixel chip, which is certainly not 4K. It's in that middle ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DUrUZV_JkM
I have to go by the video, as far as info on the chip.
My FS100 has a 3.5 megapixel chip, which is certainly not 4K. It's in that middle ground.
combatentropy
Veteran
I'm kind of depressed.
With pixels this small? Maybe, but I wouldn't get my hopes very high.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
The optimal pixel pitch for a 2/3" sensor is around 2.5-3.0 microns. So I would say that the problem is not the pixel size, but the sensor size, which is conditioning the pixel size.
Look at the last chart in this article
Look at the last chart in this article
Last edited:
That (very good, albeit highly technical!) article is written primarily from the view point of digital stills, not video. As far as stills go, frame resolution can be whatever you choose it to be, unlike video with fixed resolutions - hence what he refers to as "AIQ" is an attempt to combine resolution and s/n as a single variable, and see how that varies with other factors. Video is different in that you really have to consider resolution a fixed quantity in it's own right (SD, 720, 1080, 4K, whatever), and evaluate trade-offs between pixel pitch, s/n, dynamic range etc. This will give an optimal sensor size for any given resolution.
From our video perspective, it's worth looking at his conclusions, and especially:
If you accept that 5 microns is about optimum for pixel spacing it means that for a 2/3" sensor, around 1920x1080 is about as good as it gets - or put the other way round, for 1080 you really need a sensor size corresponding to 2/3" or bigger.
Use the same maths, and if you double the sensor resolution to 3840x2160, then to maintain optimum performance you should double the dimensions of the sensor. Hence 4K is best served with sensors corresponding to 4/3 and above.
Funny that. Look at all the existing quality 4K cameras (Red, Sony, Black Magic, Canon etc) and they are all 4/3 or s35. Which may show the manufacturers all put the numbers into their computers with the laws of physics and that was what their computers told them.....
Same with 1080. Optimal size is 2/3", hence the predominance of that in the broadcast world. Larger format 1080 (such as the C300) are designed such not to give much better technical results, rather to cater for the trend for shallow depth of field.
Last edited:
If so, then why would Panasonic bother making a 2/3" 4K chip, if it will never be an optimal sized sensor? You'd think they'd further develop the large sensor 4K Varicam prototype they showed at NAB 2012.
From the article:
The stagger-laced scanning method improves imaging sensitivity and realizes a 50 percent reduction in output data rate by alternating the readout of two sets of horizontal pixel pairs arranged in two complementary checkerboard patterns.
I have no idea what this means, but it says it increases image sensitivity. it sounds suspiciously like the pixel shifting Panny used for the HPX500.
It's a very good question and all we can do is speculate.
Maybe they decided that there was a 2/3" market that was just crying out for 2/3" 4K?
Maybe cost, times have been hard for all the Japanese electronics firms and maybe 2/3" 4k was viable, s35 4K wasn't yet?
Also, not being optimum is not the same as saying "it will be bad". I'd expect it to be able to be used in a camera capable of producing excellent 4K results - under the right conditions. There are very good parallels with stills cameras. In good light it may be hard to tell the difference in quality between an expensive DSLR and a small compact - in low light a DSLR will beat a small compact hands down, and that's largely down to sensor sizes.
Who's to say they aren't doing that in tandem and that will be the next announcement?
There seems to be a bit of an assumption that the announcement is destined for a high end product, but who's to say that's the case?
Maybe this is intended to be used in the "4K HPX250", not the "4K Varicam"?
I think it's worth waiting to see what IBC brings in a couple of weeks time before speculating any more.