Sensor evolution

[boomstrikevideo]

I keep hearing comments that CMOS sensors are steadily replacing CCD for digital imaging. However after reading this article it makes me think that this might not be the case.

http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.aspx

Any other thought or insight?

 

[kevinottawa]

CMOS
CMOS run
Run MOS Run

Hmm sounded funnier in my head.
But anyways, those are my thoughts.

 

[zijital]

I think in our world, CMOS has more resolution & sensitivity for the money than CCD. For pro video all of the troubles of CMOS is in the rolling shutter: flash banding; skew; jello.

But the amount of rolling shutter varies from camera to camera. There are giant differences when you compare Flip HD vs HPX300 vs Red One in terms of rolling shutter.

I can easily see that in a few years the rolling shutter could be nominal & almost become a non issue. I'd bet dollars to donuts that everyone on this board would prefer the resolution of a HPX300's full raster CMOS chips over the way less than raster HVX's CCDs (everything else being equal).

But the biggest thing that I saw in that article is that CCDs are better for some applications, where CMOS is better for others.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

The new Mx sensor for Red has pretty much the same rolling shutter as film. It is a 100% resolvable problem - and often overstated. Even on an EX1, rare is the shot that is spoiled by rolling shutter, but often is the shot that is enhanced by higher resolution and light sensitivity.

 

[TrueIndigo]

CCD mostly has better low light colour saturation and less noise than a similar CMOS (and of course built-in global shutter). Generally CMOS are cheaper than equivalent CCD sensors. Sony's preference for their high end cameras (like F23 and F35) is for CCD at this time, though technology moves on. Next year, who knows...