The organic sensor is here

But it isn't just the focal length, live sports requires certain ergonomics and the power zoom (handheld) or big box lens is the standard for a reason, they just work the way people want them to work. Even with a teleconvertor to make the image circle larger, I don't think these are a good fit to an s35 sensor. Most are going to be 8mm, 9.5mm, or maybe up to 10mm. You'd need to more than double the image circle to cover the sensor (a nice graphic here for sizes) https://www.cinema5d.com/fs5-fs7-b4-lens-combo-servo-zoom-4k-explained/

If you start with a 10mm x 100, you put a 2.5x teleconvertor on it to get it up to the size you need, and lose 2.5 (or more) stops of light (really rough amount). Now you have a 25mm (near normal focal length on S35) to a 2500mm tight lens. Plus if the lens doesn't resolve more than 8k worth of lines, once you blow it up you will have a lot worse resolution. The teleconverters ALWAYS reduce resolution, you are spreading the finest detail that the lens can resolve out over a bigger area, and then sampling it over a greater number of photosites in a finer pattern. The larger the conversion, the more the image degrades. Let's assume a 6um photosite size for the 4k lens, in order to keep the same resolution (assuming zero loss from the converter), you'd need 15um size photosites just to keep the 4k resolution. If the photosites were still 6um on the larger sensor, you would have multiple sites gathering the same line with a 3 for 2 scheme or about 3.4k to 3.8k effective real lines of resolution.

The above is gross approximation and gross exaggeration to get the point across. While this 8k sensor is a great achievement (don't forget this is global shutter too), I don't see this as being great for sports coverage in any way except as a handheld with a relatively short zoom like the ENG style Canon power zoom that is already on the market. We are really going to need lenses that can resolve this high, and are built for this size of sensor to really get the full benefit, and unless Canon or Fuji have something up their sleeve, this will leave out big box lenses like the 50x, 70x, and 100x sizes. The question then becomes, it is easier to design a lens for a small sensor or a big sensor image circle? If the big is easier, then modifying the big lenses might be an "easy" task.
 
I'm sorry for sparking this tangent (unless y'all are enjoying it).

In the interview video that DLD posted, it sounds like the first camera out of the gate will be something like the Varicam 35: a shoulder-mounted, Super 35 camera, and costing the most of any of Panasonic's cameras (although I would be surprised if it cost much more than today's Varicam). Like today's Varicam 35, you can use it for sports --- or not, it's up to you.

I just thought it was a little funny how the conversation went. The interviewer said, "So this is Super 35...", and the rep looked like he felt he needed to apologize for it. This is because of all concurrent announcements of full frame. We have talked that trend to death, and we all know how we feel about it.

I myself am not much of a stickler, and would accept any camera between S16 and Full Frame.
 
Last edited:
Larger sensor cameras are certainly not unheard of in sports coverage. For example, the Sony HDC-4800 is a 4K high frame rate camera with a Super 35 sized sensor that is pretty clearly aimed at shooting sports and comes with a PL mount:
https://pro.sony/en_FI/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems/hdc-4800

It's true that historically sporting events have been shot with 2/3" sensors and lenses with a very large zoom range, but I think the higher resolution 4K and 8K sensors and smaller pixel sizes have created some challenges for the standard 2/3" broadcast sensor size in terms of light sensitivity. This is especially relevant for a 4K camera like the HDC-4800 that shoots up to 480 fps because it means faster shutter speeds are required. And also matters for 8K where the pixel sizes shrink further.

While I'm sure broadcasters would like to have the same kind of features in a smaller sensor, they seem willing to work with larger sensors if that's what is available. Sony has a live camera system for the F55 and Panasonic has something similar for the Varicam. Here's an article describing usage of the HDC-4800 for the NBA Finals:
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/05...-abcespns-bakers-dozen-of-high-speed-cameras/

Generally speaking these larger sensor cameras aren't used as primary camera angles (which typically still use 2/3" sensors with box zoom lenses). Instead they are used more for replays or other specialty shots, where the extra resolution can be useful to do live crops or punch-in during replays.
 
bill totolo said:
A) Don't touch my mic! : ) I love how that video started...
Click to expand...

You know those Panasonic executives. That guy has a history of taking off with people's mics, forks and bathroom towels.

Anywho, when it comes to the DR, when the organic sensor was in development (with FujiFilm, I should add), they were expecting 18 stops. Now, they're talking 16. By the time the camera becomes operational, it'll probably be 14 and, by the time it hits the store shelves, it'll be perfect for Rec. 709.

Of course, Rec. 709 itself is perfect for everything.
 
I have a feeling that the DR has many qualifiers to it. Absolute DR might be 18 stops, but several of those might not be usable. SO now you get down to 15 or 16 usable stops of "clean" output. And while this has been in development for years (publicly) this is still a version 1 for production. Wait until they get down the road with the tools to make these imagers, mass produced version 3 might really have 18 stops of clean images.

Also, can anyone say what level Fuji still has in this? I think they were working on the organic coating material and method for mass production, but could be wrong. There are a pile of people waiting for an X series camera with organic CMOS sensor. I know they kind of want to cut free of Sony sensors, and partnership with Panasonic would make that possible.
 
Greg_E said:
... Also, can anyone say what level Fuji still has in this? I think they were working on the organic coating material and method for mass production, but could be wrong. There are a pile of people waiting for an X series camera with organic CMOS sensor. I know they kind of want to cut free of Sony sensors, and partnership with Panasonic would make that possible.
Click to expand...
It has been a joint project. The PR announcements were always from Panasonic but the reference was to the joint patents from 2011 or so. In any case, since FujiFilm doesn't make the high end/pro cameras, it's Panasonic's responsibility to shoulder this beast of burden until the cost of the manufacturing drastically comes down.
 
Greg_E said:
I have a feeling that the DR has many qualifiers to it. Absolute DR might be 18 stops, but several of those might not be usable. SO now you get down to 15 or 16 usable stops of "clean" output. And while this has been in development for years (publicly) this is still a version 1 for production. Wait until they get down the road with the tools to make these imagers, mass produced version 3 might really have 18 stops of clean images.

Also, can anyone say what level Fuji still has in this? I think they were working on the organic coating material and method for mass production, but could be wrong. There are a pile of people waiting for an X series camera with organic CMOS sensor. I know they kind of want to cut free of Sony sensors, and partnership with Panasonic would make that possible.
Click to expand...

Remember the DR bottleneck is ADC precision.

ARRI Alexa uses dual 14bit ADC to create a 16bit linear Bayer, so the absolute DR is 16 stops. But due to off-chip ADC and high dark current, usable DR is 14 stops.
 
I'm not sure ADC resolution is the only factor. You still need to be able to hold photons (or really electrons) to get the brightest levels. And also be able to sample the low end accurately for "near zero" voltages.

One thing they were really looking at is all the machine vision and cell phone cameras. Do you know how much money is in machine vision for automated inspection systems? And of course the cell phone market has really been a hot market if you have the next big imager tech. These high end cameras are all peanuts compared to those two markets.
 
Well, seeing as I thought at first glance it said "The orgasmic sensor is here.", this is a bit disappointing.
 
Greg_E said:
I'm not sure ADC resolution is the only factor. You still need to be able to hold photons (or really electrons) to get the brightest levels. And also be able to sample the low end accurately for "near zero" voltages.

One thing they were really looking at is all the machine vision and cell phone cameras. Do you know how much money is in machine vision for automated inspection systems? And of course the cell phone market has really been a hot market if you have the next big imager tech. These high end cameras are all peanuts compared to those two markets.
Click to expand...

The “prestige tech” invariably leads the large commerce development. Think of them as the two sides of Research & Development.
 
Greg_E said:
I'm not sure ADC resolution is the only factor. You still need to be able to hold photons (or really electrons) to get the brightest levels. And also be able to sample the low end accurately for "near zero" voltages....
Click to expand...
ARRI's dual readout works sort of like a multiple driver audio speaker where you get the low end (aka bass) from a subwoofer, medium from the midrange and the high tones from tweeters. In photo/video, a sensor can hold 18-20 stops but not at the same time, so one takes two - smartphones will often take three -shots at different exposures and combines them into one. That's how one gets HDR in stills. The difference in video is that the shutter speed is limited, so multiple exposure requires a great deal of trickery. ARRI's method seems to be working the best - Red tried multiple exposures too but it needed to blend frames if there was a moving subject - but it also seems a bit expensive because two data streams have to be sent out, then stored, then processed into one. That required a whole lot of complicated circuitry and a lot of memory and processing power. Which is why Alexa ain't exactly cheap.
 
DLD said:
ARRI's dual readout works sort of like a multiple driver audio speaker where you get the low end (aka bass) from a subwoofer, medium from the midrange and the high tones from tweeters. In photo/video, a sensor can hold 18-20 stops but not at the same time, so one takes two - smartphones will often take three -shots at different exposures and combines them into one. That's how one gets HDR in stills.
Click to expand...

No, not quite.

As described here: https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/technology/alev-sensors Arri's dual gain is two different amplification settings from the same image, so it's more like the dual ADC method that Zaxcom, Sound Devices, and Zoom are using in their 32-bit audio recorders.

Red's approach using multiple exposures is actually using multiple exposures, which doubles the data rate.

Arri's is more like the dual base ISO from the Varicam, only running both amplification circuits at the same time and combining the resulting pair of images into one using techniques similar to HDR. It does still require a lot of processing power, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top