I don't believe 3-CCDs are needed anymore.

Toke Lahti · January 18th, 2005, 07:48 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn: Any decent modern SRL lens (call it Canon, Nikkor,Zeiss,Leica or even Pentax :) ) easily exceed an "aerial resolution" of 100lp/mm.
Limitations are not in fact related to the lenses themselves but to contructive characteristics of camera body, shutter mechanism, ambiental/weather conditions and negative itself.
(think about that an ultra prime lens is supposed to resolve beyond 600lp/mm "aerial" and you will never get much more of around 80 lp/mm on 35mm movie film negative no matter what you try to do) -->>>

Can you tell what you mean by "aerial resolution"?
If we take the best canon lense for slr: EF 200/1,8L USM
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/det...8LUSM-56.shtml
It has mtf of 0.71 with 40lp/mm.
So I can't believe that it resolves anything above 100lp/mm.
Zeiss digiprimes have 90% mtf at 56lp/mm. From that I believe that they still resolve something in 100lp/mm, but not much after that.

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · January 18th, 2005, 02:24 PM

"aerial" is the resolving power the lens give for an image before hitting the negative, I mean it is the "actual" resolving power of the lens not affected by any mechanics or negative.
Zeiis uses it all the time.Make a deep search at their page and you will find it.
BTW.I tested A Pentax 50mm F 1.7 long time ago and with a low ASA intermediate stock it resolved around 90 Lp/mm at F 4.0.
(using open shutter and a flash light.
When we did the same using the mech shutter it went down to around 49 lp/mm)

Toke Lahti · January 18th, 2005, 02:30 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn : "aerial" is the resolving power the lens give for an image before hitting the negative, I mean it is the "actual" resolving power of the lens not affected by any mechanics or negative. Zeiis uses it all the time. -->>>

There's no sense talking about lp/mm figures without MTF.
Do you honestly believe that Zeiss would advertize their Digiprimes with 56lp/mm if it would be hundreds with some mtf?
Or do you think that your Pentax is so much better?

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · January 19th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Ok.I'm not trying to argue.
I'm just saying the normal SRL Lenses you use are enough for motion picture and for HDTV.
You say they aren't.
Here the conversation ends.
I won't change my point of view because it came from my own tests.And you won't change your point of view cause probably you have your own different experience, so there is no point to keep posting about this here.
Bye :)

Toke Lahti · January 20th, 2005, 03:42 PM

I'm not saying that they are not "enough".
I'm just saying that it might not be optimal format.
With 4/3" would be easier to focus and lenses would be smaller and lighter weighted.
And compering the zooms that are available, it seems that you could get bigger apertures with 4/3" than with 24x36 size, so that compensates lesser sensivity of smaller chip.

Alex Dunn · February 17th, 2005, 02:56 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : ...any of the current Canon Optura series camcorders (which have an RGB filter) will match the look of the older three-chip Canon XL1 and GL1 camcorders under the proper lighting conditions... -->>>

Chris,

Which Optura do you consider current? I recently did a comparison between an Optura-10 and my GL2 hoping to use the smaller camera on some riskier shots. I was pretty disapointed. Once it was in the NLE, the shots looked like the difference of film and video. Granted, the GL2 settings were tweaked, but I wouldn't say the cams were even close. In fact, color was the big penalty, the reds on the Optura were dull and the greens were grey.

You must be talking about the newer Optura-40 or somthing I haven't seen, no?

Xiaoli Wang · February 17th, 2005, 08:51 PM

The Optura 10 uses a CMY filter, the new Optura's use RGB. Check this chart:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/articles/compare.php

Thomas Smet · February 18th, 2005, 01:12 AM

The interesting thing about digital SLR's is that when the lighting gets bad we use a flash to give what is needed for that single ccd. If we could always shoot video with a huge light a single ccd video camera will look good. Try using your digital SLR in bad lighting with no flash and it will look pretty bad.

Toke Lahti · February 19th, 2005, 06:57 AM

Thomas,
sensivity is just about pixel sizes.
If resolution is constant, then is't just about chip area.
Eg. 2/3" 1-chip has area of 4x1/3" so it is more sensitive than 1/3" 3-chip camera.
There isn't any magic in 3ccd's.

Mathieu Ghekiere · February 21st, 2005, 10:19 AM

Doesn't 3 chips give you more detail in your picture than a 1CCD?

Sorry if it's a stupid question.

A. J. deLange · February 21st, 2005, 02:11 PM

3 CCDs in a beam splitter arrangement will give you more resolution that 1 of the same CCDs with a Bayer mask because there is no interpolation. And then the pixel offsetting trick yields a bit more still. But then remember that the green channel provides most of the picture information, that in a Bayer chip half the pixels are green sensitive, and that in DV 3/4 of the color information is tossed out and you can see that the engineers have a very interesting trade space in which to evolve their designs.

And it certainly is not a stupid question.

Mathieu Ghekiere · February 21st, 2005, 04:42 PM

Thanks

Ignacio Rodriguez · February 21st, 2005, 08:55 PM

> I have some canon ef lenses, so using them with
> moving image sounds tempting, but I believe focus
> pulling in documentary style shooting with 36mm
> wide imager might be too hard.

No. Well... yes, it would be hard if you used the larger apertures. But having a large sensor and lenses, you have more light to work with so if you were to film documentary style, you would expose at the slowest possible shutter speed and keep the lens at the smallest aperture. Thus, larger optics don't keep you from having wide DOF, rather they give you the option to control DOF.

Anyway, we are way off-topic. My proposal to camera makers is, make a camera with a single large sensor, and if you can't make a low cost 35mm sensor, go as large as possible but small enough to keep the camera below US$5k and have it include a built in ground glass or similar intermediate surface, and a 35mm photo mount which accepts servo-focus lenses.

Lebroz James · February 28th, 2005, 10:09 PM

Who does make the ccd's? the majority?

Matsushita or Sony?

The reason most cams are 1/6th of an inch are they are made in a crap full and outsourced (like intel or amd chips)

We will be seeing more small ccd's its just the market, if they start making one 2/3 ccd's performance and low light go up but the ratio of production drops(for every slab less peices come out good) same thing with micro chips(the intel P4 prescott produces more heat and is slower than northwood, but its made on a 90nm fab(northwood 130nm) %30-40 more profit after production starts rolling)

1/6'th ccds are mass produced, gotta applaud Pana giving us 3ccd in the $600 relm (electronics and maybe everything is all about production and profit)

Colin Wyers · March 1st, 2005, 04:05 AM

The other thing about still cameras is they have a lot more flexibility in shutter speed -- you can, in some circumstances, reasonably take the camera to shutter speeds exceeding a second. You can't do that with moving images.

February 21st, 2005, 08:55 PM	#73
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> I have some canon ef lenses, so using them with > moving image sounds tempting, but I believe focus > pulling in documentary style shooting with 36mm > wide imager might be too hard. No. Well... yes, it would be hard if you used the larger apertures. But having a large sensor and lenses, you have more light to work with so if you were to film documentary style, you would expose at the slowest possible shutter speed and keep the lens at the smallest aperture. Thus, larger optics don't keep you from having wide DOF, rather they give you the option to control DOF. Anyway, we are way off-topic. My proposal to camera makers is, make a camera with a single large sensor, and if you can't make a low cost 35mm sensor, go as large as possible but small enough to keep the camera below US$5k and have it include a built in ground glass or similar intermediate surface, and a 35mm photo mount which accepts servo-focus lenses. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

February 28th, 2005, 10:09 PM	#74
Lebroz James New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Brookyn New York Posts: 13	I like this little topic Who does make the ccd's? the majority? Matsushita or Sony? The reason most cams are 1/6th of an inch are they are made in a crap full and outsourced (like intel or amd chips) We will be seeing more small ccd's its just the market, if they start making one 2/3 ccd's performance and low light go up but the ratio of production drops(for every slab less peices come out good) same thing with micro chips(the intel P4 prescott produces more heat and is slower than northwood, but its made on a 90nm fab(northwood 130nm) %30-40 more profit after production starts rolling) 1/6'th ccds are mass produced, gotta applaud Pana giving us 3ccd in the $600 relm (electronics and maybe everything is all about production and profit)

January 18th, 2005, 07:48 AM	#61
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn: Any decent modern SRL lens (call it Canon, Nikkor,Zeiss,Leica or even Pentax :) ) easily exceed an "aerial resolution" of 100lp/mm. Limitations are not in fact related to the lenses themselves but to contructive characteristics of camera body, shutter mechanism, ambiental/weather conditions and negative itself. (think about that an ultra prime lens is supposed to resolve beyond 600lp/mm "aerial" and you will never get much more of around 80 lp/mm on 35mm movie film negative no matter what you try to do) -->>> Can you tell what you mean by "aerial resolution"? If we take the best canon lense for slr: EF 200/1,8L USM http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/det...8LUSM-56.shtml It has mtf of 0.71 with 40lp/mm. So I can't believe that it resolves anything above 100lp/mm. Zeiss digiprimes have 90% mtf at 56lp/mm. From that I believe that they still resolve something in 100lp/mm, but not much after that.

January 18th, 2005, 02:24 PM	#62
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	"aerial" is the resolving power the lens give for an image before hitting the negative, I mean it is the "actual" resolving power of the lens not affected by any mechanics or negative. Zeiis uses it all the time.Make a deep search at their page and you will find it. BTW.I tested A Pentax 50mm F 1.7 long time ago and with a low ASA intermediate stock it resolved around 90 Lp/mm at F 4.0. (using open shutter and a flash light. When we did the same using the mech shutter it went down to around 49 lp/mm)

January 18th, 2005, 02:30 PM	#63
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn : "aerial" is the resolving power the lens give for an image before hitting the negative, I mean it is the "actual" resolving power of the lens not affected by any mechanics or negative. Zeiis uses it all the time. -->>> There's no sense talking about lp/mm figures without MTF. Do you honestly believe that Zeiss would advertize their Digiprimes with 56lp/mm if it would be hundreds with some mtf? Or do you think that your Pentax is so much better?

January 19th, 2005, 07:29 PM	#64
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	Ok.I'm not trying to argue. I'm just saying the normal SRL Lenses you use are enough for motion picture and for HDTV. You say they aren't. Here the conversation ends. I won't change my point of view because it came from my own tests.And you won't change your point of view cause probably you have your own different experience, so there is no point to keep posting about this here. Bye :)

January 20th, 2005, 03:42 PM	#65
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	I'm not saying that they are not "enough". I'm just saying that it might not be optimal format. With 4/3" would be easier to focus and lenses would be smaller and lighter weighted. And compering the zooms that are available, it seems that you could get bigger apertures with 4/3" than with 24x36 size, so that compensates lesser sensivity of smaller chip.

February 17th, 2005, 02:56 PM	#66
Alex Dunn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 202	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : ...any of the current Canon Optura series camcorders (which have an RGB filter) will match the look of the older three-chip Canon XL1 and GL1 camcorders under the proper lighting conditions... -->>> Chris, Which Optura do you consider current? I recently did a comparison between an Optura-10 and my GL2 hoping to use the smaller camera on some riskier shots. I was pretty disapointed. Once it was in the NLE, the shots looked like the difference of film and video. Granted, the GL2 settings were tweaked, but I wouldn't say the cams were even close. In fact, color was the big penalty, the reds on the Optura were dull and the greens were grey. You must be talking about the newer Optura-40 or somthing I haven't seen, no?

February 17th, 2005, 08:51 PM	#67
Xiaoli Wang Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 94	The Optura 10 uses a CMY filter, the new Optura's use RGB. Check this chart: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/articles/compare.php

February 18th, 2005, 01:12 AM	#68
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	The interesting thing about digital SLR's is that when the lighting gets bad we use a flash to give what is needed for that single ccd. If we could always shoot video with a huge light a single ccd video camera will look good. Try using your digital SLR in bad lighting with no flash and it will look pretty bad.

February 19th, 2005, 06:57 AM	#69
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	Thomas, sensivity is just about pixel sizes. If resolution is constant, then is't just about chip area. Eg. 2/3" 1-chip has area of 4x1/3" so it is more sensitive than 1/3" 3-chip camera. There isn't any magic in 3ccd's.

February 21st, 2005, 10:19 AM	#70
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Doesn't 3 chips give you more detail in your picture than a 1CCD? Sorry if it's a stupid question.

February 21st, 2005, 02:11 PM	#71
A. J. deLange Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: McLean, VA United States Posts: 749	3 CCDs in a beam splitter arrangement will give you more resolution that 1 of the same CCDs with a Bayer mask because there is no interpolation. And then the pixel offsetting trick yields a bit more still. But then remember that the green channel provides most of the picture information, that in a Bayer chip half the pixels are green sensitive, and that in DV 3/4 of the color information is tossed out and you can see that the engineers have a very interesting trade space in which to evolve their designs. And it certainly is not a stupid question.

February 21st, 2005, 04:42 PM	#72
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Thanks

March 1st, 2005, 04:05 AM	#75
Colin Wyers New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Davenport, IA Posts: 13	The other thing about still cameras is they have a lot more flexibility in shutter speed -- you can, in some circumstances, reasonably take the camera to shutter speeds exceeding a second. You can't do that with moving images.