1/4" vs. 1/3" sensor size at DVinfo.net

Daniel Kissel · September 25th, 2006, 06:32 AM

Now correct me if I am wrong but doesn't a smaller sensor further aggrevate the "video look" by providing endless DOF?

Coming from a DVX100 I find myself looking for 1/2" for the future, not the opposite direction.

Am I misunderstanding this whole sensor size thing?

Mathieu Ghekiere · September 25th, 2006, 07:23 AM

No, you're right: smaller sensor means more DOF, and is a bit associated with Video.

Frank Hool · September 25th, 2006, 07:30 AM

Yeah, it is directly related to Circle of Confusion. This is why You can find under Alternative Imaging so much talk about 35mm adapters. Those adapters just use bigger image plane for achieving shallower DOF.

Boyd Ostroff · September 25th, 2006, 08:51 AM

For a detailed technical discussion, see Jeff Donald's article here:

http://dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php

Dave Halliday · September 25th, 2006, 09:48 AM

Yeah, I'm with you. I'd rather have a 1/2 inch sensor with minor color issues than 3 1/4 sensors. I REALLY LIKE limited DOF.

Stu Holmes · September 25th, 2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Halliday

Yeah, I'm with you. I'd rather have a 1/2 inch sensor with minor color issues than 3 1/4 sensors. I REALLY LIKE limited DOF.

Problem is a sensor that big costs relatively big bucks and so you may not be able to afford the machine..

Konrad Haskins · September 25th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Problem is a sensor that big costs relatively big bucks and so you may not be able to afford the machine..

The 1/2" sensor is called an XDCAM HD.

You can have:

Relative Low Price, Amazing Quality, 1/2" Sensor for shallow DOF.

You can choose either the first two or the last two.

What would be amazing is if Canon could take their full frame 35MM sized sensor from the 1D and 5D dSLR's and make them work at 24P & 30P.

Bill Pryor · September 25th, 2006, 01:26 PM

[QUOTE=What would be amazing is if Canon could take their full frame 35MM sized sensor from the 1D and 5D dSLR's and make them work at 24P & 30P.[/QUOTE]

then you'd have the Arri 20D or the Genesis or the Red....

It's all about hitting a price point--it's cheaper to make 1/4" chips than larger ones. What's interesting about this little Sony is that they seem to be attempting to position it as something other than a consumer camera...and I notice they don't exactly proclaim loudly the wonders of small chips. I had to hunt for awhile before I found out it had only 1/4" chips.

You can get shallow depth of field with a 1/4" chip camera. Say you shoot a profile of a person. Zoom in with aperture wide open to an extreme closeup of his eye and nose, composed over to one side of the frame. If the background is 10 or 20 feet away, it will be soft. If the camera has a close focusing lens, you can be at a wide angle and move in to something like a coin until it nearly fills the frame. The background will be soft. For basic head and shoulder shots, forget it.

Steve Mullen · September 25th, 2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

You can get shallow depth of field with a 1/4" chip camera. Say you shoot a profile of a person. Zoom in with aperture wide open to an extreme closeup of his eye and nose, composed over to one side of the frame. If the background is 10 or 20 feet away, it will be soft. If the camera has a close focusing lens, you can be at a wide angle and move in to something like a coin until it nearly fills the frame. The background will be soft. For basic head and shoulder shots, forget it.

Yes -- folks forget they have to do some work with small chips, but it can be done. Especially for a produt shot or a CU. Outdoors you may need an extra ND filter to get iris fully open.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · September 25th, 2006, 03:15 PM

Attached is a shallow depth of field from the V1U. If memory serves, I'm about 8' from camera, iris likely at 1.8, 2.0, or 2.4, shutter definitely at 1/48. There may or may not be an ND filter on due to the light hitting the sides of the barn. I honestly can't remember, and don't want to go digging for the tape to read the datacode.
The "arm" you can see behind my right shoulder is about 4' back, and the nearest firetruck is about the same distance.
Screen cap from DVRack; a little underexposed. Apologies for that, we were juust prepping up for a shot and I hit "Grab."

Betsy Moore · September 25th, 2006, 05:05 PM

Aside from expense theoretically how small could you make a camera with half inch or 3/4 inch chips? Could you ever cram 3 chips of larger size into a cam as small as the FX1 (or even smaller)? I wonder what the size cut-off point is with today's technology...

Robert Young · September 25th, 2006, 05:49 PM

Why put these new features (24p, CMOS, etc.) on a 1/4" cam, and market it as a "prosumer" product like the Z1?? Why not just cut to the chase and give it all to us in a Z2?
You can kind of imagine Sony's strategy: The Z1 is still selling well and only been out less than 2 years. If they came out now with the Z2 (1/3" CMOS, 24p) they would be sort of stepping on their own successful product. So, they release the V1, which is "almost", but "not quite". Nontheless, it has features that many lust for, newer imaging technology, great early buzz, some practical advantages (size, for one), and a price that is not prohibitive. It's affordable enough to take a gamble on.
I bet it will sell like hotcakes. Then over the next 18-24 months, if Z1 sales begin to wind down, Ta Da... the Z2 will be unveiled, with all the V1 features plus a couple of irresistable new items.
Sony has made a huge bet with HDV, and appears to be playing their cards very well indeed.

Chris Barcellos · September 25th, 2006, 06:04 PM

The first question DOF junkies have to ask themselves is how much
Sony really thinks its prime market targets are concerned about it. There are a few people out there who clamor for shallow depth of field in their small video cameras for film like qualities, but for the much more numerous market is for ENG, event shooters, and run and gun sports guys. For all of those, I am wagering that a deeper depth of field is more of a benefit in terms of focus forgiveness.... a bigger issue in the HD realm...

Stu Holmes · September 25th, 2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Young

Why put these new features (24p, CMOS, etc.) on a 1/4" cam, and market it as a "prosumer" product like the Z1?? Why not just cut to the chase and give it all to us in a Z2?

Robert I tend to agree with your opinion that a 1/3in. 3-CMOS machine may happen sometime in 2007. And i would bet earlier maybe rather than later. Just my opinion.

Tony Tibbetts · September 25th, 2006, 06:44 PM

Is Shallow DOF really related to the sensor size, or is it directly related to the type of lens. For instance lens adapters for the XL series cameras for SLR lens, while they only focus on the center of the lens getting a cropping/magnification factor of about 7x the DOF properties remain the same. It's merely the framing that changes.

Another instance, I had found an old Sony 8mm camcorder at a thrift store not long ago, which had an removable Fujinon manual lens (10-107mm), which had to have been designed for a chip that was much bigger than the one in the accompanying camcorder. I could stand 4 feet away from a subject with the back ground only a few feet away and achieve amazing shallow DOF with that camera. The image seemed a little cropped, but not terribly so.

I also wonder about 1/2 and 2/3 lenses on say a JVC HD110? Or that PL mount adapter for XL cameras for instance. Using 16mm lenses, it suppossedly only crops/magnifies the image by 2x.

My theory is that if you put a lens designed for a bigger image plane on smaller chip cameras, you could achieve a nice shallow DOF, with some minimal cropping. So is the size of the image sensor the issue or is it the size of the lens designed for that specfic sensor.

September 25th, 2006, 06:32 AM	#1
Daniel Kissel Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Suzhou, China Posts: 34	1/4" vs. 1/3" sensor size Now correct me if I am wrong but doesn't a smaller sensor further aggrevate the "video look" by providing endless DOF? Coming from a DVX100 I find myself looking for 1/2" for the future, not the opposite direction. Am I misunderstanding this whole sensor size thing?

September 25th, 2006, 07:23 AM	#2
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	No, you're right: smaller sensor means more DOF, and is a bit associated with Video. __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

September 25th, 2006, 09:48 AM	#5
Dave Halliday Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 116	1/2" Sensor, please Yeah, I'm with you. I'd rather have a 1/2 inch sensor with minor color issues than 3 1/4 sensors. I REALLY LIKE limited DOF.

September 25th, 2006, 03:15 PM	#10
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Attached is a shallow depth of field from the V1U. If memory serves, I'm about 8' from camera, iris likely at 1.8, 2.0, or 2.4, shutter definitely at 1/48. There may or may not be an ND filter on due to the light hitting the sides of the barn. I honestly can't remember, and don't want to go digging for the tape to read the datacode. The "arm" you can see behind my right shoulder is about 4' back, and the nearest firetruck is about the same distance. Screen cap from DVRack; a little underexposed. Apologies for that, we were juust prepping up for a shot and I hit "Grab." Attached Thumbnails __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

September 25th, 2006, 06:04 PM	#13
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	The first question DOF junkies have to ask themselves is how much Sony really thinks its prime market targets are concerned about it. There are a few people out there who clamor for shallow depth of field in their small video cameras for film like qualities, but for the much more numerous market is for ENG, event shooters, and run and gun sports guys. For all of those, I am wagering that a deeper depth of field is more of a benefit in terms of focus forgiveness.... a bigger issue in the HD realm... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

September 25th, 2006, 07:30 AM	#3
Frank Hool Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Barca Spain Posts: 384	Yeah, it is directly related to Circle of Confusion. This is why You can find under Alternative Imaging so much talk about 35mm adapters. Those adapters just use bigger image plane for achieving shallower DOF.

September 25th, 2006, 08:51 AM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	For a detailed technical discussion, see Jeff Donald's article here: http://dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php

September 25th, 2006, 01:26 PM	#8
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	[QUOTE=What would be amazing is if Canon could take their full frame 35MM sized sensor from the 1D and 5D dSLR's and make them work at 24P & 30P.[/QUOTE] then you'd have the Arri 20D or the Genesis or the Red.... It's all about hitting a price point--it's cheaper to make 1/4" chips than larger ones. What's interesting about this little Sony is that they seem to be attempting to position it as something other than a consumer camera...and I notice they don't exactly proclaim loudly the wonders of small chips. I had to hunt for awhile before I found out it had only 1/4" chips. You can get shallow depth of field with a 1/4" chip camera. Say you shoot a profile of a person. Zoom in with aperture wide open to an extreme closeup of his eye and nose, composed over to one side of the frame. If the background is 10 or 20 feet away, it will be soft. If the camera has a close focusing lens, you can be at a wide angle and move in to something like a coin until it nearly fills the frame. The background will be soft. For basic head and shoulder shots, forget it.

September 25th, 2006, 05:05 PM	#11
Betsy Moore Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 444	Aside from expense theoretically how small could you make a camera with half inch or 3/4 inch chips? Could you ever cram 3 chips of larger size into a cam as small as the FX1 (or even smaller)? I wonder what the size cut-off point is with today's technology...

September 25th, 2006, 05:49 PM	#12
Robert Young Trustee Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Coronado Island Posts: 1,472	Why put these new features (24p, CMOS, etc.) on a 1/4" cam, and market it as a "prosumer" product like the Z1?? Why not just cut to the chase and give it all to us in a Z2? You can kind of imagine Sony's strategy: The Z1 is still selling well and only been out less than 2 years. If they came out now with the Z2 (1/3" CMOS, 24p) they would be sort of stepping on their own successful product. So, they release the V1, which is "almost", but "not quite". Nontheless, it has features that many lust for, newer imaging technology, great early buzz, some practical advantages (size, for one), and a price that is not prohibitive. It's affordable enough to take a gamble on. I bet it will sell like hotcakes. Then over the next 18-24 months, if Z1 sales begin to wind down, Ta Da... the Z2 will be unveiled, with all the V1 features plus a couple of irresistable new items. Sony has made a huge bet with HDV, and appears to be playing their cards very well indeed.

September 25th, 2006, 06:44 PM	#15
Tony Tibbetts Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 385	Is Shallow DOF really related to the sensor size, or is it directly related to the type of lens. For instance lens adapters for the XL series cameras for SLR lens, while they only focus on the center of the lens getting a cropping/magnification factor of about 7x the DOF properties remain the same. It's merely the framing that changes. Another instance, I had found an old Sony 8mm camcorder at a thrift store not long ago, which had an removable Fujinon manual lens (10-107mm), which had to have been designed for a chip that was much bigger than the one in the accompanying camcorder. I could stand 4 feet away from a subject with the back ground only a few feet away and achieve amazing shallow DOF with that camera. The image seemed a little cropped, but not terribly so. I also wonder about 1/2 and 2/3 lenses on say a JVC HD110? Or that PL mount adapter for XL cameras for instance. Using 16mm lenses, it suppossedly only crops/magnifies the image by 2x. My theory is that if you put a lens designed for a bigger image plane on smaller chip cameras, you could achieve a nice shallow DOF, with some minimal cropping. So is the size of the image sensor the issue or is it the size of the lens designed for that specfic sensor.