Frage von nebular:
Hello,
times a question about the technical understanding of the CCDs, which really interested me.
I've just rausbekommen that the size of the chips did not like the film indicates the width, but the diagonal of a circle, of which about 2 / 3 of the area for the chip are used, so the surface of the picture really is extremely small.
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm
If so, has itself a 2 / 3 "chip only a width of 8,8 mm, as can be, as so often claimed, then a similar depth of field as 16mm film have an image area of 16mm Width (almost 4x so much better).
Where is my mistake?
Antwort von beiti:
If so, has itself a 2 / 3 "chip only a width of 8,8 mm, as can be, as so often claimed, then a similar depth of field as 16mm film have an image area of 16mm Width (almost 4x so much better). The picture window of a normal 16-mm film is only 10.3 mm wide (it is the left and right, a perforation, or for screening on one Page perforation and the other on the soundtrack). Slightly larger is the Picture in the Super-16-format, which is perforated only on one synonymous and has no soundtrack, so that a 12.3 mm wide Picture draufpaßt.
Antwort von WoWu:
... there is much worse, because the width does not so much comes to fruition ... You must now Height of the still deduct the amount that you are not used at 16:9 ...
But the depth of field is always associated with the focal and the Tagetfläche to see.
The depth of field is calculated in inverse proportion to the focal. Since focal length to 35mm in Comparison to a factor of 0.4 decrease, increases the depth disproportionately. Unlike the focal behave aperture, object distance and blur circle simply proportional.
Antwort von WoWu:
.... at 16 mm of course ...
Antwort von WoWu:
... perhaps the sharpness ... The blur circle is 2 / 3 "CCD, the 7.5 micron pixel pitch. In this movie is permissible blur circle around 11¼m (based on a 2K Resolutionbei 35mm film or 1.2 K for 16mm film).
Video can be no equivalent depth as film offer.
This is not synonymous with open aperture to compensate for different focal due proportionality possible.
Change the object distance, so this comes in a questionable practical work area.
Antwort von nebular:
ok thanks. interesting.
next I would be interested to know why with decreasing price range, cameras have smaller chips, which do not need expensive / complicated to produce a viable solution?
I mean, there's consumer HDV cameras with 1 / 4 "chips, which it something like 1080 lines mapped to the technical implementation would not be easier with larger chips to be achieved?
Antwort von AndyZZ:
The technical implementation, perhaps, but the silicon wafer and was given everything and turn it s.Material is synonymous cost you money. The larger, more expensive.
Antwort von PowerMac:
The larger the chip, the greater the Optics.
Large chip -> expensive
Large Optics -> expensive
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Nebular .... exactly what Andy said ... Almost all production costs. It is of course still add that small chips of synonymous-fingernahel great lenses to use ... they are synonymous cheap.
What but the consequence on the Picture you have read here: http://www.auberge-tv.de/GYHD-100/Erfahrungsbericht.html
