Newsmeldung von slashCAM:Hier geht es zur Newsmeldung: Fujifilm FinePix HS10 Superzoom with 1080p
Antwort von docstevie:
Why is building does not even someone who would, I think many of us welcome:
An evil-camera with full frame or APS-C sensor (CCD, of course, because of the rolling shutter) with only 1920x1080 natively, that would be extremely sensitive to light and had a small depth of field. Focusing could be done via the display (works with the 5DII synonymous) quite well. Possibly. it might even be synonymous with the display resolution to 1920x1080 to go (yes this is technically possible), then everything would be good. :-)
Antwort von headroom:
Unfortunately, no neutral density filter and 1 / 4 sec Maximum shutter speed
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
Information about possible, manual setting options in the video there are none. Too bad ...
About the addition 30fps (50fps) in 2010 is probably not a Manufacturer?
Antwort von LarsProgressiv:
Hello headroom,
... and 1 / 4 sec Maximum shutter speed shortest or longest shutter speed? ;-)
Regards
Lars
Antwort von headroom:
Hello headroom,
... and 1 / 4 sec Maximum shutter speed
shortest or longest shutter speed? ;-)
Regards
Lars Yes Tippfeeehelr longest course
Antwort von headroom:
Hello headroom,
... and 1 / 4 sec Maximum shutter speed
shortest or longest shutter speed? ;-)
Regards
Lars According to the PDF of Fuji, it is with the shutter speed a bit better
Shutter Speed Auto: ¼ sec sec to 1 / 4000, (all other Programs) 4 sec to 1 / 4000 sec
Antwort von cutty:
@ Slashcam
Thanks for the 11mm! That is a pint!
for the complete "surrender I still donate one :-)
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... 1 / 2, 3 inches of our translation is correct to about 11.0 mm ... The actual sensor diagonal would rather be close to 8mm: 11mm would already correspond to 2/3-inch.
Antwort von headroom:
... 1 / 2, 3 inches of our translation is correct to about 11.0 mm ...
The actual sensor diagonal would rather be close to 8mm: 11mm would already correspond to 2/3-inch. Fuji PDF
Image sensor 1 / 2.3 inch BSI CMOS / 10.3 million pixels (effective)
Storage media Internal memory (approx. 45MB) / SD memory card /
Download to bottom
http://www.finepix.de/cms/home/presse/pressemeldungen/meldung/article/rekordverdaechtig-die-finepix-hs10-of-fujifilm-setzt-with-30-fach-zoomobjektiv-neue-massstaebe/?tx_ttnews 5BbackPid%% 5D = 246 & cHash = 3da5fb285b
Antwort von Bernd E.:
Since I am now not entirely clear what this has to do with my comment on?
Antwort von blip:
... 1 / 2, 3 inches of our translation is correct to about 11.0 mm ...
The actual sensor diagonal would rather be close to 8mm: 11mm would already correspond to 2/3-inch. Hello Bernd,
have again our calculation using the standard formula (1 inch = 25.4 mm) controlled, while I come nachwievor to those about 11 mm. Counting on you otherwise, or seeks to point rather from the fact that the determination of the sensor diagonal is s.sich not so clear ..?
@ cutty: I'm glad that our translation service has been noted ...
Hopefully that dt Manufacturer doing there in the future, similar information (in this case Fuji does mention the synonymous display size in cm) but not the sensor but if we obtain our information of English-language pages, we have probably synonymous To convert to the future itself. We will try to do this diligently, but it will certainly happen sometimes that we forget it ..
PS. The inch figures completely omit MUs would be impractical, but now one has become accustomed to cameras to compare - in other words, aha, 1 / 6 size, ie smaller than before, since they were 1 / 4. When would now have only the mm but more complicated.
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... have again checked our calculation using the standard formula (1 inch = 25.4 mm), here I come nachwievor to those about 11 mm. Counting on you different, or is intended to point rather from the fact that the determination of the sensor diagonal s.sich is not so clear ..?... The difference lies in the fact that these customs data date back to times when the cameras had tubes instead of sensors: At the time they took as indicating the size of each tube diameter, which was a lot bigger than the actual recording area. This method of calculation has survived then, synonymous died out after the tubes, and so that, say, "Sensor-inches, still not the usual 25.4 mm, but is closer to 16mm equivalent. An accurate overview with graphs, there is at dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor+sizes
... Inch omit information altogether, my opinion would be impractical to have one but now used to compare cameras to ... I see the same: As long as the Manufacturer of any particular global customs data kept confidential (and this is assumed), the sole metric information only create confusion.
Antwort von blip:
... have again checked our calculation using the standard formula (1 inch = 25.4 mm), here I come nachwievor to those about 11 mm. Counting on you different, or is intended to point rather from the fact that the determination of the sensor diagonal s.sich is not so clear ..?...
The difference lies in the fact that these customs data date back to times when the cameras had tubes instead of sensors: At the time they took as indicating the size of each tube diameter, which was a lot bigger than the actual recording area. This method of calculation has survived then, synonymous died out after the tubes, and so that, say, "Sensor-inches, still not the usual 25.4 mm, but is closer to 16mm equivalent. Yes, thought you did, do you think that the thing. Seen pretty much agree the details of the Manufacturer inch not. If we now with the correct one converts factor, we would have a text with 2 different size data s.end - synonymous strange or not?
After this type of information from the manufacturer (unfortunately), naturalized, we do it in a row, so like her, especially since it is a question primarily for comparability. Where now could be interesting to see what factor reckon with the Manufacturer at their mandatory, metrical information. Ultimately, I actually find it important that all information will be made on the same basis, thus konstitent are, so that the devices are comparable.
Antwort von srone:
because it is specified as not to chip just inches from the metrological sense, but senses in video technology, would be in the above procedure specified in millimeters completely unusable, since incorrect, so why not convert properly, otherwise specified are based focal length (mm!) synonymous duty on the above video of bernd e. technical, here are the manufacturer so synonymous correct, then please do not create even more confusion, but expect to convert properly, or are you going now to introduce video-mm?
Many thanks in advance
lg
SRON
Antwort von Jan:
Hello,
8 mm would have to get there.
I had already a synonymous Fuji technicians in the shop, who had shown me open 3 sensors. And the idea was (I) would now claim times.
1 / 2, 5 "was about 7 mm, 1 / 1, 6" as to 1 cm. Come out with 8 mm for 1 / 2, 33.
VG
January
Antwort von blip:
because it is specified as not to chip just inches from the metrological sense, but senses in video technology, would be in the above procedure specified in millimeters completely unusable, since incorrect, so why not convert properly, otherwise specified are based focal length (mm!) synonymous duty on the above video of bernd e. technical, here are the manufacturer so synonymous correct, then please do not create even more confusion, but expect to convert properly, or are you going now to introduce video-mm? We seek to establish anything. And if you interpret it so that it is not to Chip Information inches in the "measurement senses" are, but for video inches in the technical sense, then it should properly be delivered from them, they now need to convert to metric ;-)
As I said, personally I think that it is confusing to convert the data so that the number does not correspond to the millimeter customs value. Because it seems so either would be smaller sensors installed in Europe than elsewhere, or as would be a miscalculation. One would then communicate with each time that the "real" valuation is less than specified by the Manufacturer and millimeters with the specification is corrected. Could be made, of course, but all would then have to make so, otherwise it really confusing. Alternatively, we could, until it is clear the path along which the Manufacturer will call both figures - would be a possibility, of course, synonymous. 'm Now in the text amended accordingly.
(Would I be surprised by the way, if the metric required entry should mean that its Manufacturer sensor sizes in mm correctly indicate, however, clear, nice if it were ...)
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... One would then communicate with each time that the "real" valuation is less than specified by the Manufacturer and millimeters with the specification is correct ... I would not complicate the whole, than it is now at the request of the EU already has to be: Just as one miles of variable length and a byte can have different numbers of bits may not precisely synonymous one-inch / inch and times vary so times. A statement in the style of "1/2-inch (equals real 8mm)" ought to really do justice to all.
