EX1 sensor dimensions? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds
Sony PMW-300, PXW-X200, PXW-X180 (back to EX3 & EX1) recording to SxS flash memory.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 5th, 2007, 10:41 AM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Posts: 123
EX1 sensor dimensions?

Has anyone come across information about the actual dimensions (mm) of the EX1's imaging area? I'd like to calculate DOF and hyperfocal distances before the camera gets here. To do that I need to know the physical dimensions of the image at the chips.
Thanks.
Clark
Clark Peters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 12:34 PM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: canterbury
Posts: 411
I don't know the sensor size but i think you can work out some things based on the FOV multiplication factor because you know the widest lens and what it's 35mm equivalent is from specs (5.8mm is 31.4mm on 35)

So for example (please shoot me down if im wrong)

the crop factor for the EX is 5.41, the HVX is 7.73 and my EOS 300 is 1.6.

So if the EX was f1.9, that would be f10 on 35mm and f6.4 on the eos and the HVX couldn't open that wide. If the HVX was on f2 that would be around f2.9 on the EX, about a stop which is what others have been saying.

I'm pretty sure aperture is independent to focal length but obviously the magnification of the DOF blur would increase with longer focal lengths (which makes it look like you get more DOF with a long lens)

Can someone back me up here :)

paul
Paul Curtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:04 PM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 146
the diagonal size of a CMOS sensor on a 1/2" optical system should be 8mm based upon the formula diag/16=lens format. 8/16=1/2.

that's how i read it. now you have to do the rest of the math to get your HxW.

Vince
Vince Gaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:34 PM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Posts: 123
I tried your ideas, but...

"the diagonal size of a CMOS sensor on a 1/2" optical system should be 8mm based upon the formula diag/16=lens format. 8/16=1/2."

I don't know the source of this formula. I tried it and came up with a sensor size of 7mm wide by 4 mm high. The diagonal of 8mm is woefully short of 1/2". I don't think this works.

I tried the crop factor method suggested by Paul. This is a little iffey because I don't know how Sony compared the EX1 to 35mm. The proportions don't match. I took a try comparing the diagonal measures of the two formats. I ended up with a sensor size of 9.1mm by 5.1mm and a diagonal of 10.4mm. This is closer to 1/2", but it's still just a shot in the dark. Lacking confirmed actual measurements I guess I could do my DOF and hyperfocal calculations based on this sensor size. It's less precise than I'd like to be, but nothing about DOF is precise.

Thanks.
Clark
Clark Peters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:39 PM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 240
Film apertures

A chance to dust off my American Cinematographer Manual that I never found a use for in school!
According to the manual, a 35mm Academy aperture is 0.868 inches by 0.631 inches. Of course, that's for a 4:3 aspect ratio.
(I knew there was a reason why I was keeping that old book around!)

But these 35mm equivalent focal lengths might be for full-frame still cameras, in which case I measure the aperture as 36mm by 24mm, or about an inch and a half by an inch.

In any case, I'll leave it to someone else to calculate the DOF tables. :)
Ken Hull
Ken Hull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:47 PM   #6
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 146
i believe that 1/2" refers to the lens not the imager. they call it a 1/2 type exmor cmos. type referring to the optical format which is based on the lens family.

also, if you take the 5.41 crop factor from paul and divide that into 43.2 which is the diagonal measurement of a 35mm still frame it comes out to just about 8.

hey, it seems really small to me too.

vince

here it is:

The actual image size (active area) = 6.4mm x 4.8mm with the image diagonal = 8mm. The 1/2 inch (1/2” = 12.70mm) value that is used to describe the common format name stems from the days of Videcon Tubes and was used to describe the tube diameter and not the actual image size.

Last edited by Vince Gaffney; December 5th, 2007 at 03:49 PM. Reason: more info
Vince Gaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 03:18 PM   #7
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
From what I've read, a 1/2" sensor has essentially the same DOF characteristics of 8mm film. So the actual dimensions of an 8mm negative should be pretty darn close to the EX-1's sensor size.
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 03:53 PM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 259
Assuming that the sensor diagonal is 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) and the aspect ratio is 16:9, Pythagoras gives the dimensions as 6.23mm x 11.07 mm.

Nick
Nick Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:21 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kelkheim, Germany
Posts: 375
And that is much closer to Super 16 mm film (7.4 x 12.4 mm) than to Super 8 (4.2 x 5.7 mm).
__________________
Michael
Michael Mann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:27 PM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 29
I don't think it is as simple as Pythagorus could make this, although I wish that it was. I read somewhere on these boards(I think it was Barry Green), that the sensor size is actually quite a bit smaller than the actual chip. They were discussing how the dimension is actually quite a bit decieving to say 1/2" or 1/3" because the original dimension had something to do with a tube size in old cameras. I can't remember the details other than the summation that the chip size may be 1/2 inch, but the actual sensor on the chip is much smaller than that. I definitely could be wrong.
Bill Spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:28 PM   #11
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Spain, Barcelona
Posts: 27
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm

Der 16 mm-Film verfügt über eine Bildfeldgröße von 10,3 x 7,5 mm (Breite x Höhe) und kann sowohl einseitig als auch zweiseitig perforiert genutzt werden, die Bilddiagonale beträgt also 1/2 inch (Zoll) entsprechend 12,7 mm.

but this is seen as letterbox. Because of 16:9 the 4:3 equivelent would be a bit bigger. On the DOF thread somebody has posted a nice image with relatively shallow DOF on a normal focal length (in-room), so the EX-1 should do well for storytelling.
Carlos Moreira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:30 PM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houma, La.
Posts: 1,400
Images: 5
Ah good lord you guys are making my head hurt. Just put the damn thing in auto focus, or just eyeball it. That should be good enough.
Sarcasm aside, reading these message boards constantly keeps me amazed at how much I don't know about my craft... and never knew that I didn't know.
__________________

-Ethan Cooper
Ethan Cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:33 PM   #13
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper View Post
reading these message boards constantly keeps me amazed at how much I don't know about my craft... and never knew that I didn't know.
Hey, we got snowed in today. I just googled till I found the size. And realized when I did find it, I don't even care. But it killed some time.

vince
Vince Gaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:37 PM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Mann View Post
And that is much closer to Super 16 mm film (7.4 x 12.4 mm) than to Super 8 (4.2 x 5.7 mm).
Video camera sensor sizes given in specs are left overs from the days of tube cameras. The actual image area is smaller than the full 1/2" (or 2/3").

Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.filmalley.com/articles/sensor%20size/
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 04:38 PM   #15
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Spain, Barcelona
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Curtis View Post
the crop factor for the EX is 5.41, the HVX is 7.73 and my EOS 300 is 1.6.
..
Can someone back me up here :)

paul
There is a difference: 35mm motion film exposes the frames transverse to the film strip direction (Academy-Standard) and a 35mm still camera vertical. So the still 35mm pictures have ~ 2.5 x the size of the frames of a 35mm motion camera and therefore less DOF.
So the real difference is approx 1 - 2 stops smaller I guess.
Carlos Moreira is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network