Canon develops world's largest CMOS sensor

Dave Burckhard · September 24th, 2010, 01:24 PM

Warren wondered: Isn't this type of imager used exclusively for large telescopes?

Large digital sensors are used by a bunch of imaging devices and have been around since digital imaging started. Typical >35mm imagers are used in high end scanners used in the photographic print biz. Back in the early to mid '90s I saw them in action. Back then these guys cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but did the job. Of course, there was no technology to stream the data fast enough (well, there was but not cheaply and no one needed it.) for video much less store it.

Today, technology can build big sensors and relatively cheap prices. The two things that a lot of folks don't consider is that the data stream can be huge. Whereas you can come home from a day of shooting with 40-70 gigs of raw footage, a 35mm sensor and larger, even with an efficient codec is overflowing a terabyte container. This is the realm of Hollywood movie budget gear.

Then there are the lenses to project the larger image circle on the sensor. Sure, a large sensor with large photo sites is inherently more capable of low light acquisition, but you need a physically bigger lens as well. A typical 1/3 inch 14X zoom lens with a max aperture at the wide end of f/1.6 might cost a couple thousand dollars. The same specs for a 35mm sensor might cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Only when I win the lottery and can buy such a camera and hire a camera operator to handle the behemoth will I get excited about big sensor cameras.

Evan Donn · September 24th, 2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Whereas you can come home from a day of shooting with 40-70 gigs of raw footage, a 35mm sensor and larger, even with an efficient codec is overflowing a terabyte container. This is the realm of Hollywood movie budget gear.

1 terabyte external hard drives are < $100, 2 terabytes < $150. Bare 2Tb drives are about ~$100. Even 2.5" external bus powered drives are running ~ $130 per terabyte. Hardly Hollywood budget stuff. I don't think storage is really a limiting factor here.

September 24th, 2010, 01:24 PM	#16
Dave Burckhard Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 73	Warren wondered: Isn't this type of imager used exclusively for large telescopes? Large digital sensors are used by a bunch of imaging devices and have been around since digital imaging started. Typical >35mm imagers are used in high end scanners used in the photographic print biz. Back in the early to mid '90s I saw them in action. Back then these guys cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but did the job. Of course, there was no technology to stream the data fast enough (well, there was but not cheaply and no one needed it.) for video much less store it. Today, technology can build big sensors and relatively cheap prices. The two things that a lot of folks don't consider is that the data stream can be huge. Whereas you can come home from a day of shooting with 40-70 gigs of raw footage, a 35mm sensor and larger, even with an efficient codec is overflowing a terabyte container. This is the realm of Hollywood movie budget gear. Then there are the lenses to project the larger image circle on the sensor. Sure, a large sensor with large photo sites is inherently more capable of low light acquisition, but you need a physically bigger lens as well. A typical 1/3 inch 14X zoom lens with a max aperture at the wide end of f/1.6 might cost a couple thousand dollars. The same specs for a 35mm sensor might cost tens of thousands of dollars. Only when I win the lottery and can buy such a camera and hire a camera operator to handle the behemoth will I get excited about big sensor cameras.