CCD VS CMOS

Age old discussion. I bring it up, because a new camera is in the works using a 4k CCD sensor.


Pros for CCD:
3 chip gives true color information vs debayering.
no moire due to lack of pixel space
technically higher image quality.

Pros for CMOS:
cheap.
'better' low light.
easier to make larger.

At 4/3s a 3chip CCD sensor might be an interesting take on 2.5k raw (actually 2.5k too)... just saying. I'm not an engineer, but Is there a horrible flaw in this idea?

What camera?

I think 'cheap' is the main pro as for why CMOS has been used. It really is an awfully cheap camera for what it is.

I could be wrong, but I think that all CCD sensors have a global shutter.

CCDs use WAY more power than CMOS sensors. That's about all I know.

Here is a comparison video between CCD vs. CMOS

For creating Visual Effects on live action footage, I hate Rolling Shutter.

What camera?

the aaton penelope delta

It's 16-bit uncompressed raw with a s35 sensor.

took me a long time to find it again. there's a vimeo video for it.

What camera?

the aaton penelope delta

It's 16-bit uncompressed raw with a s35 sensor.

took me a long time to find it again. there's a vimeo video for it.

also 3.5k and 14stops dynamic range. mechanical shutter, and optical viewfinder.

What camera?

the aaton penelope delta

It's 16-bit uncompressed raw with a s35 sensor.

took me a long time to find it again. there's a vimeo video for it.

also 3.5k and 14stops dynamic range. mechanical shutter, and optical viewfinder.

also - it apparently shakes the sensor to randomize the noise structure and give more spacial information.
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/aatons- ... ta-camera/


and it'll cost about $120,000

also - it apparently shakes the sensor to randomize the noise structure and give more spacial information.
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/aatons- ... ta-camera/


and it'll cost about $120,000

It doesn't shake it. It shifts it frame to frame to offset by a pixel and a 7K file can be interpolated in post from a 3.5K file.

jb

also - it apparently shakes the sensor to randomize the noise structure and give more spacial information.
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/aatons- ... ta-camera/


and it'll cost about $120,000

It doesn't shake it. It shifts it frame to frame to offset by a pixel and a 7K file can be interpolated in post from a 3.5K file.

jb

does it physically move? or if not, then wouldn't it be possible to do the same process in post?

also - it apparently shakes the sensor to randomize the noise structure and give more spacial information.
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/aatons- ... ta-camera/


and it'll cost about $120,000

It doesn't shake it. It shifts it frame to frame to offset by a pixel and a 7K file can be interpolated in post from a 3.5K file.

jb

does it physically move? or if not, then wouldn't it be possible to do the same process in post?

Some companies like panasonic do it without moving the sensor. (pixel shifting)

Aaton physically move the sensor.

There are other more interesting features...i like the multi finger shutter design...

http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... -penelope/

jb

also - it apparently shakes the sensor to randomize the noise structure and give more spacial information.
http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/aatons- ... ta-camera/


and it'll cost about $120,000

It doesn't shake it. It shifts it frame to frame to offset by a pixel and a 7K file can be interpolated in post from a 3.5K file.

jb

does it physically move? or if not, then wouldn't it be possible to do the same process in post?

shake was a bit of hyperbole. if it is offsetting the sensor after each frame than I guess 'vibrate' would be a more accurate word. Right now there's not a lot of literature of that feature.

jb[/quote]

does it physically move? or if not, then wouldn't it be possible to do the same process in post?[/quote]

Some companies like panasonic do it without moving the sensor. (pixel shifting)

Aaton physically move the sensor.

There are other more interesting features...i like the multi finger shutter design...

http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... -penelope/

jb[/quote]

the new shutter to reduce iso... Its good enough to wonder why no one else thought of that...
it's 2013, really... why has no one else thought of that in 10+ years of digital cinema?

Well it's not really the correct language. It doesn't move it during the exposure. It moves it INBETWEEN frames a tiny amount. That's not vibrating it or shaking it which infers its more random and done during exposures.

Many early 35mm motion picture lens relays and adapters featured a vibrating ground glass to try and hide the texture of the glass.

This is nothing like that.

JB.

the new shutter to reduce iso... Its good enough to wonder why no one else thought of that...
it's 2013, really... why has no one else thought of that in 10+ years of digital cinema?

Well...

Aaton have always had been the better designed cameras in my opinion, but most of the world disagree with me and choose an Arri instead.

Aaton did timecode on film first. They did Super 16 first. They did magnetic magazine drives, electrostatic heated viewfinders, electronic magazine identification, counter rotating viewfinder shutter, lateral film support, film movements that DON't use a registration pin...the list goes on....

jb

It doesn't shake it. It shifts it frame to frame to offset by a pixel and a 7K file can be interpolated in post from a 3.5K file.

jb

It's a lovely camera, but if it shifts frame to frame then unless there is no movement whatsoever between frames, the resolution is not changed.

As an analogy, 60i = 30P if and only if there is no movement between fields.

Cheers.

They also make the best looking cameras for me as well. I mean look at it

It's like Frank Gehry tries Bauhaus

It doesn't shake it. It shifts it frame to frame to offset by a pixel and a 7K file can be interpolated in post from a 3.5K file.

jb

It's a lovely camera, but if it shifts frame to frame then unless there is no movement whatsoever between frames, the resolution is not changed.

Cheers.

My understanding is that it's an INTERPOLATED 7K image from a 3.5k file by ERGON, Aaton's post production workstation.

jb

My understanding is that it's an INTERPOLATED 7K image from a 3.5k file by ERGON, Aaton's post production workstation.

jb

I understand. But the fact is it has the same problem as HDR - the timing is off.

"Skyfall" is on its way to $1B with 2.8K. I'd rather better pixels than just more, and Aaton has that without parlor tricks.

Cheers.

My understanding is that it's an INTERPOLATED 7K image from a 3.5k file by ERGON, Aaton's post production workstation.

jb

I understand. But the fact is it has the same problem as HDR - the timing is off.

Perhaps it happens with the frame cycle.

I've not actually seen a 7K file from it yet as that's still "secret" and I may well be mis-representing how it does it.

"Skyfall" is on its way to $1B with 2.8K. I'd rather better pixels than just more, and Aaton has that without parlor tricks.

It's a moot point isn't it. We haven't really seen what motion footage looks like yet. It seems like it might be better on paper...

jb

It's a moot point isn't it. We haven't really seen what motion footage looks like yet. It seems like it might be better on paper...

jb

They did post a few DNG clips, one with motion, but it will be interesting to see how their shutter affects various kinds of motion.

Timing is everything.

Cheers.