Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

canon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 98 posts

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#21

Post by davidjohnstone »

eksith wrote: post #13
davidjohnstone wrote: post #9

For comparison, the Nikon D4 (a digital SLR) can shoot video at ISO 204,800, and it can resolve details in the dark beyond the ability of the eye, and I suspect this new sensor is more sensitive — or, at least, far more noise free — than that. EDIT: Judging by some photos I've taken of the night sky, with an f/2.8 lens and with a shutter speed of 1/50s, you need an ISO of around 300,000 to get enough brightness. If o…

Didn't he use the same lenses used by NASA on the cameras for the Apollo missions? I think the larger aperture gave better low-light exposure during the candlelit scene (and may have inadvertantly fuelled conspiracy nuts that think the moon landings were a hoax because they think the sunlight reflected off the regolith was a secondary light source).

Yes, an f/0.7 aperture is a ridiculously wide aperture (thus, it lets in a lot of light[1]), two stops brighter than f/1.4 (a "stop" means a doubling of the amount of light; f/1.2 lenses are the fastest lenses commonly available, and they'll cost around $2k), or four stops faster than f/2.8 (which is what the fastest commonly available zoom lenses are, and they're expensive too). Leica make a very rare f/0.95 lens that would set you back $11k, and it's appropriately called Noctilux.

As for conspiracy theories, what makes it even better is that Stanley Kubrick also made 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, which includes some scenes set on the moon, and I've heard of conspiracy theories about how these were used for the "real" moon landing too… (And yes, according to Wikipedia, Kubrick bought three of the ten copies of this lens made, with NASA buying six and Carl Zeiss keeping the other.)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#22

Post by arethuza »

eksith wrote: post #13
davidjohnstone wrote: post #9

For comparison, the Nikon D4 (a digital SLR) can shoot video at ISO 204,800, and it can resolve details in the dark beyond the ability of the eye, and I suspect this new sensor is more sensitive — or, at least, far more noise free — than that. EDIT: Judging by some photos I've taken of the night sky, with an f/2.8 lens and with a shutter speed of 1/50s, you need an ISO of around 300,000 to get enough brightness. If o…

Didn't he use the same lenses used by NASA on the cameras for the Apollo missions? I think the larger aperture gave better low-light exposure during the candlelit scene (and may have inadvertantly fuelled conspiracy nuts that think the moon landings were a hoax because they think the sunlight reflected off the regolith was a secondary light source).

Looks like that is true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#23

Post by prof_hobart »

wmf wrote: post #18
Gravityloss wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad the whole camera business wasted a huge amount of resouces over ten years on a stupid tinier and tinier pixels race.

Given the choice between 24 MP with very high sensitivity or 2 MP with ridiculously high sensitivity, I'm not sure the industry is wrong.

But they aren't the only two options.

With the quality of lens on the average compact camera for instance, I struggle to see any real noticable improvement above around 5 MP.

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#24

Post by ominous_prime »

davidjohnstone wrote: post #9

For comparison, the Nikon D4 (a digital SLR) can shoot video at ISO 204,800, and it can resolve details in the dark beyond the ability of the eye, and I suspect this new sensor is more sensitive — or, at least, far more noise free — than that. EDIT: Judging by some photos I've taken of the night sky, with an f/2.8 lens and with a shutter speed of 1/50s, you need an ISO of around 300,000 to get enough brightness. If o…

The lens in the photo looks like a 50mm f/1.2 (I can't quite make it out in the vid), and I'd be very surprised if they weren't shooting wide open for this demo.

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#25

Post by Gravityloss »

davidjohnstone wrote: post #21
eksith wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he use the same lenses used by NASA on the cameras for the Apollo missions? I think the larger aperture gave better low-light exposure during the candlelit scene (and may have inadvertantly fuelled conspiracy nuts that think the moon landings were a hoax because they think the sunlight reflected off the regolith was a secondary light source).

Yes, an f/0.7 aperture is a ridiculously wide aperture (thus, it lets in a lot of light[1]), two stops brighter than f/1.4 (a "stop" means a doubling of the amount of light; f/1.2 lenses are the fastest lenses commonly available, and they'll cost around $2k), or four stops faster than f/2.8 (which is what the fastest commonly available zoom lenses are, and they're expensive too). Leica make a very rare f/0.95 lens th…

For smaller image circles (smaller sensor), you can get 0.95 lenses for under a thousand euros.

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#26

Post by trackofalljades »

regehr wrote: post #20

I always find it depressing when I take a picture by moonlight and it ends up looking very much like a picture taken by sunlight, as opposed to looking like the scene looks to our eyes. Always have to keep in mind that a CCD != rods and cones. Sensitivity is nice but as far as I'm concerned, dynamic range is the main thing that's needed in digital photography. DSLR sensors have gotten much, much better over the last…

You're right, about photography. In video, however, you need tons and tons and tons and tons of sensitivity in addition to dynamic range because you can only use fast "shutter" (electronic, not physical, of course) speeds. Needing to create a perfect image 24, 30, or 60 times a second in the dark requires a very different bag of tricks. This is why, for example, having fewer and larger pixels is vastly preferable for motion versus stills.

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#27

Post by trackofalljades »

Aardwolf wrote: post #12

I would love to see such a sensor for photos instead of video!

I think it's possible you might be unfamiliar with just how sensitive current sensors are, for photographic use? You can easily capture these kinds of images in very high resolution with a very affordable DSLR body today. The trick is capturing them at only 1080P or 2K, over and over, 24 to 60 times a second, consistently. That's what would be a game changer.

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#28

Post by trackofalljades »

lotyrin wrote: post #2

I love the performance of these larger sensors, and these demos blow everything I've seen out of the water, but I'd never carry that kind of gear around for any of my purposes (the size and weight more than the price, though that's definitely a large factor).

Have you ever played with a Sony RX-100? Nowhere near full frame, but like four times the sensor area of a typical pocket camera. I got one recently and it's nothing short of astonishing for what it looks like on the outside and how it feels to use. Even the AVCHD video capabilities are damn impressive (again, for its price and form factor).

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#29

Post by trackofalljades »

raverbashing wrote: post #5
lotyrin wrote: post #2

I love the performance of these larger sensors, and these demos blow everything I've seen out of the water, but I'd never carry that kind of gear around for any of my purposes (the size and weight more than the price, though that's definitely a large factor).

It's still a prototype, that's why it's bulky I suppose the actual consumer products will be lighter.

It will most likely show up first in bodies that look like the C300 and C100 do today.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professi...

Re: Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture

#30

Post by eksith »

davidjohnstone wrote: post #21
eksith wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't he use the same lenses used by NASA on the cameras for the Apollo missions? I think the larger aperture gave better low-light exposure during the candlelit scene (and may have inadvertantly fuelled conspiracy nuts that think the moon landings were a hoax because they think the sunlight reflected off the regolith was a secondary light source).

Yes, an f/0.7 aperture is a ridiculously wide aperture (thus, it lets in a lot of light[1]), two stops brighter than f/1.4 (a "stop" means a doubling of the amount of light; f/1.2 lenses are the fastest lenses commonly available, and they'll cost around $2k), or four stops faster than f/2.8 (which is what the fastest commonly available zoom lenses are, and they're expensive too). Leica make a very rare f/0.95 lens th…

Holy cow! I just visited arethuza's Wikipedia link below...

I read the NASA trivia about the movie on a forum a few years back and it just popped into my memory. I had no idea these were incredibly rare. Yes, the irony him shooting 2001 wasn't lost on me.

Without reflections, space is pretty dark (excluding starlight) so I imagine the new Canon lense will see a lot of space use. Provided it can be made sufficienty RAD-hard.

Post reply on HN