Frage von Interlaced_Killer:
When you read in this forum caught my discrepancies in regards to intensity.
My previous opinion was that
a) higher intensity brings more brightness s.Film
b) would have to be smaller lenses cheaper.
Accordingly, it would need
a) a Canon HF100 have more intensity than a Canon 5D Mark 2
Intensity = largest effective aperture / Focal
As the focal cameras seem to be at increased directly proportional to chip area here, now brings a larger chip basically nothing in terms of intensity.
The firing circuit is now split the light to the pixels, and since the 5D Mark 2 about four times as many pixels as it has with the HF100, the HF100 would get more light per pixel.
b) As need smaller designs for the same intensity that would have to Lenses for instance for the 4 / 3 (; Four Thirds System) system at the same intensity to be much cheaper. If they are not, however.
Approach: I, too, appears at least the first point of discussion, as would bring more openness to the same angle of view more light. So synonymous is the official forum of opinion. The formula for intensity, however, the official doctrine.
What I mean here wrong?
Antwort von strike300xxx:
The size of the sensor probably has an influence on the light intensity.
Antwort von Zizi:
It still comes to the image circle!?
The smaller the sensor the better the light ..
Speak a Canon HF100, the intensity of 1.8 was in
Mark2 little better!
I find that the 5D mark2 with Kid objectively (; 4.0) is synonymous not much better than the average camcorder!
Since you have been using mind since 6400 ISO to get good results and then the Rauscht synonymous quite "beautiful"!
Probably because the sensor has too many pixels .. with such a sensor surface would be much more like a Lichtempfindlichkeid RED or film, etc.
Antwort von domain:
In the light intensity, a sensor only has influence insofar as his improved noise performance in lowlight, however, synonymous only if the outcome of individual pixels with larger sensors greater.
"Light intensity = largest effective aperture / Focal" This formula dates from the early days of photography with uncoated lenses, and related to the diameter of the front lens in relation to the focal.
For example, 50 mm Frontlinsendurchmesser/50 mm focal = luminous intensity 1:1.
Is now only as a guideline, because the light transmission of lenses has now been increased by about 70% and also plays the number of synonymous lichtschluckenden lenses in the lens play a role, especially with zoom lenses.
The size of the lenses is not the way, determines the price of a lens, or Zeiss microscopes would be worth quite right price.
Should you with Disposable Lenses but think that the lens size itself is also not much to do with its cost and its price too. It depends on how it is done (; metal or plastic) and what is inside, say how many lentils as it contains and whether they have been sanded simple or asymmetrically, or even just squeezed out of plastic.
One thing is true already: at larger sensors cost of Lenses for the correction of optical defects is growing exponentially, which usually requires more elaborate Lenses with the same intensity.
But beyond the pure production costs of making lenses and cameras, only about 20% of their price. Everything else is more attributable to the development costs and the pricing policy of the Manufacturer.
Antwort von Zizi:
But beyond the pure production costs of making lenses and cameras, only about 20% of their price. Everything else is more attributable to the development costs and the pricing policy of the Manufacturer.
It's all so .. even though 20% is an understatement!
The cost must min. 300% profit to make the jobs / wages in the area of management and chief guarantee!
such a mark 2 it costs to produce little more than 400 ¬ and therefore are, however, materials Poduktion + / staff gedekt!
Most data will not believe this .. is not so!
In lenses, it will behave similarly .. The cut is the most expensive is indeed synonymous not really made by hand and
the rest cost a shit anyway .. Glass and plastic, are precisely the mining of the ordinary consumer Daily thrown into the garbage!
But the only way to billions of corporations to be just what they are!
AT is Research / Production invested almost nothing compared to the marketing costs that determines exceed 10 times the former!
Antwort von Interlaced_Killer:
I have now researched (and partly by thinking tasks, partly with the help of Wikipedia) and came to following solution:
1.) The "light" but still says nothing, because it is only part of the system.
For example, bring a telescope with 2 m focal and 20 cm in diameter just have more light, like a telescope with 1 m focal and 10 cm in diameter.
Only when the intensity with (the chip area, normally open, but bring different utilization of the fuel circuit eg by crop factor) in relation, we obtain a value that can be compared with different cameras. In optics we shall stop the burning circle or the opening as a multiplier.
2.) Larger chips do not automatically bring more Schärfenuntiefe
By increasing the opening are, the (; greatest possible, bigger at full aperture) firing circuits, however, directly proportional to the chips and synonymous (hence, in the hypothetical ideal case) of each pixel.
Conclusion: The more pixels, the lower the minimum possible depth of field (;) at the maximum aperture.
Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%A4rfentiefe
Conclusion: The Panasonic is indeed about 5 x as much light as the HF100, but less depth of field.
Antwort von kalle70:
* lol *
and from masturbation to get crooked finger .......
Antwort von Axel:
Would intensity synonymous with "brightness", well this is not an issue. Stichpunkt signal amplification (; "gain"). Gain can (at a gleichzetigen intelligent noise reduction, "NO"), while increasing the total light intensity, but it's about the bottom line is that a weak signal must first be registered.
Whether the lens is large or small, is not so important, but what intensity it possesses. The size and the (Normal) Focal course, depends greatly on the size of the chip s.and whether that move during focusing and focal length changes with (, so) for all small cams, unfortunately. How much light to pass through the optics, is thus the first and most important factor.
So it creates a weak signal at all until the chip is the electronic signal processing, the next hurdle. The sensor, which represents the pixel needs this many photons, so that his state of stress is changed (; layman's terms, bin), not a physicist. Therefore, a larger area is better.
The analogy
of sensitive film = great photo Korn / sensitive chip = large pixels, although technically incorrect, but it helps to make it more intuitive to. A pixel has no extension as a photo grain, it is that mathematical point, which fills no space. An image point of a rectangular video describes a surface coarsening, digital mini-plug. In reality, of course, the cell has quite a physical extension, occupies an area, all of it calculated information, however, only valid for a coordinate.
In the case of the Canon 5D describe Mark2 (equal number of points, photoreceptors, single sampling sensors) a pixel of the video image. Is it funny to me that it is more intense.
Antwort von Interlaced_Killer:
You do not get it all here, what I care about, because you obviously read only superficial.
I've now seen the sub-system lens to chip, and let any signal processing as well as differences in lens quality, etc. out of sight.
It was just the fact that
- Intensity = Aperture / Focal
is the intensity when they (all reports, here interpreted as synonymous Slashcam), since otherwise (even larger lenses with the same vector, combined with focal length extension) and thus the world's largest telescope lens in Berlin Treptau would be pointless.
Antwort von Axel:
You do not get it all here, what I care about, because you obviously read only superficial. Let's see.
1.) The "light" but still says nothing, because it is only part of the system.
[...]
Only when one brings the intensity with the chip area [...] in relation, we obtain a value that can be compared with different cameras. With 1.) you mean only the aperture of the lens, and you demand that it offset to the Comparison with the involvement of other factors.
That is what happens. They say, a
camcorder is-so bright, not his measly Optics. What I am saying is that the optics is the first chicane on the path of light, and that a signal that it is not durchschafft away, no matter whether a cat is sitting behind the retina, or a mole retina. Aperture does a great one -
in relation to the size of the reception area - large objective lens. But the intensity of Optics is not inversely proportional to the diameter.
2.) Larger chips do not automatically bring more depth of field. No, but
less. In the same resolution and similar Optics synonymous "auto". The more varied the path of light from the focal point for each picture element (on the sensor surface, ie, the larger it is), the lower the depth of field. This is completely out of question.
By increasing the opening are, the (; greatest possible, bigger at full aperture) firing circuits, however, directly proportional to the chips and synonymous (hence, in the hypothetical ideal case) of each pixel. Here you have to guess, but really, what exactly do you mean. I think I know. Do not
point the blur circle for a picture beyond the boundaries of a pixel (, =, the rectangular area, which he, according to the resolution, in the finished video) has extend, or he will not be shown sharp. Ie, the larger the pixels in relation to the surface (, =), the lower the resolution, the greater the depth of field. Practical Example: DV has more depth than HDV, and this in turn more than one mark 2nd
Conclusion: The more pixels, the lower the minimum possible depth of field (;) at the maximum aperture. Yes. But this is only one factor. The way ahead from the focus to the sides of a chip than at its center is the really crucial. As you can easily imagine that he is particularly influenced by Focal and Aperture.
Antwort von Interlaced_Killer:
[quote = "Axel"]
2.) Larger chips do not automatically bring more depth of field. Was meant runs around, I thought that a larger opening is not automatically bring more Schärfenuntiefe.
Yes. But this is only one factor. The way ahead from the focus to the sides of a chip than at its center is the really crucial. As you can easily imagine that he is particularly influenced by Focal and Aperture. I agree that the uncertainty with larger lenses is increased, but decreased due to larger pixels again.
- Two Chips
- Various sizes
- With the same number of pixels
- And at the same magnification using lenses
- Whereby the lens of the larger chips need greater openness and focal (; achieve the same light intensity)
- Have the same depth of field
- And in spite of the same intensity in the lens
- Is the picture of the larger chip lighter
- When these other components are installed
- And the full circle of burning is utilized.
I hope I have now clearly expressed what I mean. The result for the tests and "Professional Comments" I summarize only when we have processed the top times.
Antwort von domain:
There's nothing more needs to be combined, because here everything is mixed up like cabbage and turnips, and notably, as far as your theories.
What did Sir Carl Popper once s.besten be eaten every day for breakfast, the theories of the day before ..........
Antwort von tommyb:
Was meant runs around, I thought that a larger opening is not automatically bring more Schärfenuntiefe. This again is not true.
I Change the Aperture Camera s.einer of 2.8 to 16, increasing the depth of field / depth of field. This applies to all devices, the mechanical aperture (; have thus real) Aperture.
So I Do the Aperture (, 2.8), the opening is larger, the background blurred.
Antwort von Axel:
- Two Chips
- Various sizes
- With the same number of pixels
- And at the same magnification using lenses
- Whereby the lens of the larger chips need greater openness and focal (; achieve the same light intensity)
- Have the same depth of field * 1
- And in spite of the same intensity in the lens
- Is the picture of the larger chips brighter * 2
- When these other components are installed
- And the full circle of burning is utilized. * 1 - The larger the chip has smaller depth of field, synonymous when he (; because he has the same pixel count) has a
proportionately smaller resolution. Factor of resolution there is, but it can be almost negligible. A 1 inch chip DV Cam would have a
much smaller depth of field than a 1 / 3 Inch Full-HD Cam.
) * 2 - In a 1 / 3 inch DV camcorder to a 1 / 3 inch HDV camcorder (; with otherwise similar components may be expected with
slightly greater depth and higher intensity. "Hell" is as I said not a criterion.
Antwort von Interlaced_Killer:
I Change the Aperture Camera s.einer of 2.8 to 16, increasing the depth of field / depth of field. This applies to all devices, the mechanical aperture (; have thus real) Aperture.
So I Do the Aperture (, 2.8), the opening is larger, the background blurred. Yes, because it is the same device and thus, the chip will remain the same size!
But if the chip with the same resolution to the same extent becomes smaller as the lens, then the scattering circles in Comparison to the individual pixels are relatively the same size and the Schärfenuntiefe is maintained.
Antwort von domain:
I know it was here already tried to show that regardless of the depth of the sensor size and focal remains the same, but at the time of the Aperture was to my knowledge, no question.
All of these theoretical papers have little practical meaning.
Believe me, I've been working of cameras via the Asahi Pentax 67 to the Minox subminiature camera with almost all formats.
The thing is very clear: the greater (the format, the sensor), is more sophisticated at the same angle, the DOF and the more effort preparing the focus. Telephoto lenses enhance this effect and also open apertures.
What are you going to? I do not quite understand your concerns.
Antwort von Axel:
But if the chip with the same resolution to the same extent becomes smaller as the lens, then the scattering circles in Comparison to the individual pixels are relatively the same size and the Schärfenuntiefe is maintained. Why does
your hair is s.den Comparison herbeigezerrt and therefore contributes to the understanding of chaos:
The trend is not (everything, including the resolution, zoom out to scale, but one part, steadily increase resolution; selling point) and the other (shrink the chip, thereby's) can be cheaper. A smaller and smaller chips with greater image resolution means greater depth and worse lowlight.
One has never heard of it at megapixel phones or comes to a small Digiknipsen Shallow-DoF effect. Even with launch of HDV, and were later called AVCHD of 35mm adapters are not made to the memory (, because had the "cluster groups" allows selective blurring), but on the contrary only really known because of too much sharpness you suddenly had the snout full.
Rule of thumb is therefore:
" light intensity is determined by the optics, other factors are pillepalle (;) big chip = better lowlight.
" Depth of field is determined by the chip size. (Open Aperture, if necessary through ND filter) and pushed long focal indeed be available to every owner of a small cam also available. This forces the image points from their fixed-focus parallelogram in the Shallow DoF-triangle with the diffraction rings and has nothing to do. Their effect can be neglected.
Antwort von KrischanDO:
It's all so .. even though 20% is an understatement!
The cost must min. 300% profit to make the jobs / wages in the area of management and chief guarantee !.....
In lenses, it will behave similarly .. The cut is the most expensive is indeed synonymous not really made by hand and
the rest cost a shit anyway .. Glass and plastic, are precisely the mining of the ordinary consumer Daily thrown into the garbage!
But the only way to billions of corporations to be just what they are!
AT is Research / Production invested almost nothing compared to the marketing costs that determines exceed 10 times the former! Zizi,
Why You keep your sandbox critique of capitalism, not for you or you profilierst to the Spartacus League, or in the local group NPD? The blast noses are now so synonymous in Salon-communism ...
Or even better: You start a company and will restore the same quality products to 25% of the price, you give up by marketing and managerial remuneration.
CS
Antwort von Zizi:
Zizi,
Why You keep your sandbox critique of capitalism, not for you or you profilierst to the Spartacus League, or in the local group NPD? The blast noses are now so synonymous in Salon-communism ...
Why do you keep your sandbox proletarian claims not for you?
And no I'm not a communist .. I find it just as hard as overpriced products are available in the art world if one of the original starting price for the whole development + does not even pay 1 / 8 from the unit cost .. And all the talk about how cheap it was for not ...
Antwort von Interlaced_Killer:
Why does your hair is s.den Comparison herbeigezerrt and therefore contributes to the understanding of chaos:
The trend is not (everything, including the resolution, zoom out to scale, but one part, steadily increase resolution; selling point) and the other (shrink the chip, thereby's) can be cheaper. A smaller and smaller chips with greater image resolution means greater depth and worse lowlight. Just the isses what excites me. I speak of a smaller sensor that has the same amount of pixels (; the HF100) it is less than chipgrössere GH1, and you come to me with general trends with my Comparison have nothing to do here and take this as physical evidence. Let's leave the topic easily.
Antwort von domain:
Amen.
For all your confused thinking you have probably overlooked that there are some constants in physics, such as the speed of light, the photon density-calculable and measurable, the diffraction effects, etc.
Should you believe to be that we need smaller optical systems or to increase only in proportion to ultimately come to the same effects, but then you have greatly deceived you.
Make yourself once a lens hearty soup, enjoy it and think otherwise s.nichts ;-))
Enjoy your meal!
