4 ms·

TLDR: The lens and pro accessories

by kfarr 4y ago

jandrese 4y ago
But mostly because the market is tiny so there is no economies of scale. The small number of these cameras sold every year has to support the entire industry.
- SkyPuncher 4y ago
  Physics is another issue. It's far hard to aim a photon at the exact correct pixel on a sensor when both the lens and sensor are smaller. With larger glass and sensors, even if something is off slightly, there's a better chance it hits the right pixel. This is likely more noticeable with chromatic aberration different light colors bend slightly differently. With larger equipment and long lens lengths, there's less separation between colors.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    Though TV cameras have some of the smallest sensors out there, as sensor size also affects lens size. Just compare ENG broadcast sensor size to APS-C/Super35 or Full Frame: https://i.k8r.eu/SC-yYw.png https://i.k8r.eu/SC-yYw.png
    - kayfox 4y ago
      It should also be noted that an ENG camera typically has 3 sensors and not just one. The BMD Ursa Broadcast used in the above video is an exception, but its also a cinema camera converted to take B4 mount ENG lenses and not built from the ground up to do live broadcast video. Its also from a company that has weird ideas about how broadcast equipment should work.
      - kuschku 4y ago
        Sony also builds ENG cameras with single-sensor rolling-shutter bayer pattern based stuff. Which is ridiculous considering how much money they want for that. There's only a handful cameras with three individual sensors with global shutter on the market nowadays, and the price point is expectedly astronomical (~70k USD)
        kayfox 4y ago
        Most of their broadcast camera system lineup is 3-chip: https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems There's a couple exceptions, like the Super-35 HDC-F5500 and HDC-4800.
        kuschku 4y ago
        Most of the ones you linked are just variations on two different assemblies, and as soon as you look at their otherwise extensive ENG lineup, the situation doesn't get much better, that one also only has the Z750 while the Z450 and X400 have no global shutter. But you're right, they still have a few good options for now :)
    - solarkraft 4y ago
      Interesting and slightly unexpected trade-off. But of course: The situations these are used in tend to be well lit.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Digital sensors these days are way better at capturing light, even with much higher resolution video the rest of the camera can indeed shrink a lot, there’s just not much pressure to do so because the market and competition is small and smaller means cheaper means less profit in an already small customer base. But folks are using much smaller equipment for some production work too.
    - robomartin 4y ago
      > Digital sensors these days are way better at capturing light Has the quantum efficiency of silicon improved? How much?
      - analog31 4y ago
        Not quantum efficiency per se, but dynamic range has been improved by the development of sensors with lower readout noise.
        robomartin 4y ago
        The statement was that today’s sensors are “better at capturing light”. Not sure signal-to-noise is what the OP meant. Note: I studied CCD and CMOS sensor design some 15 years ago under the scientists who designed a great deal of the sensors that flew in spacecraft. Jim Janesick was one of my instructors. https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-R-Janesick/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJames+R.+Janesick https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-R-Janesick/s?rh=n%3A28315...
        mulmen 4y ago
        Well they said today's sensors, not today's silicon. The favorable reading is that the sensor is considered as a component.
        robomartin 4y ago
        > The favorable reading is that the sensor is considered as a component. No. It's about materials properties and physics.
- sycren 4y ago
  Who is currently researching lenses that are cheaper, sustainable, at a production that can scale? Are there any other industries on the peripheral that would also benefit from market innovation in optics?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Smartphones
    - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      This is true. I was reading about research into "semi-liquid" lenses that can reshape. That could be very useful for smartphones. A few years ago, a friend of mine, who is a video engineer, introduced me to the DJI Osmo Pocket[0]. That was an awesome little camera. I suspect that it may have improved with age. [0] https://www.dji.com/pocket-2 https://www.dji.com/pocket-2
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      Do you manufactures consider sustainability? The other factors, sure.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  The bottleneck is coming up with ideas for good content, not the amount of cameras to film it with.
  - kfarr 4y ago
    Yeah agreed, there will never be a big market for studio cameras but that's ok
- tcbyrd 4y ago
  That may explain the “expensive” part but it doesn’t explain the “huge” part. Could Fujinon make their huge lenses cheaper? Maybe. But as the video points out there’s practical reasons the equipment has to be the physical size that it is, and yes the market for productions that have the team and budget to support and operate the equipment is relatively small. And those cameras are usually a 5+ year investment.
  - kayfox 4y ago
    Its huge because of two things: 1. The lens elements are really large to gather a lot of light so that it can work well in a wide range of lighting conditions. The front most element is as large as the front hood. 2. Every set of lens elements, some being just one lens, is moved individually, there is a controller that calculates the proper position for each lens and moves them based on input from the operators controls and the camera. This allows the lens to zoom really fast without loosing focus.
    - tcbyrd 4y ago
      I’d recommend you watch the video. There’s a lot more to it than just the lens and it’s not just “to gather a lot of light”. You can gather a whole bunch of light on an f0.8 lens in way less weight. The video does a great job with the details of the physics.
      - kayfox 4y ago
        I work with these lenses. I think the only other things the video hits on that I skipped over are: Its heavy, which is not really a design choice but just the result of all the stuff that goes into them and this particular one is a very long lens, which is also not always the case with these box lenses (the one currently on my workbench is a 24x, for example). Edit: In my experience, the mass of the lens is not as important as the tripod head when it comes to keeping operator shake to a minimum. A good head will smooth out the operators movements and a bad operator is perfectly capable of making 100lbs of camera and lens shake.
marci 4y ago
This TLDR would be apt if the question was "What is expensive ang huge" rather than "Why are they expesensive and huge"

TLDR: The lens and pro accessories

by kfarr 4y ago

TLDR: The lens and pro accessories

But mostly because the market is tiny so there is no economies of scale. The small number of these cameras sold every year has to support the entire industry.

SkyPuncher 4y ago
Physics is another issue. It's far hard to aim a photon at the exact correct pixel on a sensor when both the lens and sensor are smaller. With larger glass and sensors, even if something is off slightly, there's a better chance it hits the right pixel. This is likely more noticeable with chromatic aberration different light colors bend slightly differently. With larger equipment and long lens lengths, there's less separation between colors.
- kuschku 4y ago
  Though TV cameras have some of the smallest sensors out there, as sensor size also affects lens size. Just compare ENG broadcast sensor size to APS-C/Super35 or Full Frame: https://i.k8r.eu/SC-yYw.png https://i.k8r.eu/SC-yYw.png
  - kayfox 4y ago
    It should also be noted that an ENG camera typically has 3 sensors and not just one. The BMD Ursa Broadcast used in the above video is an exception, but its also a cinema camera converted to take B4 mount ENG lenses and not built from the ground up to do live broadcast video. Its also from a company that has weird ideas about how broadcast equipment should work.
    - kuschku 4y ago
      Sony also builds ENG cameras with single-sensor rolling-shutter bayer pattern based stuff. Which is ridiculous considering how much money they want for that. There's only a handful cameras with three individual sensors with global shutter on the market nowadays, and the price point is expectedly astronomical (~70k USD)
      - kayfox 4y ago
        Most of their broadcast camera system lineup is 3-chip: https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems There's a couple exceptions, like the Super-35 HDC-F5500 and HDC-4800.
        kuschku 4y ago
        Most of the ones you linked are just variations on two different assemblies, and as soon as you look at their otherwise extensive ENG lineup, the situation doesn't get much better, that one also only has the Z750 while the Z450 and X400 have no global shutter. But you're right, they still have a few good options for now :)
  - solarkraft 4y ago
    Interesting and slightly unexpected trade-off. But of course: The situations these are used in tend to be well lit.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Digital sensors these days are way better at capturing light, even with much higher resolution video the rest of the camera can indeed shrink a lot, there’s just not much pressure to do so because the market and competition is small and smaller means cheaper means less profit in an already small customer base. But folks are using much smaller equipment for some production work too.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Digital sensors these days are way better at capturing light Has the quantum efficiency of silicon improved? How much?
    - analog31 4y ago
      Not quantum efficiency per se, but dynamic range has been improved by the development of sensors with lower readout noise.
      - robomartin 4y ago
        The statement was that today’s sensors are “better at capturing light”. Not sure signal-to-noise is what the OP meant. Note: I studied CCD and CMOS sensor design some 15 years ago under the scientists who designed a great deal of the sensors that flew in spacecraft. Jim Janesick was one of my instructors. https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-R-Janesick/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJames+R.+Janesick https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-R-Janesick/s?rh=n%3A28315...
        mulmen 4y ago
        Well they said today's sensors, not today's silicon. The favorable reading is that the sensor is considered as a component.
        robomartin 4y ago
        > The favorable reading is that the sensor is considered as a component. No. It's about materials properties and physics.
sycren 4y ago
Who is currently researching lenses that are cheaper, sustainable, at a production that can scale? Are there any other industries on the peripheral that would also benefit from market innovation in optics?
- thfuran 4y ago
  Smartphones
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    This is true. I was reading about research into "semi-liquid" lenses that can reshape. That could be very useful for smartphones. A few years ago, a friend of mine, who is a video engineer, introduced me to the DJI Osmo Pocket[0]. That was an awesome little camera. I suspect that it may have improved with age. [0] https://www.dji.com/pocket-2 https://www.dji.com/pocket-2
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Do you manufactures consider sustainability? The other factors, sure.
antisthenes 4y ago
The bottleneck is coming up with ideas for good content, not the amount of cameras to film it with.
- kfarr 4y ago
  Yeah agreed, there will never be a big market for studio cameras but that's ok
tcbyrd 4y ago
That may explain the “expensive” part but it doesn’t explain the “huge” part. Could Fujinon make their huge lenses cheaper? Maybe. But as the video points out there’s practical reasons the equipment has to be the physical size that it is, and yes the market for productions that have the team and budget to support and operate the equipment is relatively small. And those cameras are usually a 5+ year investment.
- kayfox 4y ago
  Its huge because of two things: 1. The lens elements are really large to gather a lot of light so that it can work well in a wide range of lighting conditions. The front most element is as large as the front hood. 2. Every set of lens elements, some being just one lens, is moved individually, there is a controller that calculates the proper position for each lens and moves them based on input from the operators controls and the camera. This allows the lens to zoom really fast without loosing focus.
  - tcbyrd 4y ago
    I’d recommend you watch the video. There’s a lot more to it than just the lens and it’s not just “to gather a lot of light”. You can gather a whole bunch of light on an f0.8 lens in way less weight. The video does a great job with the details of the physics.
    - kayfox 4y ago
      I work with these lenses. I think the only other things the video hits on that I skipped over are: Its heavy, which is not really a design choice but just the result of all the stuff that goes into them and this particular one is a very long lens, which is also not always the case with these box lenses (the one currently on my workbench is a 24x, for example). Edit: In my experience, the mass of the lens is not as important as the tripod head when it comes to keeping operator shake to a minimum. A good head will smooth out the operators movements and a bad operator is perfectly capable of making 100lbs of camera and lens shake.

marci 4y ago

This TLDR would be apt if the question was "What is expensive ang huge" rather than "Why are they expesensive and huge"