trip3980
lvl.1
United States
Offline
|
Sorry sometimes when I write my ideas are not always clear.
When I mean larger sensor I mean a sensor with more pixels. However that said physical sensor size does effect the DOF greatly. hence why people want to migrate to the larger sensors.
in regards to crop factor, the crop factor has nothing to do with pixel aspect ratio but rather the ratio the image is displayed in. with that said you can change the pixle aspect ratio to match the crop factor. like arranging building blocks you have so many building blocks and how you arrange them determine the crop factor or aspect ratio. So when I am editing I can only edit in say 1920X1080 pixels. I can only get this from the camera one of 3 ways. one I can crop the sensor size to fit 1920X1080 pixels, two I can down scale the video single to get 1920X1080 (which gives you better perceived resolution because the image grain or noise smaller in relation to the aspect ratio) or 3 I can record every other horizontal line then convert that into scan lines taking advantage of the entire sensor (a combination of both down scaling and cropping). The disadvantage of cropping an image on a sensor is the grain or noise size. this really can't be avoided unless you shoot at a larger aspect ratio like 4k. shooting film at 16mm ISO 500 is the equivalent of shooting iso 1600 on 35mm film. hence why super 8mm film is so grainy. so physically their is no way to get around this regardless of pixel density and the industry knows this. The only way around is a larger sensor and down scaling or having a camera that can record at a high pixel aspect ratio such as 4k with with little or no compression, down scaling and scanned lines. but to acheve this the camera must be able to process the raw image in real time while being able to capture the image at its respected data rate. |
|