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.
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.
Just compare ENG broadcast sensor size to APS-C/Super35 or Full Frame: https://i.k8r.eu/SC-yYw.png
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.
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)
There's a couple exceptions, like the Super-35 HDC-F5500 and HDC-4800.
But you're right, they still have a few good options for now :)
But folks are using much smaller equipment for some production work too.
Has the quantum efficiency of silicon improved?
How much?
It’s possible to create a camera sensor that isn’t limited by the quantum efficiency of silicon. In fact, it’s likely that no sensor is “perfect” and that tradeoffs are made between cost and suitability for purpose.
My 2010 BMW gets better gas mileage at higher speeds than my 1973 Oldsmobile, even though the energy density of a gallon of gasoline hasn’t changed. And neither of them is anywhere near the theoretical maximum.
Well, the QE pretty much is the limit. Sorry.
Sorry. Again, no. Not a single well designed camera will do this. Quantum efficiency is, to use a term from a time gone by, the "emulsion". Now, if you are talking about a $15 security camera or some garbage design, sure, whatever, anything is possible. I have been involved in the design of cameras for terrestrial, orbital and lunar applications. You don't throw anything away unless you absolutely have to.
QE is the "fingerprint" of the sensor, it si based on the material used to make it and it all follows from there. Put a different way, it's how a sensor converts photons landing on a pixel into electrons. You can't degrade or enhance this externally. If less photons land on the pixel (bad optics, ND filters, etc.) the QE is the same. If more photons hit the pixel (back illumination, better optics, etc.) the QE is the same. If you have shitty digital processing, the QE is the same. Etc.
Going back to statement that "Digital sensors these days are way better at capturing light", still not sure what it means. For example, a better way to capture light is back illumination, which has been around for many decades. Interested in learning if there's something in modern sensors (in production) I might not know about.
I have a database of nearly every imaging sensor in production up to about a year go. It covers the SWIR to visible range. Every sensor you can buy. If there are any advancements that cause a sensor to be "way better at capturing light", I would sure love to know about it.
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%3A28315...
No. It's about materials properties and physics.
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.
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.
I think I was just making sure it was clear (to others, since you probably are aware) that it's more than just lighting/apertures. Being good at a variety of lighting conditions, and being able to do that from 18mm-1700mm with a variable speed zoom without losing focus is where things get really big. There's a lot of features in the camera body to support this specific type of production beyond the lens, too. For live TV, an operator is making split-second decisions around composition (including adjusting for graphics on the screen), lighting, focus, and movement, while also monitoring on-air status and listening to both director and (sometimes) program audio. And then you have to add on the massive rigs that make sure everything's in perfect balance so you can whip the camera around quickly and have it stop on a dime. It's a whole system. A good high-end rig is like driving a Porsche. Sure the engine is a big part of the power and engineering, but if you don't also have a properly tuned suspension and grippy tires, you aren't going to have much fun driving it.
Are there any other industries on the peripheral that would also benefit from market innovation in optics?
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.