Hey my man, I'll say this again, please make a video about Medium Format sensors vs. Full frame. :D I'd buy that video if I have to. :D :D Thanks for making me laugh all throughout the video though. ;)
I was fully expecting he'd at least mention that, considering he ranted for 10 minutes about how silly sensor sizes are named. "Middle format" being the largest size takes this cake!
@@haiggoh Among the Ink&Paper periodicals that were available during my youth was one called Miniature Camera. Miniature Camera was specifically dedicated to users of the 35mm film format.
This is not fake news. This is Nobel prize worthy late breaking news documentary scientific researched historically correct news. The more inches the better correct? Lmao love this channel. Keep them coming before they come and take you away for all these conspiracies.
Full frame is just the full frame of small format camera Above small format is medium format and above them is large format that only few people use now
Man I'm rolling out of bed with uncontrolled laughter, this is, without doubt, the best video/attempted explanation of so called sensor 'sizes'... Brilliant... Have a great 2021 Kasey...
Stupid trivia that I just looked up -- the Micro-Four-Thirds sensor is actually the same as the Four-Thirds sensor (same size) -- and 4/3 came first in DSLR cameras (Olympus, Kodak (!) but not Panasonic) -- then someone brilliantly came up with the idea of using the same sensor in mirrorless cameras, and since they could move the lens flange a lot closer to the sensor, they added "Micro" to the name -- thus Micro Four Thirds. If you look around you can still find some Four Thirds cameras and lenses. But yes -- like many things in the human race, sense has left the building....
Another trivia to add to that, fourthirds refers to the aspect ratio which is... 4:3. For some godly reason (M)4/3 chose a different aspect ratio than any other sensor out there.
@@JohnSmith-wj2wd -- never thought that much about it, but yup. Of course when doing video most MFT crop to 16:9. Found a cool article about aspect ratios of film and digital formats (there are a few other 4:3, but they are rare).
3:2 is an old holdover from FILM. Most ppl print in 4:5 aspect and although 4:3 is not 4:5, there is less pixel loss when cropping 4:3 to 5:4 than with 3:2. I had Olympus 4/3 as my first DSLR. I liked it over APS-C just cause 4:3 was the aspect ratio for TV's before Widescreen came out and less pixel loss when cropping to 4:5 for the images I printed.
@Permanently Obtunded I understand although it still doesn't make any sense in regards to today's digital camera sensor sizes... :) If 24x36 is the 'full frame' it should be something relatable to that like 2/3, 1/2 etc...
Guess what, that 1" sensor doesn't actually measure one inch in any way, its real diagonal measurement is about 0.6" or 16mm. Sensor naming is something I've been ranting about for over a decade now, I've always said they should name them by their diagonal measurements just like screens. "Full Frame"=43.2mm "APS-c"=28mm "4/3"=21.6mm "1-inch"=15.8mm and by using mm you can easily see what your "neutral" lens is; for example, a 28mm lens on a 28mm sensor (APS-c).
I think they should measure the area in square mm and make it rounded to the nearest 100 or 1000 sq mm. The 4/3 came from the aspect ratio. Nothing to do with inch. The 1" is for me a total mystery. Don't know if Sony (who started it) knows it either.
@@TheKentaurion Actually Sony didn't start the 1" naming convention; this horrible naming convention comes from old video cameras form the 1930-1980s that used a cathode ray tube (CRT). The confusion comes from the fact that a "1-inch" CRT camera produced a 16mm image so from then on 1" = 16mm. Yes, they mixed metric with imperial, cause why be practical when they can be misleading and convoluted? The 4/3" sensor isn't named after the ratio, it just happens to have a 4:3 ratio, a 4/3" sensor is a "1.3-inch sensor". Since a 4/3 sensor is 21.6mm diagonal you would divide that by 16mm to get 1.35 in "CRT inches", that gets rounded and converted to a traditional 1/3 inch fraction which is 4/3". Using a "square mm" standard may be technically more accurate but is not as helpful in photography than a "diagonal measurement standard". With the diagonal, we can gauge how a focal length will "behave" on that sensor as well as know the image circle requirements for the lens. However, I do agree that the aspect ratio is an issue; since most photographic sensors are 3:2, that should the be the assumed ratio unless otherwise noted; just like how most displays are 16:9.
Thanks for that amount of info! Didn't know the problem went this long back in time. Someone clever should once and for all make a suitable naming-type that we all could use and understand. Thanks once again for sharing your knowledge!
The sensor nomenclature confused the heck out of me too! While I understand it now it really doesn't make any sense and it's easy to see why people scratch their heads. Great delivery, who knew the history behind that first camera! 😁
Why someone hasn't made a video like this *with colorful and universal descriptions, prior to this... is beyond me. He asked a lot of really good questions.
welcome to imperial measurements units a unit setup so stupid that people using it give up mid way and said lets just say a inch is 2.54 centimeters in a 1800's
That’s not how imperial units work but lol. An inch is just some arbitrary length that was agreed upon but metric actual has science/thought behind it.
@@paulchoate1 that is exactly how it works National Prototype 1 Metre Bar No. 27, made in 1889 and is the bases of all american length unit 1893 to 1960 . its just sad that american manufacturer has to base everything of off metric system and then do the conversion for no reason . This is the only time Americans are stupid actually makes sense (Most of time they are smart slow but smart )
@@AnupamVipul Yes there is an agreed upon length for imperial units but it's based on nothing scientific. It just so happens that one inch equals 2.54 cm. It's not like metric is based on imperial units! Back in the old times one foot equaled the size of the King's foot! It's ridiculous we still use this system.
@@paulchoate1 That is what i was saying its stupid . imperial measurements units does not exist they are not tied down to any laws of nature or have any physical standards which means all it is just converted metric units has been form 1890 . We must kill imperial measurements units for the sake of humanity , imperial measurements must die
You have just begun to crack the true sensor size conspiracy. People think the 1” sensor in their new Sony camera is 1” diagonally. In reality it’s about 2/3”… A micro 4/3 sensor is not 1.3”, it’s actually only .85” diagonally and a 2/3” sensor is less that a half inch. It’s all fake measurements based on the diagonal size of obsolete glass camera tubes from the 70’s & 80’s.
"Full Frame"=43.2mm "APS-c"=28mm "4/3"=21.6mm "1-inch"=15.8mm and by using mm you can easily see what your "neutral" 1x lens is; for example, a 28mm lens on a 28mm sensor (APS-c) would be a 1x FoV and a 56mm would be 2x.
@@PeterMKent It just might be that there's only one "neutral" lens ever made for full frame: Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited. Btw, someone in some video claimed that there is a scientific way of calculating the perfect focal length for portraits and that's sensor diagonal length times two. Okay, so that would actually be very close to 85mm. But it doesn't make sense... because portrait of what? A human head? A tiny kitten's head? :D There's so much confusion and odd interpretations, myths etc.
+Keith Brown Actually, to make thing more confusing, decimals are used in imperial, commonly in engineering, math, and machining. In machinging for example, a mil(or thou) is 0.0001 inches. Decimals are easier to work with in complicated questions, so if you were determined to use inches in a physics problem, you would use decimals, not fractions. Using decimals for imperial measurements is 100% okay, and relatively commonplace outside of elementary/highschool mathmatics.
I come back to watch this again every few months. It still cracks me up. That look he gives in the board room to, "Little half-boy.., sensor?" And, "Micro-Four-Fucking-Thirds??" I wish he'd do more comedy skits. They're probably harder to do than regular vlogging, but these are SO good!
I finally found someone who makes sense about camera manufactures on You Tube. Board member Karen must have relatives on every camera manufactures Board. Well done!
You need to make a video on the sensor size names AFTER full frame. BLU Frame(Better Left Undiscovered Frame). We would love to hear of the inventive names you could come up with!
It's simple. A 1/2.3 inch sensor translates to a simple 1.104/1 cm sensor, which in reality is more like 0.77 cm, which can easily be written as a simple 19.5/25 cm sensor. How hard is that?
Love your content and humour! APS-C is a dumb name. Comes from a short lived film format called Advanced Photo System that was an easy to load 24mm film cartridge. Cameras could capture 3 aspect ratios. H for "High Definition" (30.2 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 16:9; 4×7" print) C for "Classic" (25.1 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 3:2; 4×6" print) P for "Panoramic" (30.2 × 9.5 mm; aspect ratio 3:1; 4×11" print) Still, referencing a long forgotten film format in a digital age is anachronistic at best.
Thanks for your history class and sounds about totaly right with anachronistic. Souns stupid as fuck. I hate those boardroom meeting with all those tie people... Makes no fucking sense to me.
They should call it nonsense-or sizes, the closest I can come to making sense of at least some of it is if you divide the numorater by the denominator, you get a number which if you multiply by 10 roughly equals the sensor height in mm.....How messed up is that! You hit gold with this subject given the name of your channel.
Congrats on the funny Video..... been watching you grow for a while.... keep it up!!! i would have liked to hear you go deeper into the board meeting for medium sized sensor... but anyways, you did put the sweet caramel icing on top!!
Well done!, as usual you have the best way of expressing what we all have to endure, the manufacturers determination to baffle us all with pseudo-science, anything and everything to make our lives even more difficult!. Will you try one on aperture next, how it gets smaller as it gets bigger, and why?. Cheers, Richard.
I laughed so hard, liked 5 comments, realized I forgot to like the video when I laid down. I then, left the sanctity of my bed, liked the video, then left this comment for your amusement. Enjoy!
It gets worse my friend. An "inch" in sensor sizes is smaller than a normal inch. Its abot 1.6cm (normal inch is 2.54cm). For a 1/1.7" sensor, you calculate it like this: 1 : 1.7 = 0,5882" (sensor inch) 0,5882 • 1.6 = 0,941cm And to get inch out of it: 0,941 : 2.54 = 0,3705" (real inch) You can look it up yourself, or if you do the famous phrase of pythagoras on the width and hight of the sensor.
I was trying to put my kid to bed and I was shacking the bed trying not to laugh I got up and watched the rest and almost starting crying. I thought for sure you were leading into full frame to medium format. WTF here we go again.
The common inch-based sizing system is derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube of 4/3 inch diameter. -From Wiki
You forgot to mention, that it is the outer diameter. The sensitive area is inside and much smaller. So the only thing that is 1" on a 1" sensor is the virtual vacuun tube you have to think around the sensor area.
@@JetBen555 Sorry, I didn't want to offend or criticize you. I just wanted to add the information. I think this is the most hilarious aspect of the whole inch based sensor measurement system. Actually it is mentioned on wikipedia about the micro four third system: "However, the chip diagonal is shorter than 4/3 of an inch; the 4/3 inch designation for this size of sensor dates back to the 1950s and vidicon tubes, when the external diameter of the camera tube was measured, not the active area."
Think it can not getting weirder? - Here in Germany full frame is called „Kleinbild“ what translates to „small picture“ compared to medium and large format. My whole childhood nobody knew a bigger format than the „Kleinbild“
I have the SD 1100 IS (blue) , I remember putting in CHDK on it and doing time-lapse. Its still a great camera, after all this years it still works, battery charge is still strong and its amazing.
You’re a gifted! Blessed you with a resource knowledge, logical idea, talent in deliverance to cater these comedy of life. “Long live the King” Great Video! - Funny made by a “Genius”.
Say what you will about the sensor size on the Canon SD1100IS, but looking at your video sample, the camera does make you look much much younger. I’m turning 50 this year; I might have to pick one up.
I watched your video and found it very interesting. My concern is one critical point everyone explains incorrectly. There are 2 key points when discussing image sensors. These are the Optical characteristics and the Technical characteristics of every image sensor. You did a great job explaining the Optical differences and failed, like everyone else, on the Technical aspects of the image sensor. An image sensor is an electronic component with technical limitations. The size of the sensor does not change these technical limitations. For example, the sensor has an active noise component (floor) the moment the camera is switched on. Dishonest marketers decided not to tell the truth because selling more FF cameras is more important. We have the opportunity to manage the sensor's saturation and SNR. How does one do that? The daily repeated marketing phrase claiming "One sensor captures more light" is dishonest. The challenge we ALL face is how to best deal with the different reflected light intensities from the scene. All image sensors undersaturate in the shadow parts of the scene. That means a lower SNR and more visible image noise in the shadows. Your ISO simply amplifies the lower SNR in the shadow parts of the image signal. Why do all image sensors produce excellent image quality in bright light, and NOT only M43 sensors? Because the sensor saturates in good light. That means a high SNR, low visible noise, and more tonal data. Why? (think gamma & tonal data distribution) Go to my Blog for more information on what digital photographers should know... Best Siegfried
My idea for a future camera censor is one whose size you can ultimately control by pushing a button. The idea is if you push it then the censor can extend. The idea behind this is to create censors which aid producing a more stable image. If you move the button in a certain way you can shrink this censor. Eventually censors like this will result in some sort of agreement over what should be considered the ideal censor size. Ultimately what we all want when it comes to a camera censor size is something we can control and use to be more creative.
Affiliate link for the sensor as promised ;) amzn.to/2KpXtMn
i was not expecting that
_"And... cut!"_ 🎬
Hey my man, I'll say this again, please make a video about Medium Format sensors vs. Full frame. :D
I'd buy that video if I have to. :D :D
Thanks for making me laugh all throughout the video though. ;)
Shick Quattro all the way LOL... I hope you actually earn something from this affiliate link =)
This was your top momrnt mate ...i literaly rolled over the ground ...if laughing 🤣🤣🤣🍻
Great video. I rate it a 1/1.10. 🧮
😂😂😂
Ha freak'in Ha
I would give a higher score 1/1.05
LMAO
5/7
Man, I've never laughed so much in one of your videos.
yup this is a APS-C a Phunny Social Cream.
Wow, I'm glad to see one of my favorite English teacher here in the comments!)
Medium Format Sounds much smaller than full frame 😂
And then, some marketing droid at Fuji decides to call that "Super Full Frame"
I couldn't stop laughing when I heard...
If it's medium, why is it so expensive?
I was fully expecting he'd at least mention that, considering he ranted for 10 minutes about how silly sensor sizes are named. "Middle format" being the largest size takes this cake!
by the way, in german, 35mm full frame is also often listed as "Kleinbildformat" meaning small image format. Go figure 🤷♂️
@@haiggoh Among the Ink&Paper periodicals that were available during my youth was one called Miniature Camera. Miniature Camera was specifically dedicated to users of the 35mm film format.
Brilliant! No one can reveal and deliver the humour in camera hardware and specs as well as you! So refreshing !🤣🙏🏾
Damn it! Now I know to never watch your videos while drinking coffee....R.I.P. screen and keyboard 😞
😂😅🤣
I concur! Damnit non-weather sealed keyboard and carpet!🙄🙄
I wish I'd read this comment before I had my cup of tea haha
Im back watching these old videos..
This is the funniest camera video anywhere!!
I’d pay money to come to your stand up show/set...instead I’ll just watch the 30 sec ads!! Keep them coming!
Omg the m4/3 contemplation and reaction made my day 😂
This is legitimately the most hilarious video I've seen this year and we are already in January.
"in a logmarithic algorithm"
I've heard it all now, I believe
😂😂
Man, your humour is so unique in the photography world, may your channel live forever!
This is not fake news. This is Nobel prize worthy late breaking news documentary scientific researched historically correct news. The more inches the better correct? Lmao love this channel. Keep them coming before they come and take you away for all these conspiracies.
What's bigger than full?! Medium!
Logic!
Full Medium
Full frame is just the full frame of small format camera
Above small format is medium format and above them is large format that only few people use now
Sensors need a flip out screen, a macro 8/7th screen
Legit lol'd at this comment
Back in the day, the sensors had flip out screens. In front of them. Those were called mirrors.
it would need to be 8/6, 8/7 just makes no sense at all.
Finally, somebody explains it in a way I can understand.
".. are you watching that underwear guy again?" - my daughter.
Man I'm rolling out of bed with uncontrolled laughter, this is, without doubt, the best video/attempted explanation of so called sensor 'sizes'... Brilliant... Have a great 2021 Kasey...
Stupid trivia that I just looked up -- the Micro-Four-Thirds sensor is actually the same as the Four-Thirds sensor (same size) -- and 4/3 came first in DSLR cameras (Olympus, Kodak (!) but not Panasonic) -- then someone brilliantly came up with the idea of using the same sensor in mirrorless cameras, and since they could move the lens flange a lot closer to the sensor, they added "Micro" to the name -- thus Micro Four Thirds. If you look around you can still find some Four Thirds cameras and lenses. But yes -- like many things in the human race, sense has left the building....
Another trivia to add to that, fourthirds refers to the aspect ratio which is... 4:3. For some godly reason (M)4/3 chose a different aspect ratio than any other sensor out there.
@@JohnSmith-wj2wd -- never thought that much about it, but yup. Of course when doing video most MFT crop to 16:9. Found a cool article about aspect ratios of film and digital formats (there are a few other 4:3, but they are rare).
3:2 is an old holdover from FILM. Most ppl print in 4:5 aspect and although 4:3 is not 4:5, there is less pixel loss when cropping 4:3 to 5:4 than with 3:2. I had Olympus 4/3 as my first DSLR. I liked it over APS-C just cause 4:3 was the aspect ratio for TV's before Widescreen came out and less pixel loss when cropping to 4:5 for the images I printed.
Bought an Olympus Evolt 500 4/3's with two lenses for peanuts and it takes beautiful pictures...
m4/3 and I'm in tears… I always used to wonder about that one... and the fact that "medium" format was bigger than full frame. LOOOOOL.
I appreciate the silliness of your channel
New favorite camera channel! Loved vegetable police lol
The numbers are crop factors compared to one inch sensor. So 1/1.7 is 1.7x crop and 1/2.5 is 2.5x crop.
And what makes the 1" sensor 1" (12,8mm x 9,6mm)?
@Permanently Obtunded I understand although it still doesn't make any sense in regards to today's digital camera sensor sizes... :) If 24x36 is the 'full frame' it should be something relatable to that like 2/3, 1/2 etc...
1/1.7 has a crop factor of 4.55, 1/2.5 is 6.02... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ??? Wish that made sense
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
Guess what, that 1" sensor doesn't actually measure one inch in any way, its real diagonal measurement is about 0.6" or 16mm. Sensor naming is something I've been ranting about for over a decade now, I've always said they should name them by their diagonal measurements just like screens.
"Full Frame"=43.2mm
"APS-c"=28mm
"4/3"=21.6mm
"1-inch"=15.8mm
and by using mm you can easily see what your "neutral" lens is; for example, a 28mm lens on a 28mm sensor (APS-c).
Peter Kent h
@@gertprst9763 The horizontal measurement of a 1" sensor is 13mm which is about a 1/2 inch.
I think they should measure the area in square mm and make it rounded to the nearest 100 or 1000 sq mm. The 4/3 came from the aspect ratio. Nothing to do with inch. The 1" is for me a total mystery. Don't know if Sony (who started it) knows it either.
@@TheKentaurion Actually Sony didn't start the 1" naming convention; this horrible naming convention comes from old video cameras form the 1930-1980s that used a cathode ray tube (CRT). The confusion comes from the fact that a "1-inch" CRT camera produced a 16mm image so from then on 1" = 16mm. Yes, they mixed metric with imperial, cause why be practical when they can be misleading and convoluted?
The 4/3" sensor isn't named after the ratio, it just happens to have a 4:3 ratio, a 4/3" sensor is a "1.3-inch sensor". Since a 4/3 sensor is 21.6mm diagonal you would divide that by 16mm to get 1.35 in "CRT inches", that gets rounded and converted to a traditional 1/3 inch fraction which is 4/3".
Using a "square mm" standard may be technically more accurate but is not as helpful in photography than a "diagonal measurement standard". With the diagonal, we can gauge how a focal length will "behave" on that sensor as well as know the image circle requirements for the lens. However, I do agree that the aspect ratio is an issue; since most photographic sensors are 3:2, that should the be the assumed ratio unless otherwise noted; just like how most displays are 16:9.
Thanks for that amount of info! Didn't know the problem went this long back in time. Someone clever should once and for all make a suitable naming-type that we all could use and understand. Thanks once again for sharing your knowledge!
Now I know what APS-C stands for!
A panda scares a cat 😂
APS-C = A pretty shitty censor
As a Micro 4/3's shooter, you made my day!
Just 'found' this channel a few weeks ago...but have been binge-watching ever since. One-oneth is pure genius!
is it weird that i like these videos even tough i am not into cameras? :) lol love the humor
The sensor nomenclature confused the heck out of me too! While I understand it now it really doesn't make any sense and it's easy to see why people scratch their heads. Great delivery, who knew the history behind that first camera! 😁
Why someone hasn't made a video like this *with colorful and universal descriptions, prior to this... is beyond me.
He asked a lot of really good questions.
This is probably your finest hour (so far). Comedy and education all in one hit 😂
Dude you keep getting better and better with each successive video, thank you!
welcome to imperial measurements units a unit setup so stupid that people using it give up mid way and said lets just say a inch is 2.54 centimeters in a 1800's
That’s not how imperial units work but lol. An inch is just some arbitrary length that was agreed upon but metric actual has science/thought behind it.
@@paulchoate1 that is exactly how it works National Prototype 1 Metre Bar No. 27, made in 1889 and is the bases of all american length unit 1893 to 1960 . its just sad that american manufacturer has to base everything of off metric system and then do the conversion for no reason . This is the only time Americans are stupid actually makes sense (Most of time they are smart slow but smart )
@@AnupamVipul Yes there is an agreed upon length for imperial units but it's based on nothing scientific. It just so happens that one inch equals 2.54 cm. It's not like metric is based on imperial units! Back in the old times one foot equaled the size of the King's foot! It's ridiculous we still use this system.
@@paulchoate1 That is what i was saying its stupid . imperial measurements units does not exist they are not tied down to any laws of nature or have any physical standards which means all it is just converted metric units has been form 1890 . We must kill imperial measurements units for the sake of humanity , imperial measurements must die
You have just begun to crack the true sensor size conspiracy. People think the 1” sensor in their new Sony camera is 1” diagonally. In reality it’s about 2/3”… A micro 4/3 sensor is not 1.3”, it’s actually only .85” diagonally and a 2/3” sensor is less that a half inch. It’s all fake measurements based on the diagonal size of obsolete glass camera tubes from the 70’s & 80’s.
"Full Frame"=43.2mm
"APS-c"=28mm
"4/3"=21.6mm
"1-inch"=15.8mm
and by using mm you can easily see what your "neutral" 1x lens is; for example, a 28mm lens on a 28mm sensor (APS-c) would be a 1x FoV and a 56mm would be 2x.
@@PeterMKent It just might be that there's only one "neutral" lens ever made for full frame: Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited. Btw, someone in some video claimed that there is a scientific way of calculating the perfect focal length for portraits and that's sensor diagonal length times two. Okay, so that would actually be very close to 85mm. But it doesn't make sense... because portrait of what? A human head? A tiny kitten's head? :D There's so much confusion and odd interpretations, myths etc.
Glenn Przyborski you can’t use decimals in inches. Saying .85” just doesn’t work and isn’t right!
+Keith Brown
Actually, to make thing more confusing, decimals are used in imperial, commonly in engineering, math, and machining. In machinging for example, a mil(or thou) is 0.0001 inches. Decimals are easier to work with in complicated questions, so if you were determined to use inches in a physics problem, you would use decimals, not fractions. Using decimals for imperial measurements is 100% okay, and relatively commonplace outside of elementary/highschool mathmatics.
Oh my God! My brain hurts...
4/3 OMG laughing so hard here 😂😂 pick 4 of 3 things!
I come back to watch this again every few months. It still cracks me up. That look he gives in the board room to, "Little half-boy.., sensor?"
And, "Micro-Four-Fucking-Thirds??"
I wish he'd do more comedy skits. They're probably harder to do than regular vlogging, but these are SO good!
I finally found someone who makes sense about camera manufactures on You Tube. Board member Karen must have relatives on every camera manufactures Board. Well done!
This had me laughing more than any other RUclips video 😂
You need to make a video on the sensor size names AFTER full frame. BLU Frame(Better Left Undiscovered Frame). We would love to hear of the inventive names you could come up with!
Dude you need to do stand up. Keep sharing your gift of humor with the world dude. Loving every video.
HAHAHAHA! "Onion-Minded assholes!" That's my new catchphrase now. Thanks man! :D
Things get worse when you used metric system all your life and have no idea how long inch is :D
It's simple. A 1/2.3 inch sensor translates to a simple 1.104/1 cm sensor, which in reality is more like 0.77 cm, which can easily be written as a simple 19.5/25 cm sensor. How hard is that?
I can’t even imagine having to do CAD or such in inches.. you can’t even ad up simple measurements without doing some long conversion math.
@@mikerose2504 Yeah but no one knows what a mm is... like what is it? I know what an inch is, but a mm? That's just nuts.
@@rodmunch69 A mm is precisely 1/25.4 of an inch.
nyalarhotep wow, so if I want to impress a chick I can tell her my peckers is a solid 100mm. Now I get why everyone else uses metric.
Been watching your videos all week...this one cracked me up the most..have to watch 2.4/3 times
This is HILARIOUS. Can’t stop laughing with tears in my eyes.
Love your content and humour! APS-C is a dumb name. Comes from a short lived film format called Advanced Photo System that was an easy to load 24mm film cartridge. Cameras could capture 3 aspect ratios. H for "High Definition" (30.2 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 16:9; 4×7" print)
C for "Classic" (25.1 × 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 3:2; 4×6" print)
P for "Panoramic" (30.2 × 9.5 mm; aspect ratio 3:1; 4×11" print)
Still, referencing a long forgotten film format in a digital age is anachronistic at best.
Thanks for your history class and sounds about totaly right with anachronistic. Souns stupid as fuck. I hate those boardroom meeting with all those tie people... Makes no fucking sense to me.
_"I edited the Wikipedia page for the invention of the camera to include this timeline."_
*"Wikipedia had a board meeting..."*
They should call it nonsense-or sizes, the closest I can come to making sense of at least some of it is if you divide the numorater by the denominator, you get a number which if you multiply by 10 roughly equals the sensor height in mm.....How messed up is that! You hit gold with this subject given the name of your channel.
Even Jack Nicholson would find this wonderful humour. Great stuff. Glad the video is still up.
You are the "Steven Wright" of youtubers. Keep doing your thing!!
one of the best episodes
I love accurate historical references.
You are definitely the Funniest RUclips Photography Channel going right now..
Possibly the Funniest on ALL of RUclips!?!
You kill me! 😁
Congrats on the funny Video..... been watching you grow for a while.... keep it up!!!
i would have liked to hear you go deeper into the board meeting for medium sized sensor...
but anyways, you did put the sweet caramel icing on top!!
Well done!, as usual you have the best way of expressing what we all have to endure, the manufacturers determination to baffle us all with pseudo-science, anything and everything to make our lives even more difficult!. Will you try one on aperture next, how it gets smaller as it gets bigger, and why?. Cheers, Richard.
"We're moving in some sort of direction" - i like these kinda lines, you're a funny guy my friend :)
Its like building a deck on your house. 1"x6" lumber is to thin, 2"x6" is to thick, but 5/4" is juuussst right!
You, my friend, are a genius. Subscribed! 😂
I laughed so hard, liked 5 comments, realized I forgot to like the video when I laid down. I then, left the sanctity of my bed, liked the video, then left this comment for your amusement.
Enjoy!
Scuffed Sam Rockwell slams it out of the ballpark with this timely video. Chock full of sage wisdom and witty commentary.
Just watched this video after watching your background blur video. Awsome!!!
It gets worse my friend. An "inch" in sensor sizes is smaller than a normal inch. Its abot 1.6cm (normal inch is 2.54cm).
For a 1/1.7" sensor, you calculate it like this:
1 : 1.7 = 0,5882" (sensor inch)
0,5882 • 1.6 = 0,941cm
And to get inch out of it:
0,941 : 2.54 = 0,3705" (real inch)
You can look it up yourself, or if you do the famous phrase of pythagoras on the width and hight of the sensor.
I was trying to put my kid to bed and I was shacking the bed trying not to laugh I got up and watched the rest and almost starting crying. I thought for sure you were leading into full frame to medium format. WTF here we go again.
The common inch-based sizing system is derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube of 4/3 inch diameter. -From Wiki
You forgot to mention, that it is the outer diameter. The sensitive area is inside and much smaller. So the only thing that is 1" on a 1" sensor is the virtual vacuun tube you have to think around the sensor area.
@@Ulrich.Bierwisch tell that to the guy wrote the article on wiki
@@JetBen555 Sorry, I didn't want to offend or criticize you. I just wanted to add the information. I think this is the most hilarious aspect of the whole inch based sensor measurement system.
Actually it is mentioned on wikipedia about the micro four third system: "However, the chip diagonal is shorter than 4/3 of an inch; the 4/3 inch designation for this size of sensor dates back to the 1950s and vidicon tubes, when the external diameter of the camera tube was measured, not the active area."
Clear as mud
Funniest video I’ve seen on RUclips in a long time. 🤣🤣
Can’t wait to pick up my first little frame camera
Bro I can’t watch your videos at work anymore😂
Think it can not getting weirder? - Here in Germany full frame is called „Kleinbild“ what translates to „small picture“ compared to medium and large format. My whole childhood nobody knew a bigger format than the „Kleinbild“
I knew he was Canadian simply from his humor! Americans have more of a fart joke type of humor.
If I did a gallery opening I'd hire you for the pre show comedy entertainment 😂😂😂
“Onion minded” 🤣 I’m trying so hard to contain my laughter at work here
This was one of your funniest videos and it made me laugh a lot. At 6 in the morning, I'm pretty sure I woke people up. My room mate thanks you.
Fuck you crack me up man. I don't know shit about cameras but I keep watching your vids for the entertainment value 😂👌 1 1th? 😂😂😂
I have been watching all your videos man. You have a very unique, entertaining style
Time for a pony sized coffee...my kids love this game: coming up with imaginary acronym meanings.
I am laughing so hard EVERY SINGLE TIME i watch this episode!! :))
Crikey mate. I'm glad we've cleared that up.........
God you are so fucking entertaining in the camera world. Just thought I’d put that out there for ya In case you we’re having a bad day.
I have the SD 1100 IS (blue) , I remember putting in CHDK on it and doing time-lapse.
Its still a great camera, after all this years it still works, battery charge is still strong and its amazing.
"Micro 4 f*cking 3rds" "One oneth" 🤣 Thanks for the morning laughs!
F**ing Awesome! I was expecting Medium format after full frame.
The funniest video I've ever watched. Seriously. Very very seriously. I'm a depressed fuck who never laughs, so I know my shit. This was hysterical. 😂
We know the story is gonna be serious when the year it happened is a single digit.
You’re a gifted! Blessed you with a resource knowledge, logical idea, talent in deliverance to cater these comedy of life. “Long live the King”
Great Video! - Funny made by a “Genius”.
I've watched this video at least 4 times, I can't stop laughing at "one oneth"
Comedy gold man. Gonna have to buy one of those sensors to say thanks!
Say what you will about the sensor size on the Canon SD1100IS, but looking at your video sample, the camera does make you look much much younger. I’m turning 50 this year; I might have to pick one up.
Man! You have me rolling on the floor here!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Haha still watching! 😂 Brilliant 😎
best in depth analysis of sensors since discovery of sensors in 4.500BC.
I quite like APS-C; the 1.6 crop factor is beneficial for the photographing of birds.
I watched your video and found it very interesting. My concern is one critical point everyone explains incorrectly. There are 2 key points when discussing image sensors. These are the Optical characteristics and the Technical characteristics of every image sensor. You did a great job explaining the Optical differences and failed, like everyone else, on the Technical aspects of the image sensor. An image sensor is an electronic component with technical limitations. The size of the sensor does not change these technical limitations. For example, the sensor has an active noise component (floor) the moment the camera is switched on. Dishonest marketers decided not to tell the truth because selling more FF cameras is more important. We have the opportunity to manage the sensor's saturation and SNR. How does one do that? The daily repeated marketing phrase claiming "One sensor captures more light" is dishonest. The challenge we ALL face is how to best deal with the different reflected light intensities from the scene. All image sensors undersaturate in the shadow parts of the scene. That means a lower SNR and more visible image noise in the shadows. Your ISO simply amplifies the lower SNR in the shadow parts of the image signal. Why do all image sensors produce excellent image quality in bright light, and NOT only M43 sensors? Because the sensor saturates in good light. That means a high SNR, low visible noise, and more tonal data. Why? (think gamma & tonal data distribution) Go to my Blog for more information on what digital photographers should know... Best Siegfried
and the answer is caramel!
Salted caramel is at its best when mixed with fudge.
Ahahaha great video my dude. "1 over 1.7" hysterical
Full frame is probably the best. Medium format is larger but is not full.
Loved the video. Laughed a lot and leant a lot ..wish my teachers were half as entertaining...🤣
I watch your videos in my bed. It puts me to sleep :) Not joking. I love your channel. At the same time, I use to sleep also!
Another masterpiece Camera Conspiracies , you just made my day hahahaha
Watched this a year late. Literally wiping away the tears of laughter ... Micro four thirds size tears.
My idea for a future camera censor is one whose size you can ultimately control by pushing a button. The idea is if you push it then the censor can extend. The idea behind this is to create censors which aid producing a more stable image. If you move the button in a certain way you can shrink this censor. Eventually censors like this will result in some sort of agreement over what should be considered the ideal censor size. Ultimately what we all want when it comes to a camera censor size is something we can control and use to be more creative.
This man's plug is with the fire.🔥
love the Affiliate link!