Maarten, you're the best. You should be on TV.

I'm always impressed with the quality of your content. Keep it coming!

The scholarly Maartan, now with studio audience! Love your presentations and the tie.

I loved the irony about the one inch sensor. LOL great humor!!

Thanks for all that context and the clarity, along with interesting facts!

Very, very informative. Thank you.

Excellent 46 seconds and I subscribed.

Quite informative. Thanks!

This video has a history bites feel to it, loved it. Would be nice if you did a historic camera company series in this fashion

Finally an easy explanation of the 1 inch vs the full frame size differences.

You are so amazing! Loved the way you presented!

Great video. I was trying to wait one week to watch but last night was not one week later. :)

great video. Very informative. Interesting how the 35mm term stlil hangs around

Maarten, the production value in your content is phenomenal. Chapeaux! If you don't mind me asking, how long did this video take you to put together? Research: n hours? Script preparation: n hours? Editing: n hours? The end result, in any case, is top notch. Thank you, from Ireland.

Great graphics and description, I got everything but the very last few seconds how that adds up to 1 inch? Looks more like APS-C size to me??

Hi again Maarten, can you please explain if a 10 mp camera like canon 40d would be enought to shoot my sons sport events? it has 6.5 fps , 1/8000 shutter speed , but only 100-1600 (expands to 3200) ISO, what do you think? For the record i will not make posters out of the pictures, maybe small photos but mainly will be shared on fb. Thanks a lot for your time and guidance.

That's why always refer to them as "one inch type" sensor, love the humor :)

Nice video, thanks for the info :)

Thank you

Brilliant.

MartinJust the talking face review I gave you so much credit for avoiding ... mostly, unlike so many other narcisist talking face camera reviewers. You also didn't have any music which you have been wrongly criticized by some others. But actually nice job, even with the corny laugh in tape. It must be the fun you had that pulled it off.. nice! Good info for all but you might have had a so what after the what. But then it seems your good work and imagination and call to service have miles to go. Good show.red

Wow! Very informative, nice suit btw. And yes, I remember growing up with Kodak cameras and taking the film canisters to my local Walgreens to get them developed. I'll be honest, I don't miss disposable cameras or film. I even remember my dad had an old VHS camcorder from back in the 80's, it was a shoulder mounted behemoth. And that was supposed to be "portable". Makes me think of just how far we've come in 30 years.

U r the man

On Canon's website regarding the XC10's sensor size, it says it is 16mm on the diagonal and on B&H says the sensor is 13.2mm x 8.8mm. Which is the exact same size as Sony's one inch sensor. Hope this helps! Keep up the good work.

BTW, the 1 inch video tube housed many different sensor sizes, the one we call the 1 inch is approximately the largest available. The light sensitive area by necessity required a metal bounding area, and the bounding area(think of is as a type of frame) varied in thickness from manufacturer depending on the tooling making the product. There were other size glass vacuum tubes but the 1 inch was the default standard so all video tubes were names according to the 1 inch nomenclature. Thus a four thirds sensor fit a much larger tube, but the “thirds” part of the name refers to a third of an inch. A two thirds sensor however, was housed in a 1 inch vacuum tube even though it is a lot smaller than the 1 inch sensor. The actual size of any 1 inch sensor is a lot smaller than 1 inch because while it fits inside a 1 inch tube, its light sensitive area is determined by a formula called the “optical formula”. Thus various size cameras would use a 1 inch tube but would have a different effective focal length lenses, so the required size of the sensor is determined by a ratio between the lens and the tube, and the actual required light sensitive area would be determined by this formula. This resulted in the confusing naming convention we still use. The popular 1/2.3 size is actually two fractions where the second fraction is rendered as a decimal point by an old mathematical convention to render it this way. The first digit is referring to the tube size and the final fraction refers to the light sensitive area. It is the same for the other sizes such as 1/1.7 for example, but of course there ended up exceptions. Since 1 inch was the standard 4/3 omitted the 1 as engineers understood that the 1 should be there and there ended up several other sizes where the 1 is omitted such as 1/10, 1/8 etc where the size should really be 1 /1.10 and 1 /1.8 but it is shortened to make it simpler. Unfortunately as digital sensors were introduced there was a transition period when both vacuum tubes and digital would both be used in the same studio and to save costs the old lenses from vacuum tube cameras would be used on the digital cameras so there was a need to make the digital chips the same size as the old vacuum video tubes and so we are stuck with an obsolete naming system. Most of the newly developed sensor sizes are named just by their dimensions in mm but customers prefer the predictable results of the existing older sizes and so there is little incentive to change to sensors simply described in mm. As you can tell, my Aspergers causes me to collect all sorts of technical data. Recently I collated a list of all sensor sizes with all film sizes that are commonly used or most commonly found in antique collections.

After this month, i am going to buy may first camera other than mobile camera. frimyou channel i have gathered so much information. thanks sir

Vistavision was a movie format that unlike normal 35mm movies, had each frame is shot with the horizontal line along the length of the film. So, each frame in the Vistavision movie is 24mm tall and 36mm wide. Movie theaters needed a different projector to show these.

The perforations on 35mm film are for cine film. There were several film types (828 E10) that used same size film in still cameras that are able to liberate 30% more usable emulsion for images. Perforations clearly not required to move film in camera.

What is more important and more clear is the area of the sensor than its dimensions. For example: Medium format hasselblad 2159 mm² 100% Medium format Pentax 645D 1452 mm² 67% Full frame 856 mm² 39% APS-C 368 mm² 17% Four thirds 225 mm² 10% One inch sensor Nikon 1 Sony RX100 116 mm² 5% iPhone 6 17 mm² 1% The surface of an one inch sensor is the 5% of hasselblad medium format camera which is very popular among real professional photographers. Also the surface of one inch sensor is the 13% of a full format camera. Bigger sensor gather more light and more light permits lower ISO. So in summer midday sunshine lighting even an one inch sensor can deliver equal good photos like a medium format sensor. Bigger sensor permit flexibility in every lighting condition which is highly important to a professional.

NICE VIDEO!!! But the real question is what is the "Performance Penalty" of using a "One Inch Sensor" as compared to a full frame one?? I think that is something everyone is interested to know!! Thanks for the video though!!

The one inch sensor has around the same size as a super 16 sensor with a crop of 2.7 if that helps anyone. And I thought that Oskar Barnack form Leica was first to use 35mm motion picture film horizontally in a stills camera.

Couldn't the one inch part comes from the fact that the hypotenuse of the right triangle formed with the 13x18 square is 22.2 mm, or almost one inch? Kind of the same with how TVs are measured? Edit: Nevermind, I looked at the micro 4/3 dimensions. The one inch only comes to 14.42 mm.

135 film was called 135 because the very first roll film sold in the late 19th century needed a name and George Eastman named it “type 100”, apparently for no other reason that the number 100 sounded large and vaguely scientific, and in Eastman’s mind it sounded “strong”. Eastman had a mystical approach to names. He named his company Kodak because he thought that the letter “K” is particularly “strong” and the word has two of them, and the letter “d”, while not as “strong” as “K” was still stronger than most other letters. No, it has never made any sense to anyone other than Eastman, but he owned the company, and so he got to choose the names. So the first roll film was number 100 and fit the first roll film camera. Over the next few decades he introduced various roll film cameras, and as the camera size changed he would produce a new roll film size and initially each new film just gained the following number consecutively: 101, 102, 103 etc., which had at least some obvious logic and 120 film was the 20th film size introduced. Later, however some cameras required the same width and length film as 120 but needed a thinner spindle for the film to wind onto, so for an unknown reason he called that one 620, and then when they decided to change the way the film is loaded onto the spool providing double film length, Kodak called that 220. Thus a family of roll film sizes developed all based on the original idea of calling the first one 100. By the 1920’s roll film was the biggest seller amongst film types and Kodak catalogues listed their films according to the three digit 100 system. So when they started making 35mm roll film it was simplest to add it to their catalogs as three digit type 135 instead of the two digit 35. Because Kodak was the largest manufacturer of film in the world there were a lot of customers going to shops asking for 135 film so over time all other manufacturers started calling their own 35mm film as 135 size. And it all started because George Eastman thought that the number 100 is “strong”.

It was not Eastman who decided on 24 mm x 36 mm, it was Oskar Barnack at Leitz. The film was originally a movie film and developed by Edison.

this is the first camera channel video that actually uses a laff track--please....no more.

WHAT IS THE CROP FACTOR BETWEEN THE 1 INCH SENSOR AND THE FULL FRAME SENSOR ....SONY IS 1.5 CROP FACTOR, CANON IS 1.6 CROP, 4 3RD'S IS 2X.....WHAT IS THE 1' CROP FACTOR????....THANKS

I think the image size for movies is 18 by 24 mm, giving the old standard 3 by 4 ratio. But possibly "super 35" is only 16 mm - I wouldn't know.

3:4 for 24 mm width should result in 32 mm, no? Loved the video BTW :)

So 1" is not actually 1"!? I thought that the diameter of the sensor is 1" =25 cm but by these numbers 8*12, the diameter should be around 14 mm, But why they call it 1 "!?

Love the laugh track!

If I remember correctly, the sensor in a Sony RX100 mk II is 8.8 mm x 13.2 mm. This means that the diagonal - which is how screen sizes are usually measured - is slightly shy of 16 mm, a far cry from the 25.4 mm which constitute an imperial inch. And even if you add the hight and width together, it isn't quite an inch, but only 22 mm. But isn't that always the way? We never get quite what we pay for. Some of the bytes, pixels, millimetres etc. are only nominal, which means: They only exist in the name. Which again is to say: they're not really all there. Am I the only one to think there should be a law against that?

Laugh track?

Excuse me, Maarten, but you haven't explained anything. How the horizontal and vertical orientation of 35-mm film is related to 1-inch sensor? How the 1-inch vidicon is related to either film or modern digital sensor? I thought that sizing in inches referred to diagonal measurement, you did not even mentioned that. The only meaningful 20 seconds of this video are 4:30 to 4:50, but then you stop short before explaining the relationships of the vidicon to modern digital sensors. Wikipedia has it: "Sensor sizes are expressed in inches notation because at the time of the popularization of digital image sensors they were used to replace video camera tubes. The common 1" circular video camera tubes had a rectangular photo sensitive area about 16mm diagonal, so a digital sensor with a 16 mm diagonal size was a 1" video tube equivalent. The name of a 1" digital sensor should more accurately be read as "one inch video camera tube equivalent" sensor." -- A-ha! So no need to bother with 35-mm format at all. Instead, it would be better to mention 16-mm movie format as it is very close to "1-inch" digital format. The production level of this video does not reach your usual high standard as well: the canned laughter is so 1970-ies, and the humor is too low-brow.

The fake laughs are so off-putting. just me i guess

please stop the canned laughter, please!