Hi. Congratulations for your prototype camera. But I cannot understand why you (Kodak!!) don't make this one with a bigger-real S-16 digital size sensor (originary 12.4x7.5mm, may be some like 12.6x7.2 -with 16/9 ratio and similar diagonal-) to use all the power-coverage of S-16 lenses... instead of the narrow 2/3" sensor (10,6x6mm) that you are using. (It will be a big advance over the Scarlet competence...).
Thanks

The sensor size is a delicate issue, having invested big time in S16 glass.
The team assured me that my Canon 8-64 will have an "aspect" of about 10 to 100, which is still OK for me, as it is still wide enough for drama use.
Mind you that has always been a problem with S16, finding a lens that is wide enough, cheap enough and with good coating, as the camera comes with a 9 mm standard lens, I think all bases are covered if you haven't got a wide S16 lens.
Using the D11 together with S16 film still provides a very powerful package, if you shoot the really wide shots (i.e. landscapes) on film, scan to 8MB per frame, and then shoot the drama using the same lens means you save the money where it counts and the lens becomes more versatile, there seems to be a trade off there.

Perhaps in the future an upgrade in sensor size will become available?
Will the camera be designed for this already? (fitted for upgrades like this)

I think Ikonoskop made a good choice. No choice is perfect, but this choice is still good.

I myself was upset that it was smaller than Super 16, until I drew each on a piece of paper and saw how small the difference is.

Now I am not a film expert --- I've shot only a couple of 16mm shorts --- but according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm), Super 16's camera aperture is, yes, 12.5 x 7.4, but apparently the projector crops it. The projector aperture is 11.8 x 6.4. So the sensor is about one millimeter narrower and half of a millimeter shorter than the projector aperture of Super 16.

Developing an image sensor is a multimillion-dollar project. I think Ikonoskop is leaving that to Kodak and others and simply buying the one on the market that is best. I have only as a hobby tried to find what image sensors are for sale from different makers. But Kodak's is the best that I have found. Kodak also is providing image sensors for Leica and Hasselblad (not the same model of sensor that Ikonoskop uses, but this says something about the quality of Kodak's sensors).

Few things are quite wrong here, folks. When a camcorder has a 2/3-inch (ENG) camera chip it does NOT, at the same time, have a Super 16mm chip.

It looks like that Ikonoskop had decided to follow this bending of the truth, just like Silicon Imaging has with the SI-2K. Again, if you have a 2/3-inch sensor you do NOT have a Super1 6mm film gate area sensor. The two are different. Also, a regular 8mm film frame is NOT the same as an IMAX frame, hello!!!

Listen, if you mean that "heck, it's only a few millimeters here or there, no big deal," they I guess a 35mm frame are is also only a few mm larger tna a S16 gate area. Whatever.

Speedwobble, you state that "my Canon 8-64 will have an "aspect" of about 10 to 100, which is still OK for me, as it is still wide enough for drama use." MY TAKE: I think that is crap, really. I have a Canon 6-66mm T2.8 Super 16mm zoom, the model that came after your 8-64. I just spent $12,000 for it brand new, and I'll be damned if I am willing to give up one tenth of a milimeter of its focal range on the short end to som stupid, undersized camera sensor. Only because the camera makers want to save a few bucks and give you an undersized sensor while marketing that camera as one able to take S16 lenses. That is simply dishonest.

An S16 lens need amn exact S16 size sensor. If it does not get that but only a 2/3-inch sensor, than it is a 2/3-inch camcorder, like those made by Sony, Panasonic, and Grass Valley. In that case, however, the best lens option for the A-cam dll will be a B4 mountable ENG or cine lens. It's just the dll will NOT come with a B4 mount option, and if you use the larger, S16mm lenses on it, you will be wasting precious milimeters on the low end.

At least with the Red One, if you switch the capture mode to 2K, you can record in 2K using the S16 film lens w/o losing anything to vignetting or barrel effects.

Lastly, combatentropy, you shoot on S16 gilm (as we always do here), then you either telecine or scan in the film frame by fram to files. We use the Lasergraphics Director scanner, usually at HD only, but you can do it at 2K. The point is, YOU TELECINE OR SCAN IN EVERY HUNDREDTHS OF AN INCH THAT IS ON THE CAPTURE FILM NEG. You are not cutting around the frame, as if you were projecting it.

This article in film and digital times has an interesting analogy for the relevance of sensor size:

"Image quality is affected by pixel size: larger pixels have a higher
sensitivity and wider latitude, while smaller pixels provide better reso-
lution with smoother stair-step edges. In addition, larger pixels output
at lower data rates and can handle data more efficiently in the camera.
Using larger pixels means that BLUE does not have to use data com-
pression for its ARRIRAW outputs, and can provide uncompressed
and uncompromised image quality.
In designing a single 35mm format 3.5K sensor with HD/2K out-
put for the BLUE cameras, 8.25 micron pixels were selected. (Your
hair is about 50 microns thick.) Think of sensors as buckets sitting
out in the rain, and pretend the rain is a stand-in for photons of light.
The larger the bucket, or sensor, the more light can be gathered. The
smaller the bucket, the more buckets can be placed side by side (high-
er resolution), but they can’t hold as much. "

I wonder if Ikonoskop kept this in mind whilst choosing the kodak sensor?

For anyone who wants to read the full article on the ARRI Blue cams.
Check it here:

http://fdtimes.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/arri_alexa-blue_fdtimes27.pdf

sorry about the odd spacing -- bad copy and paste

I cannot truly answer for either Ikonoskop for their choice of sensor or why Kodak designed a sensor the way they had but there would be a logic behind those choices.

Some reasons behind the choice can lie in quality (technical and well as build), assurance of supply and as well as good old economics.

If Ikonoskop was to build a "true" 2K camera with a Super 16 size CCD and try to keep a frame rate up to 60fps with wide dynamic latitude, I sure they could. But ( and this is a big BUT ) the economics would place this camera into a much higher price bracket that it probably would be competing with the RED One camera ( which can do more except use a CCD sensor ).

Then you can turn to Kodak and ask them to build a Super 16 size sensor for the motion picture camera manufacturers. Here is the news: most sensors are not manufactured for the film / television industry. It is for Industrial, Medical and Military applications that make the most money for companies like Kodak and they do not need a Super 16 size sensor. It is only when they do, I sure Kodak will provide.

Incredibly that Kodak, which has been thanks to film industry and make yet S16 negatives, don't manufacture actually a full 2K S16 CCD sensor. In my opinion this is one of the real way for future HD cameras (and existing S16 lenses). ¿May be next years?