Zwo 533 1insh ?

[Albir phil]

Much as been said regarding the. 533 censer size but dose anyone know the actual size of the censer area that records photons when imaging, not the advertised size by ZWO.🤔

[Anne S]

Sensor dimensions are 3008*3.76 square. 11.31 mm square. Just under 16mm diagonal.

[vlaiv]

48 minutes ago, Albir phil said:

Much as been said regarding the. 533 censer size but dose anyone know the actual size of the censer area that records photons when imaging, not the advertised size by ZWO.🤔

ZWO publishes correct data.

I think that your confusion arises from the "1 inch" part - which is remnant of the old times and does not actually measure 1 inch in diagonal.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2022/07/28/dealing-with-the-confusing-and-misleading-1-inch-type-image-sensor

Quote

The history of the "1-inch sensor"

The odd naming convention goes back to the dimensions of a hypothetical glass tube that could surround the 1-inch sensor. Live broadcasting cameras in the 1950s used cathode-ray tubes (CRT) to project an image line after line. The glass tube that surrounded a signal plate had a 1-inch diameter, although the photosensitive area of the tube was only about 0.63" in diameter – or around 16mm. The typical diagonal of a modern 1-inch type sensor is, you guessed it, 16mm (15.9mm, to be precise).

 

After all this time, and despite using wildly different technology than CRT broadcasting cameras in the 1950s, the 1-inch nomenclature has remained. The photosensitive area in question wasn't an inch in diameter back then, and it still isn't now. Modern 1-inch sensors refer to a hypothetical CRT tube that would be an inch in diameter to theoretically fit around a 1-inch type image sensor.

This means that when you see something like 4/3 or 1/2" sensor size - you can't really calculate those in inches but rather see one inch to be about 16mm in this context.

Sensor that is 1/2" will have about 8mm diagonal.

(see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format)

[Albir phil]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

ZWO publishes correct data.

I think that your confusion arises from the "1 inch" part - which is remnant of the old times and does not actually measure 1 inch in diagonal.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2022/07/28/dealing-with-the-confusing-and-misleading-1-inch-type-image-sensor

This means that when you see something like 4/3 or 1/2" sensor size - you can't really calculate those in inches but rather see one inch to be about 16mm in this context.

Sensor that is 1/2" will have about 8mm diagonal.

(see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format)

So in reality it's roughly a half inch that actually collects the photons.

[Albir phil]

Thank for the replies. I note that zwo now says it's a type 1  and this should clear things up.I understand the history of the sensor but saying it's a type 1 still leaves the1 in the advertisements.Perhaps we should be informed of the actual aperture of the sensor,as it is advertised with telescopes,then we know what we are getting for our money 🤔

[vlaiv]

28 minutes ago, Albir phil said:

Perhaps we should be informed of the actual aperture of the sensor,as it is advertised with telescopes,then we know what we are getting for our money 🤔

I don't know if it can be clearer than this:

(taken from ZWO website page on ASI533MC Pro)

You also have all other necessary information regarding light gathering potential of the sensor:

[Albir phil]

18 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I don't know if it can be clearer than this:

(taken from ZWO website page on ASI533MC Pro)

You also have all other necessary information regarding light gathering potential of the sensor:

Yes I get that my point is don't advertise as having a 1 inch sensor when it is clear by looking at it it is physically not the case. if I buy a 80mm aperture scope I get a scope which is 80mm,not less.

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, Albir phil said:

Yes I get that my point is don't advertise as having a 1 inch sensor when it is clear by looking at it it is physically not the case. if I buy a 80mm aperture scope I get a scope which is 80mm,not less.

I don't think they are advertising that as one inch sensor - just using normal convention (which is admittedly very weird and counter intuitive).

If it was a case of consumer deceit (like using same packaging for different amounts of food for example), then companies like Sony would raise much more concern then ZWO.

Sony sells way way more sensors - and they also label them inappropriately in above sense.

Well, I stand corrected - Sony obviously decided to avoid all the confusion and started labeling them as Type rather than Inch

I was not aware of this change, I seem to remember them also having inch convention in their documents - but now it seems to be "Type":

 

[glafnazur]

It's like TVs, they are measured diagonally too. They might advertise a 60" tv but is only something like 52" wide and 29" high.

Edited September 24, 2023 by glafnazur
Typo

[tooth_dr]

3 minutes ago, glafnazur said:

It's like TVs, they are measured diagonally too. They might advertise a 60" tv but is only something like 52" wide and 29" high.

But it’s not, a 60” tv measures 60” diagonal.  These sensors measure 16mm diagonal instead of 25mm.  If I see this I assume the sensor is 1” diagonal. It’s misleading in this image that they advertise with

 

[Albir phil]

2 minutes ago, glafnazur said:

It's like TVs, they are measured diagonally too. They might advertise a 60" tv but is only something like 52" wide and 29" high.

Yes I get your point regarding tv but wouldn't it be nice to order a 60inch tv and get one not 60inch on the diagonal. It is really down to avertising sales

[Albir phil]

2 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

But it’s not, a 60” tv measures 60” diagonal.  These sensors measure 16mm diagonal instead of 25mm.  If I see this I assume the sensor is 1” diagonal. It’s misleading in this image that they advertise with

 

Yes that's the point I to am trying to make and calling it Type 1 is no better

[glafnazur]

The glass tube that surrounded a signal plate had a 1-inch diameter, although the photosensitive area of the tube was only about 0.63" in diameter – or around 16mm

I failed to read this in Vlaiv's earlier reply, In TVs they only count the actual screen size, so yes it does seem strange. and misleading.

[Albir phil]

2 minutes ago, glafnazur said:

The glass tube that surrounded a signal plate had a 1-inch diameter, although the photosensitive area of the tube was only about 0.63" in diameter – or around 16mm

I failed to read this in Vlaiv's earlier reply, In TVs they only count the actual screen size, so yes it does seem strange. and misleading.

Reason I brought this issue up is because I bought a zwo 533 because they sold it as a1inch sensor.when it came hello it's 16mm. No problem with the camera just the sales pitch 🤔

[vlaiv]

11 minutes ago, Albir phil said:

Reason I brought this issue up is because I bought a zwo 533 because they sold it as a1inch sensor.when it came hello it's 16mm. No problem with the camera just the sales pitch 🤔

I understand, but it is not really the sales pitch here - it is very old convention on how to label different sensor sizes.

If you visit that wiki page I linked earlier (here it is again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format), you will see that most sensor sizes are in fact labeled as a fraction of that strange one inch which is 16mm and not 25.4mm as you would expect.

I do get your concern, and at one point I also myself wondered why they are labeled so strangely (although I never trusted that labeling and always checked diagonal in mm - probably because I'm used to metric and never think in inches).

Fact that Sony replaced term 1" with Type 1 - is also rather telling. I guess that many people noticed this discrepancy and that "Type" nomenclature is introduced to remedy this somewhat.

[Albir phil]

3 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I understand, but it is not really the sales pitch here - it is very old convention on how to label different sensor sizes.

If you visit that wiki page I linked earlier (here it is again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format), you will see that most sensor sizes are in fact labeled as a fraction of that strange one inch which is 16mm and not 25.4mm as you would expect.

I do get your concern, and at one point I also myself wondered why they are labeled so strangely (although I never trusted that labeling and always checked diagonal in mm - probably because I'm used to metric and never think in inches).

Fact that Sony replaced term 1" with Type 1 - is also rather telling. I guess that many people noticed this discrepancy and that "Type" nomenclature is introduced to remedy this somewhat.

Yes all understood but most people don't know the history re sensor labeling it would be nice if things could be clear instead of using obscure interpretation in order to justify somewhat misleading information.I am not saying zwo is doing this to sell the 533,but things could be made more clear I am sure🙂

[Elp]

Either way I think it needs to change. We're no longer in the age of different film sizes and crop equivalent especially when astro imaging so it needs to be clearer. Progress isn't made by conforming to old.