sensors

What gives the best image quality?

Three 1/2 inch sensors, or one 2/3 inch sensor.

Three for sure... as in 3CCD -- typically 3 sensors are more light sensitive, hence you can go to lower lux environments and still get real crisp imagery. Even though 3 CCD's eat more battery than a single CMOS, I really like the 3CCD so much better.

So you think in THEORY that the Sony EX with 3 x 1/2 inch sensors,
will have better image quality than the Red Scarlet with one 2/3 inch sensor? and then there's Ikonoscop ...
Forget it, no one can answer this question yet.
I'll just wait and see.
Thanks anyway.

Well lokk at some of the Sony cameras from the past. They really had and advertised low light capability. What about the new Canon 5D MKII, a single sensor and very sharp and bright. I believe it's a bigger part in how the data is processed not both in and out of camera than a simple discussion on one CMOS versus three CCDs. This discussion could easily be a Mac Vs PC or Ford Vs Chevy. For me the Red is a pipe dream and they can't keep up with technology so they keep redesigning to enhance to catch up. Probably the most important now is the lens and optics not necessarily the sensor, a few years ago yes, now it is a matter of preference.

In all fairness to RED the red one has a very large sensor size, and the stills look great, but the new 5dII has a sensor size equal to vistavision film exposure areas, Red has changed the sensor specs on the Scarlet in response to this, you can customize between 3 different sizes.

Ikonoscope and Red both advertise the fact that they use uncompressed footage... which sounds great but I think it is over-rated.
Honestly can you tell the difference between a high quality jpeg and a raw picture file? TV stations broadcast compressed footage and no one ever seems to complain.

The high quality photos that cameras such as the 5D are far superior to the individual frames of a video. Yup, Red is scrambling to keep up with or surpass the new technologies. Hope it won't be like the I-Phone, obsolete and replaces for half the cost in less than a year.

phantomewo/ironstrike -

Sony EX: very good camera, can't fault it (apart from no macro).

5D MKll: Not convinced for video.

Red: 5 new models, from 2/3 inch to 16 x 7cm sized sensors (including Full Frame 35mm), taking orders for 09 delivery.

Lens: Yes, of course. Which is why I've narrowed down my options to camera's that will accept my M-mount or C/Y mount Zeiss primes.

CMOS v CCD: Yeah, lets just leave that one.

Uncompressed footage: You might be right about that, from a time/workflow perspective.

My original question was just spur-of-the-moment curiosity.
In terms of pure physics/optics, and all things being equal:

At what point would 3 smaller sensors give better image quality than 1 larger sensor?

Three 1/3 inch sensors will not be as good as a 1 inch sensor (?)
What about three 1/2 inch v 1 inch?
or three 3/4 inch v 1 inch sensor?

All of which is time-wasting and irrelevant, apologies for that.

I'll just wait until they all hit the shops next year, then I can hold them, use them, see with my own eyes, then decide which best suits my requirements.

This is why Im probably going to get the 5d: http://rebelsguide.com/dl/sensorSizes_06_cheatSheet.png