agree that it's a combination of things, but ignoring the importance of four years worth of sony sensor improvements is not realistic... canon is primitive by comparison, they can't even make a bsi sensor, so there might be a claim with that.
you should realize that clocking at lower voltage is often a direct result of process improvements.
the jpg/raw codecs for stills are not relevant to cipa battery life comparisons, which is what's discussed here, because they are the same on both platforms, but it could matter wrt video encoding... but then video encoding also relies heavily on encoder firmware design, it's not just the hardware.
even if the sony battery is 7% larger, there is a much bigger disparity in oled screen resolutions and therefore power consumption.
a1: 9.44M-dot 430/530 battery life
r5: 5.76M-dot 320/490 battery life
what sony has done with the a1 is amazing, it's a far bigger accomplishment than anything that canon has come up with.
JVJL wrote:
It's probably a combination of a lot of things. I believe the Sony battery is 7% higher capacity than the Canon while the CODEC implementation also has a large impact. I'm not sure about which fab and node was used for the respective ISPs but these chips usually don't use cutting edge geometries. Also note that the process contribution to power reduction, at least from past 10 years, is significant less than advertised for a variety of reasons too technical to get into here. Clocking at lower voltage and improving CODEC efficiency are the biggest levers here.
osv2 wrote: JVJL wrote:
I saw this earlier and thought it was impressive thermals compared to the R5 (with firmware update removing artificial timer). I realize that Sony put more effort into heat spreading for the A1 but this doesn't matter too much when the body is a closed system covered with "insulating" wrap. The body is a very poor heatsink relying on convection, poor surface area, and high thermal resistance on most of the frame. The A1 just seems to be generating less heat compared to the R5. My best guess is that they are taking advantage of the dual processors to distribute the load while clocking at a much lower frequency with lower voltage. Again, this is just my personal guess based on no facts at all.
a1 is a much better design, but it's also using more modern semiconductor processes, that are more efficient and therefore throw off less waste heat.
see the efficiency in the battery life, sony is doing it with a much higher resolution oled panel in the evf, that's going to use more power:
a1: 430/530
r5: 320/490
Feb 06, 2021 at 06:56 PM
osv2 Offline [X]
Re: A1 Reviews/Video thread
agree that it's a combination of things, but ignoring the importance of four years worth of sony sensor improvements is not realistic... canon is primitive by comparison, they can't even make a bsi sensor, so there might be a claim with that.
the jpg/raw codecs for stills are not relevant to cipa battery life comparisons, which is what's discussed here, because they are the same on both platforms, but it could matter wrt video encoding... but then video encoding also relies heavily on encoder firmware design, it's not just the hardware.
even if the sony battery is 7% larger, there is a much bigger disparity in oled screen resolutions and therefore power consumption.
a1: 9.44M-dot 430/530 battery life
r5: 5.76M-dot 320/490 battery life
what sony has done with the a1 is amazing, it's a far bigger accomplishment than anything that canon has come up with.
JVJL wrote:
It's probably a combination of a lot of things. I believe the Sony battery is 7% higher capacity than the Canon while the CODEC implementation also has a large impact. I'm not sure about which fab and node was used for the respective ISPs but these chips usually don't use cutting edge geometries. Also note that the process contribution to power reduction, at least from past 10 years, is significant less than advertised for a variety of reasons too technical to get into here. Clocking at lower voltage and improving CODEC efficiency are the biggest levers here.
osv2 wrote: JVJL wrote:
I saw this earlier and thought it was impressive thermals compared to the R5 (with firmware update removing artificial timer). I realize that Sony put more effort into heat spreading for the A1 but this doesn't matter too much when the body is a closed system covered with "insulating" wrap. The body is a very poor heatsink relying on convection, poor surface area, and high thermal resistance on most of the frame. The A1 just seems to be generating less heat compared to the R5. My best guess is that they are taking advantage of the dual processors to distribute the load while clocking at a much lower frequency with lower voltage. Again, this is just my personal guess based on no facts at all.
a1 is a much better design, but it's also using more modern semiconductor processes, that are more efficient and therefore throw off less waste heat.
see the efficiency in the battery life, sony is doing it with a much higher resolution oled panel in the evf, that's going to use more power:
a1: 430/530
r5: 320/490
Feb 06, 2021 at 06:55 PM
osv2 Offline [X]
Re: A1 Reviews/Video thread
agree that it's a combination of things, but ignoring the importance of four years worth of sony sensor improvements is not realistic... canon is primitive by comparison, they can't even make a bsi sensor, so there might be a claim with that.
the jpg/raw codecs for stills are not relevant to cipa battery life, which is what's discussed here, because they are the same on both platforms, but it could matter wrt video encoding, but then video encoding also relies heavily on encoder firmware design, it's not just the hardware.
even if the sony battery is 7% larger, there is a much bigger disparity in oled screen resolutions and therefore power consumption.
a1: 9.44M-dot 430/530 battery life
r5: 5.76M-dot 320/490 battery life
what sony has done with the a1 is amazing, it's a far bigger accomplishment than anything that canon has come up with.
JVJL wrote:
It's probably a combination of a lot of things. I believe the Sony battery is 7% higher capacity than the Canon while the CODEC implementation also has a large impact. I'm not sure about which fab and node was used for the respective ISPs but these chips usually don't use cutting edge geometries. Also note that the process contribution to power reduction, at least from past 10 years, is significant less than advertised for a variety of reasons too technical to get into here. Clocking at lower voltage and improving CODEC efficiency are the biggest levers here.
osv2 wrote: JVJL wrote:
I saw this earlier and thought it was impressive thermals compared to the R5 (with firmware update removing artificial timer). I realize that Sony put more effort into heat spreading for the A1 but this doesn't matter too much when the body is a closed system covered with "insulating" wrap. The body is a very poor heatsink relying on convection, poor surface area, and high thermal resistance on most of the frame. The A1 just seems to be generating less heat compared to the R5. My best guess is that they are taking advantage of the dual processors to distribute the load while clocking at a much lower frequency with lower voltage. Again, this is just my personal guess based on no facts at all.
a1 is a much better design, but it's also using more modern semiconductor processes, that are more efficient and therefore throw off less waste heat.
see the efficiency in the battery life, sony is doing it with a much higher resolution oled panel in the evf, that's going to use more power:
a1: 430/530
r5: 320/490
Feb 06, 2021 at 06:53 PM
osv2 Offline [X]
Re: A1 Reviews/Video thread
agree that it's a combination of things, but ignoring the importance of four years worth of sony sensor improvements is not realistic... canon is primitive by comparison, they can't even make a bsi sensor, so there might be a claim with that.
the codecs are not relevant to cipa battery life, which is what's discussed here, because they are the same on both platforms, but it could matter wrt video encoding, but then video encoding also relies heavily on encoder firmware design, it's not just the hardware.
even if the sony battery is 7% larger, there is a much bigger disparity in oled screen resolutions and therefore power consumption.
a1: 9.44M-dot 430/530 battery life
r5: 5.76M-dot 320/490 battery life
what sony has done with the a1 is amazing, it's a far bigger accomplishment than anything that canon has come up with.
JVJL wrote:
It's probably a combination of a lot of things. I believe the Sony battery is 7% higher capacity than the Canon while the CODEC implementation also has a large impact. I'm not sure about which fab and node was used for the respective ISPs but these chips usually don't use cutting edge geometries. Also note that the process contribution to power reduction, at least from past 10 years, is significant less than advertised for a variety of reasons too technical to get into here. Clocking at lower voltage and improving CODEC efficiency are the biggest levers here.
osv2 wrote: JVJL wrote:
I saw this earlier and thought it was impressive thermals compared to the R5 (with firmware update removing artificial timer). I realize that Sony put more effort into heat spreading for the A1 but this doesn't matter too much when the body is a closed system covered with "insulating" wrap. The body is a very poor heatsink relying on convection, poor surface area, and high thermal resistance on most of the frame. The A1 just seems to be generating less heat compared to the R5. My best guess is that they are taking advantage of the dual processors to distribute the load while clocking at a much lower frequency with lower voltage. Again, this is just my personal guess based on no facts at all.
a1 is a much better design, but it's also using more modern semiconductor processes, that are more efficient and therefore throw off less waste heat.
see the efficiency in the battery life, sony is doing it with a much higher resolution oled panel in the evf, that's going to use more power:
a1: 430/530
r5: 320/490
Feb 06, 2021 at 06:52 PM
osv2 Offline [X]
Re: A1 Reviews/Video thread
agree that it's a combination of things, but ignoring the importance of four years worth of sony sensor improvements is not realistic... canon is primitive by comparison, they can't even make a bsi sensor, so there might be a claim with that.
the codecs are not relevant to cipa battery life, which is what's discussed here, because they are the same on both platforms, but it could matter wrt video encoding, but then video encoding also relies heavily on encoder firmware design, it's not just the hardware.
even if the sony battery is 7% larger, there is a much bigger disparity in oled screen resolutions and therefore power consumption.
a1: 9.44M-dot
r5: 5.76M-dot
what sony has done with the a1 is amazing, it's a far bigger accomplishment than anything that canon has come up with.
JVJL wrote:
It's probably a combination of a lot of things. I believe the Sony battery is 7% higher capacity than the Canon while the CODEC implementation also has a large impact. I'm not sure about which fab and node was used for the respective ISPs but these chips usually don't use cutting edge geometries. Also note that the process contribution to power reduction, at least from past 10 years, is significant less than advertised for a variety of reasons too technical to get into here. Clocking at lower voltage and improving CODEC efficiency are the biggest levers here.
osv2 wrote: JVJL wrote:
I saw this earlier and thought it was impressive thermals compared to the R5 (with firmware update removing artificial timer). I realize that Sony put more effort into heat spreading for the A1 but this doesn't matter too much when the body is a closed system covered with "insulating" wrap. The body is a very poor heatsink relying on convection, poor surface area, and high thermal resistance on most of the frame. The A1 just seems to be generating less heat compared to the R5. My best guess is that they are taking advantage of the dual processors to distribute the load while clocking at a much lower frequency with lower voltage. Again, this is just my personal guess based on no facts at all.
a1 is a much better design, but it's also using more modern semiconductor processes, that are more efficient and therefore throw off less waste heat.
see the efficiency in the battery life, sony is doing it with a much higher resolution oled panel in the evf, that's going to use more power:
a1: 430/530
r5: 320/490
Feb 06, 2021 at 06:51 PM
osv2 Offline [X]
Re: A1 Reviews/Video thread
agree that it's a combination of things, but ignoring the importance of four years worth of sony sensor improvements is not realistic... canon is primitive by comparison, they can't even make a bsi sensor, so there might be a claim with that.
the codecs are not relevant to cipa battery life, which is what's discussed here, but it could matter wrt video encoding, but then video encoding also relies heavily on encoder firmware design, it's not just the hardware.
even if the sony battery is 7% larger, there is a much bigger disparity in oled screen resolutions and therefore power consumption.
a1: 9.44M-dot
r5: 5.76M-dot
what sony has done with the a1 is amazing, it's a far bigger accomplishment than anything that canon has come up with.
JVJL wrote:
It's probably a combination of a lot of things. I believe the Sony battery is 7% higher capacity than the Canon while the CODEC implementation also has a large impact. I'm not sure about which fab and node was used for the respective ISPs but these chips usually don't use cutting edge geometries. Also note that the process contribution to power reduction, at least from past 10 years, is significant less than advertised for a variety of reasons too technical to get into here. Clocking at lower voltage and improving CODEC efficiency are the biggest levers here.
osv2 wrote: JVJL wrote:
I saw this earlier and thought it was impressive thermals compared to the R5 (with firmware update removing artificial timer). I realize that Sony put more effort into heat spreading for the A1 but this doesn't matter too much when the body is a closed system covered with "insulating" wrap. The body is a very poor heatsink relying on convection, poor surface area, and high thermal resistance on most of the frame. The A1 just seems to be generating less heat compared to the R5. My best guess is that they are taking advantage of the dual processors to distribute the load while clocking at a much lower frequency with lower voltage. Again, this is just my personal guess based on no facts at all.
a1 is a much better design, but it's also using more modern semiconductor processes, that are more efficient and therefore throw off less waste heat.
see the efficiency in the battery life, sony is doing it with a much higher resolution oled panel in the evf, that's going to use more power:
