MFT I don't get it . . .

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
VertigonA380
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133
Like?
MFT I don't get it . . .
11 months ago

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,759Gear list
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

Probably because the images would be more inline with other camera and screens and cost less to make.  But I am not sure.  I like your idea though.

-- hide signature --
 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
honeyiscool
Contributing MemberPosts: 995Gear list
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

Because most pictures aren't square, and do you really want to throw away 43% of the sensor when shooting video?

 honeyiscool's gear list:honeyiscool's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-PL7 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,527
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

I'm assuming here that by "1:1 sensor" you mean a sensor whose corners just reach the edge of the lens's image circle.

If that's the case, the reason is that by far the most images are shot to be presented in a non-square aspect ratio. If those pictures were taken with a 1:1 sensor then they'd use less of the available image circle and have more noise, just as if they'd been taken with a smaller, non-square sensor.

If by "1:1 sensor" you mean a sensor whose central edges reach the edge of the lens's image circle (i.e., the entire image circle is captured by the sensor), then the reason is that it would cost significantly more yet benefit only a very small percentage of images.

I think the optimum sensor size was the "multi aspect ratio" sensor used in the GH1 and GH2 which was able to capture the largest possible area of the lens's image circle for the most commonly used aspect ratios of 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Axford
Senior MemberPosts: 1,527
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

Are you referring to the 'four thirds' in the name Micro Four Thirds?

If so, this has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the images. It would be perfectly possible to make an MFT camera using 1:1 or 3:2 or 16:9 or any other ratio.

The four thirds in MFT refers to the sensor size, which is four thirds inches (i.e. 1.33 inches) using a very old way of specifying the size of sensors in television cameras by giving the size of the tube in which the sensor was located. The actual sensor diameter is about 0.8" in MFT cameras.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
letsgofishing
Regular MemberPosts: 219Gear list
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to Tom Axford, 11 months ago

Tom Axford wrote:

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

Are you referring to the 'four thirds' in the name Micro Four Thirds?

If so, this has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the images. It would be perfectly possible to make an MFT camera using 1:1 or 3:2 or 16:9 or any other ratio.

The four thirds in MFT refers to the sensor size, which is four thirds inches (i.e. 1.33 inches) using a very old way of specifying the size of sensors in television cameras by giving the size of the tube in which the sensor was located. The actual sensor diameter is about 0.8" in MFT cameras.

...maybe - it is laso the actual physical aspect ratio of the sensor - 17.3x13mm = 4:3.....

 letsgofishing's gear list:letsgofishing's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN | Art Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
letsgofishing
Regular MemberPosts: 219Gear list
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

Possible - in the days of film, the most popular professional camera used for creating images in the advertising indusrty was the Hasselblad which used tthe 6x6cm format. The thinking was that you shot square and then cropped to either portrait or landscape afterwards. The film size was much bigger than the 36x24mm of regular 35mm cameras, so the was no loss of quality when you cropped.

 letsgofishing's gear list:letsgofishing's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN | Art Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mchnz
Contributing MemberPosts: 555Gear list
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

One issue is that you would then increase the failure rate on the sensor production line, there would be more photosites that could go wrong - it drives the cost up.

Another consideration is powering and reading from the sensor. All the other electronics and firmware would have to pick up the pace.  Because of this, if your competitors don't also go square, they could likely beat you for rectangular images, if you are already ahead of them fine, but not if you're trying to catch up or keep even.

 mchnz's gear list:mchnz's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 4,120Gear list
Like?
I don't get it either . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

From the people who have answered in this thread, it is quite obvious that everybody had a different understanding of the meaning of this question.

The question is phrased so confusingly that a lot of people, me included, probably 'don't get it'.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
artistguy
Contributing MemberPosts: 778Gear list
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

I think I understand what you're asking, a square image, so no need to hold the camera differently for portrait/landscape aspects, just crop afterwards. I think most m43 users want images straight out of camera (jpeg), video would not look good etc. Take it a stage further why not circular images and choose your crop!

 artistguy's gear list:artistguy's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulfric M Douglas
Senior MemberPosts: 4,038
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

I think customers (who are mostly traditional thinkers) would have been scared off and they wouldn't have sold enough E-1s to make any money and we'd never have had any more cameras, let along m4/3rds system.

Yes it makes efficient use of round lenses, but its just too 'different' for the customer base.

-- hide signature --

Cheksa wrote:
You're evil Ulfric.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Advent1sam
Senior MemberPosts: 1,343
Like?
Re:Buy an A7/A7r
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

Use the existing Nex lens range and you will probably achieve your wishes and a bit extra!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tom Axford
Senior MemberPosts: 1,527
Like?
The MFT standard explicitly allows a variety of aspect ratios
In reply to letsgofishing, 11 months ago

letsgofishing wrote:

Tom Axford wrote:

.......
The four thirds in MFT refers to the sensor size, which is four thirds inches (i.e. 1.33 inches) using a very old way of specifying the size of sensors in television cameras by giving the size of the tube in which the sensor was located. The actual sensor diameter is about 0.8" in MFT cameras.

...maybe - it is laso the actual physical aspect ratio of the sensor - 17.3x13mm = 4:3.....

It is purely coincidence that the common aspect ratio is currently 4:3.

The point I was making is that the Micro Four Thirds standard is designed to be compatible with various different aspect ratios. At the moment all MFT cameras use 4:3 (although a few have multi-aspect ratio sensors allowing 16:9 also), but at any time a manufacturer could produce an MFT camera using 1:1 or 3:2, etc, if they felt it would be economically viable.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,527
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to letsgofishing, 11 months ago

letsgofishing wrote:

...in the days of film, the most popular professional camera used for creating images in the advertising indusrty was the Hasselblad which used tthe 6x6cm format. The thinking was that you shot square and then cropped to either portrait or landscape afterwards.

I grew up on 6x6 twin- and single-lens reflex cameras, and there's a far more compelling reason for the square format: with the waist-level viewfinders used on those cameras it was very cumbersome to take pictures in what would have been "portrait" mode. Using a square image format eliminated the need to hold the camera sideways, look sideways into it and then have to deal with the resulting upside-down image in the viewfinder.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VertigonA380
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to Sean Nelson, 11 months ago

Thanks for the reply Sean, yes I did mean square where the image reaches the edges of the circle. I don't know why there would be more noise thought, it's only a small extension of the existing sensor size.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VertigonA380
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to honeyiscool, 11 months ago

Sure most pictures aren't square, but 4:3 is squarish. I mean why not just go to 4:4 or 1:1 because the lenses don't need to increase in size?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VertigonA380
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to Tom Axford, 11 months ago

I am referring to the length and height of the sensor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VertigonA380
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to letsgofishing, 11 months ago

I hear you and realise that not many people want square images, but if you are going to make the most of the area vs small lens size concept, why not just give people the option to crop? It would also work better for stitched images.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VertigonA380
Senior MemberPosts: 1,133
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to mchnz, 11 months ago

mchnz wrote:

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

One issue is that you would then increase the failure rate on the sensor production line, there would be more photosites that could go wrong - it drives the cost up.

Another consideration is powering and reading from the sensor. All the other electronics and firmware would have to pick up the pace. Because of this, if your competitors don't also go square, they could likely beat you for rectangular images, if you are already ahead of them fine, but not if you're trying to catch up or keep even.

Thanks for the reply, I don't think failing photosites would be too much of an issue, I mean we are only adding a small bit to an already small sensor. I mean then what do you do about FF sensors?

The frame question sure, but then again the Fuji XT-1 pushes out 8fps, the Nikon CX sensor 60 fps. I think making an adequate frame rate for MFT's wouldn't be too hard.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
a13
a13
Regular MemberPosts: 171Gear list
Like?
Re: The MFT standard explicitly allows a variety of aspect ratios
In reply to Tom Axford, 11 months ago

Tom Axford wrote:

letsgofishing wrote:

Tom Axford wrote:

.......
The four thirds in MFT refers to the sensor size, which is four thirds inches (i.e. 1.33 inches) using a very old way of specifying the size of sensors in television cameras by giving the size of the tube in which the sensor was located. The actual sensor diameter is about 0.8" in MFT cameras.

...maybe - it is laso the actual physical aspect ratio of the sensor - 17.3x13mm = 4:3.....

It is purely coincidence that the common aspect ratio is currently 4:3.

The point I was making is that the Micro Four Thirds standard is designed to be compatible with various different aspect ratios. At the moment all MFT cameras use 4:3 (although a few have multi-aspect ratio sensors allowing 16:9 also), but at any time a manufacturer could produce an MFT camera using 1:1 or 3:2, etc, if they felt it would be economically viable.

The MFT mount standard is designed to be compatible with all lenses meeting the format, and of course any manufacturer -could- put any sized sensor they like behind the mount. But since anything else (apart from 1:1) would still be a crop from 4:3, why would a manufacturer go about designing a whole new funky-shaped sensor when you would be writing a smaller image area from the lens and suffer distorting all the common lens reaches to boot?

There's nothing in the MFT standard that makes is more or less compatible with alternative sensor ratios than any other system and -its- non-standard ratios, and the 4/3 most certainly -IS- derived -directly- from the 4:3 ratio of the (standard) sensor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads