Just wondering. Why not a square format digital?

The lens projects as circular image onto the imaging device. Using a rectangular CCD wastes part of the information provided by the lens. If the CCD were square you could choose, say with a button press on the camera, which format to shoot (square, portrait, or landscape) and still not have to rotate the camera. Also, there are many fine images taken in the square format, such as Charlie Waite's landscape work.

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

EJN said:

I think Tom probably summed it up ...as an old Hasselblad/Rollei
6x6 user for many years it was a treat NOT to have to bother with
shooting all but one way...but in reality

Click to expand...

So, with the square format, you never turn the camera, always shoot
something that is a little bit "wrong", and then always crop. With
the rectangular format, you sometimes turn the camera, and never
crop. I'll take the second "shoot it right" approach.

Naming two companies that went "belly up" isn't a strong argument
for the strength of the square format.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

..how many true SQUARE
prints have you seen lately ?? Nowadays we don't get what we want
but what they want to give us ...ah, hum !

Click to expand...

Actually, I have square prints in a couple of galleries. One is
hung at 45 degree "diamond style", another is a portrait that
really worked well in a square tilted about 20 degrees. Both images
were originally shot rectangular.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Click to expand...

--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11

I have a 6 megapixel (3072x2048) digital camera with a 3:2 image. I prefer it for panoramas since I can hold the camera sideways and get 3072 in the vertical direction. Thus I can do most stitched panoramas in a single array of images and do 12 inch wide prints with good quality. I do crop for 8x10 prints but I still have 256 pixels per inch which provides good prints. Leon

BobSo said:

Other than the very expensive digital backs for medium format........

Click to expand...

That was my whole point in starting this thread. I want the option of choosing the final shape of my photo; I don't want the camera making it for me. With all the possible information, i.e., the square, available I can choose to eliminate what I don't want and save the rest. If I have a 6MP camera, perhaps the final image will contain 5MP of what it saw, not 4. Of course, making this camera presents more of a challenge; I don't know -- I'm not a tech type -- but someone would probably offer one just by masking off the viewfinder in a presently available camera, which kind of defeats the whole idea for me. Probably not going to happen, though. The whole world is married to the rectangle.

DannyV said:

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

EJN said:

I think Tom probably summed it up ...as an old Hasselblad/Rollei
6x6 user for many years it was a treat NOT to have to bother with
shooting all but one way...but in reality

Click to expand...

So, with the square format, you never turn the camera, always shoot
something that is a little bit "wrong", and then always crop. With
the rectangular format, you sometimes turn the camera, and never
crop. I'll take the second "shoot it right" approach.

Naming two companies that went "belly up" isn't a strong argument
for the strength of the square format.

DannyV said:

..how many true SQUARE
prints have you seen lately ?? Nowadays we don't get what we want
but what they want to give us ...ah, hum !

Click to expand...

Actually, I have square prints in a couple of galleries. One is
hung at 45 degree "diamond style", another is a portrait that
really worked well in a square tilted about 20 degrees. Both images
were originally shot rectangular.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Click to expand...

--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11

Click to expand...

There are several posts here that state "facts" about human vision and perception that seem to be more nearly opinion than fact. It would be helpful if the poster would provide some references for justification of their opinions. I am very interested in learning, but I can't simply accept a statement without some justification.

As to the idea of a square sensor, some posters in previous discussions have noted that the sensors are grown in a round format. (Cylindrical crystal) I cannot vouch for that, but I believe I have read it more than once. If so, perhaps a hexagonal sensor would be reasonable. One could get a lot of hexagonal sensors from a circular crystal.

My personal preference would be for a square format for the reasons that the originator of this thread stated. One could forget about rotating the camera.

DannyV said:

The lens projects as circular image onto the imaging device. Using
a rectangular CCD wastes part of the information provided by the
lens.

Click to expand...

An issue that hasn't mattered for decades...

Given a 43.27 mm image circle (standard for 35 mm) you normally use a 24x36 mm image. That is 864 mm2 (square millimeters) of area.

Now, a 43.27 mm image circle will accomodate a 30.59 mm square image. That is 936 mm2. An amazing 7.6% more area.

This assumes you never, ever crop the image. If you crop that square image to a nice 11x14 for a wedding album, then you're using a 24.04 x 30.59 rectangle, and you're now an incredible 0.3% more efficient than then 3:2 rectangular format.

DannyV said:

If the CCD were square you could choose, say with a button
press on the camera, which format to shoot (square, portrait, or
landscape) and still not have to rotate the camera.

Click to expand...

If the CCD were square, and covering the same 43.27 image circle as the 3:2 rectangle, the vertical travel of the shutter would increase from 24mm to 30.59mm. This 27% increase in vertical travel would cause a corresponding decrease in x-sync speed, increase in vibration, and decrease in shooting frames/second.

If the CCD were square, the mirror would increase to 43.25mm tall, from 33.94mm. Aside from the greatly increased moment (and the need for a stronger mirror to accomodate it) framatically increasing mirror slap noise and vibration, this would increase the depth of the camera by almost 10mm. Because it would increase the registration (flange to focal plane) distance by 10mm, 50mm normal lenses would have to be redesigned as retrofocal lenses, like wide angles, so lens weight would increase and quality would decrease. Wide angle lenses would need redesign to make them stronger retrofocus.

So, you're missing the point that a square format camera burdens all users (including rectangular format shooters, the majority) with optical and mechanical problems disadvantages, purely for the convenience of never flipping the camera, a convenience that apparently benefits so few photographers that the only camera companies manufacturing them have suffered nothing but financial misery for the last decade.

Of course, if you made the CCD smaller, say 24mm square, you wouldn't have to do all this redesign. But then you would have to throw away all that stuff about a square CCD "wasting" less of the lens's image.

DannyV said:

Also, there are
many fine images taken in the square format, such as Charlie
Waite's landscape work.

Click to expand...

And, for this small minority of folks who do manage to create fine images in the square format, there is always the option of cropping the rectangular image.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

P Sexton said:

There are several posts here that state "facts" about human vision
and perception that seem to be more nearly opinion than fact. It
would be helpful if the poster would provide some references for
justification of their opinions. I am very interested in learning,
but I can't simply accept a statement without some justification.

Click to expand...

Two good sources that cover this issue...

Visual formats:
Gibson, J. J. "The Perception of the Visual World".

Psychophysics in general:
Gescheider, G. A. "Psychophysics: The Fundamentals"

P Sexton said:

As to the idea of a square sensor, some posters in previous
discussions have noted that the sensors are grown in a round
format. (Cylindrical crystal) I cannot vouch for that, but I
believe I have read it more than once.

Click to expand...

Actually, they're small rectangles or squares 6 to 36 mm, cut from huge 300mm circles (which were originally sliced from cylinders).

P Sexton said:

If so, perhaps a hexagonal
sensor would be reasonable. One could get a lot of hexagonal
sensors from a circular crystal.

Click to expand...

There is slightly less edge waste, but the flaws induced by making 6 cuts per sensor instead of 4 offset that (a surprisingly large number of chips are killed by "dicing", when they're cut from the circle). And hex sensors would require new cutting machinery at the chip factories. Remember, sensors are made in millions, while processor, memory, and microcontroller chips are made in billions, and they all are cut rectangular.

This hasn't kept me from speculating about hexagonal sensors on a number of occasions....

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=4613973

It's interesting to note that a properly designed hexagonal sensor outperforms a square sensor when the task involves switching randomly from horizontal to vertical format.

P Sexton said:

My personal preference would be for a square format for the reasons
that the originator of this thread stated. One could forget about
rotating the camera.

Click to expand...

My personal preference is to rotate the camera, as this permits a more efficient shutter and mirror (less vibration) and superior optical performance from normal and wide angle lenses.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=5693537

Now, when electronic viewfinder resolution and electronic shutters become more common, and we can do away with the mechanical mirror and shutter, it becomes very easy to either use a larger square sensor, or rotate a rectangular sensor inside the camera, so that you can flip the format without flipping the camera. But this is at least 3 years away.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

BobSo said:

That was my whole point in starting this thread. I want the option
of choosing the final shape of my photo; I don't want the camera
making it for me. With all the possible information, i.e., the
square, available I can choose to eliminate what I don't want and
save the rest. If I have a 6MP camera, perhaps the final image will
contain 5MP of what it saw, not 4. Of course, making this camera
presents more of a challenge; I don't know -- I'm not a tech type

Click to expand...

I am a "tech type". Read my response to Danny for the details. Compared to a rectangular format SLR, true square format SLRs like the Blad or Rolli have more vibration and noise, less shooting speed, lower x-sync, and poorer performance in normal and wide angle lenses.

Bobsworld said:

-- but someone would probably offer one just by masking off the
viewfinder in a presently available camera, which kind of defeats
the whole idea for me.

Click to expand...

Why? if you've got enough megapixels so you can afford to burn some doing this, it eliminates all the mechanical and optical disadvantages of a square mirror and shutter, and the horrible lenses built to compensate for the square mirror.

Bobsworld said:

Probably not going to happen, though. The
whole world is married to the rectangle.

Click to expand...

For very good reasons that have all been well covered. It's superior in terms of visual field and aesthetics, superior in optical performace, and in mechanical performance of the SLR shutter and mirror.

Face it, square formats are dead, the companies tha produced them are dead. They're a historical footnote, a closed chapter, an ex-parrot...

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

..is the Hasselblad 6cm x 6cm square vs. Mamiya 6cm x 7cm rectangular. (I have a Mamiya RB67 but that's because I got a good deal).

Hasselblad argues you don't have to turn the camera which is a bigger deal with medium due to the weight and size. Mamiya gets around this by easily rotating the film back while the camera itself doesn't have to be moved.

Hasselblad argues square format allows you to crop whichever way you want if you want a horizintal print. Mamiya argues that wastes resolution due to the need to crop afterwards and does not allow the camera to see more like the eye sees reducing creativity. (If I'm not mistaken, there are masks you can place over the waste level viewfinder in the shape of the final format you want).

Sprockets aren't an issue since both cameras use 120 roll film that does not have these.

I prefer rectangular because most of my film photography is landscape and I just like that format generally.

I think generally most people prefer rectangular. Painters who are not limited to the shape of a canvas seem to prefer horizontal paintings as most are that shape. But the arguments will continue.

I just wish they would make print paper the same size as the formats so I don't lose parts of my picture because I tend to frame the picture as I like the way it looks. I have trouble remembering to leave some "slack" on the sides for cropping and you're screwed regardless if you shoot square or some other format. The print paper matches none of the formats!!

Alan

I'll check out the references.

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Psychophysics in general:
Gescheider, G. A. "Psychophysics: The Fundamentals"

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

As to the idea of a square sensor, some posters in previous
discussions have noted that the sensors are grown in a round
format. (Cylindrical crystal) I cannot vouch for that, but I
believe I have read it more than once.

Click to expand...

Actually, they're small rectangles or squares 6 to 36 mm, cut from
huge 300mm circles (which were originally sliced from cylinders).

Click to expand...

The 300mm [diameter?] discs is what I had reference to.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

If so, perhaps a hexagonal
sensor would be reasonable. One could get a lot of hexagonal
sensors from a circular crystal.

Click to expand...

There is slightly less edge waste, but the flaws induced by making
6 cuts per sensor instead of 4 offset that (a surprisingly large
number of chips are killed by "dicing", when they're cut from the
circle). And hex sensors would require new cutting machinery at the
chip factories. Remember, sensors are made in millions, while
processor, memory, and microcontroller chips are made in billions,
and they all are cut rectangular.

Click to expand...

Interesting. But actually wouldn't there be even more cuts to be made? And probably even more errors? Cutting square or rectangular sensors would only require a few horizontal cuts and then verticals. Hex's would have to be cut one at a time with lots of 'stops'.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

This hasn't kept me from speculating about hexagonal sensors on a
number of occasions....

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=4613973

It's interesting to note that a properly designed hexagonal sensor
outperforms a square sensor when the task involves switching
randomly from horizontal to vertical format.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

My personal preference would be for a square format for the reasons
that the originator of this thread stated. One could forget about
rotating the camera.

Click to expand...

My personal preference is to rotate the camera, as this permits a
more efficient shutter and mirror (less vibration) and superior
optical performance from normal and wide angle lenses.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=5693537

Now, when electronic viewfinder resolution and electronic shutters
become more common, and we can do away with the mechanical mirror
and shutter, it becomes very easy to either use a larger square
sensor, or rotate a rectangular sensor inside the camera, so that
you can flip the format without flipping the camera. But this is at
least 3 years away.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Click to expand...

... the last word's yours. Take it. Savor it. I'm off to actually take some pictures. Goodbye.

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

BobSo said:

That was my whole point in starting this thread. I want the option
of choosing the final shape of my photo; I don't want the camera
making it for me. With all the possible information, i.e., the
square, available I can choose to eliminate what I don't want and
save the rest. If I have a 6MP camera, perhaps the final image will
contain 5MP of what it saw, not 4. Of course, making this camera
presents more of a challenge; I don't know -- I'm not a tech type

Click to expand...

I am a "tech type". Read my response to Danny for the details.
Compared to a rectangular format SLR, true square format SLRs like
the Blad or Rolli have more vibration and noise, less shooting
speed, lower x-sync, and poorer performance in normal and wide
angle lenses.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

-- but someone would probably offer one just by masking off the
viewfinder in a presently available camera, which kind of defeats
the whole idea for me.

Click to expand...

Why? if you've got enough megapixels so you can afford to burn some
doing this, it eliminates all the mechanical and optical
disadvantages of a square mirror and shutter, and the horrible
lenses built to compensate for the square mirror.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Probably not going to happen, though. The
whole world is married to the rectangle.

Click to expand...

For very good reasons that have all been well covered. It's
superior in terms of visual field and aesthetics, superior in
optical performace, and in mechanical performance of the SLR
shutter and mirror.

Face it, square formats are dead, the companies tha produced them
are dead. They're a historical footnote, a closed chapter, an
ex-parrot...

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Click to expand...

Alan Klein said:

....

Click to expand...

Alan Klein said:

I just wish they would make print paper the same size as the
formats so I don't lose parts of my picture because I tend to frame
the picture as I like the way it looks. I have trouble remembering
to leave some "slack" on the sides for cropping and you're screwed
regardless if you shoot square or some other format. The print
paper matches none of the formats!!

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's time to end locking people into specifying both dimensions of a commercial print. Why not let people choose the width of the lesser side (4", 8", 12", ...) and let the file determine the length of the greater side.

It would be easy for the machine to cut the print to correct length from a roll of paper. It would be easy for the machine to price the print by the inch, quarter inch, whatever.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

BobTrips said:

Perhaps it's time to end locking people into specifying both
dimensions of a commercial print. Why not let people choose the
width of the lesser side (4", 8", 12", ...) and let the file
determine the length of the greater side.

It would be easy for the machine to cut the print to correct length
from a roll of paper. It would be easy for the machine to price
the print by the inch, quarter inch, whatever.

Click to expand...

Most photo printers can do exactly that. They feed off 4, 5, 8, or 11 inch roll paper. It's just a question of how much time and effort the technicians running the machines want ot put in. The lab I usually use (when I do film) runs 5x7.5 prints for me, from the machine that normally does 5x7. He also does 5 inch square from the same machine.

8x10 and 8x12 prints also come off the same machine.

And I run 13 inch roll paper through my Epson 2200. I can run a 9x13 (8x12 with a 1/2 inch border. Framers love a 1/2 inch border), 13 square, 13x19, or 13x44 panorama, at will. And an 11x14 (with a bit of waste).

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

BobSo said:

... the last word's yours. Take it. Savor it.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't really care. You asked a question: "Just wondering. Why not a square format digital?" I answered. You got defensive...

Bobsworld said:

I'm off to actually take some pictures. Goodbye.

Click to expand...

Have fun. Apparently you need some. I just got back from shooting a few hundred at the abandoned Detroit Central train station. Too many pictures the last 2 weeks...

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

and superior
optical performance from normal and wide angle lenses.

Click to expand...

how is that ???

I like WA lenses, and most of my shots are vertical, but I can't see the reasoning for better performance over horizontal.

Thanks,
Mike

--
'shoot early, shoot often'

BobTrips said:

Alan Klein said:

....

Click to expand...

Member said:

I just wish they would make print paper the same size as the
formats so I don't lose parts of my picture because I tend to frame
the picture as I like the way it looks. I have trouble remembering
to leave some "slack" on the sides for cropping and you're screwed
regardless if you shoot square or some other format. The print
paper matches none of the formats!!

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's time to end locking people into specifying both
dimensions of a commercial print. Why not let people choose the
width of the lesser side (4", 8", 12", ...) and let the file
determine the length of the greater side.

Click to expand...

And then there is the problem of frames. Unless you're willing to have frames custom made or make your own, the choices of format are extremely limited.

Member said:

It would be easy for the machine to cut the print to correct length
from a roll of paper. It would be easy for the machine to price
the print by the inch, quarter inch, whatever.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

Click to expand...

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

DannyV said:

The lens projects as circular image onto the imaging device. Using
a rectangular CCD wastes part of the information provided by the
lens.

Click to expand...

An issue that hasn't mattered for decades...

Given a 43.27 mm image circle (standard for 35 mm) you normally use
a 24x36 mm image. That is 864 mm2 (square millimeters) of area.

Now, a 43.27 mm image circle will accomodate a 30.59 mm square
image. That is 936 mm2. An amazing 7.6% more area.

Click to expand...

I forgot that increasing the vertical dimension would require a corresponding decrease in the horizontal. I was thinking (mistakenly) that the resulting imager would be 36mm square.
--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11