Square sensors impossible?

Tom_N · Sep 24, 2019

Michael Fryd said:
From a practical standpoint, if the sensor is contained in the image circle, the best aspect ratio is the one that matches your final print. That's the only solution where the corners of the image map to the edge of the image circle.

That puts us back to oversized sensors that contain the image circle. I'm not sure that there is a need for them, but there is a twist that nobody has mentioned here yet. In a previous thread, someone mentioned hexagonal sensors. Their supposed advantages:

1. Unlike circular sensors, hexagonal sensors can support packed ("honeycomb") wafer layouts. (This might be an illusory savings. You'd be trading unused silicon wafer space for using some of your wafer space to manufacture unusable photosites.)

2. Oversized hexagonal sensors would waste less area than oversized square sensors. A circle can take up at most 78.5% of the area of an square but could take up 90.6% of the area of a hexagon. (Neither figure counts waste due to using part of the image circle.)

hotdog321 · Sep 24, 2019

fotowbert said:
hotdog321 said:

There is no reason that square sensors can't be made, but the square format has never been as popular as the rectangular format. Back in the film era we had a variety of very fine twin lens reflex, Hasselblad and other cameras that shot square, but often as not they ended up getting cropped to a rectangle anyway.

Click to expand...

The square format has the advantage that you didn't have to commit to landscape or portrait orientation while shooting. That decision can be made latter during editing/printing but at the expense of some image area.

As you say I almost always cropped my 6X6 Mamiya C330 images to rectangular proportions during printing years ago.

John

I agree, though I've always cropped an image according to its own internal logic--horizontal, vertical, square. I still treasure a lovely book by Fritz Henle who shot with a 6x6 cm Rolleiflex.

I've done a bit of shooting with TLR and Hasselblad, usually for magazine clients. The big images always seemed a bit fragile and easily kinked if mishandled--even more than the larger, but thicker, 4x5. Not an issue for digital, of course.

zephyrprime · Sep 24, 2019

Entirely possible but no one wants one.

Currantos · Sep 24, 2019

Agreed, of course, makes sense.

Iliah Borg · Sep 24, 2019

zephyrprime said:
Entirely possible but no one wants one.

Are you saying Sony has no customers for their IMX533 or IMX418?

dahod · Sep 24, 2019

I really enjoy the square format.

I get the idea of a square sensor but I'm ok with cropping the sensor similar to what's happening in our phones as long as I'm seeing the cropped image in the viewfinder or on the screen for composition. I know I can crop an image later but that's not what I'm looking for. I've ended up using the phone a lot as well as some of the Polaroid style apps that are kicking around for my images and prints.

Seems to me there are a few cameras out there offering multi-formats but I can't remember which right now (Fuji??). My current camera doesn't but while it won't be a deal-breaker it probably will be a factor in my next camera choice.

Regards

Dave

dahod · Sep 24, 2019

Coincidentally I just purchased a very nice Zeiss Super Ikonta III when we were traveling through Winnipeg on holidays last week. Haven't had a chance to use it yet but looking forward to trying it out when we get back home.

Regards

Dave

Image courtesy Neil Kohl web page

J A C S · Sep 24, 2019

Currantos said:
Currantos said:

r

As I said going beyond 36x24 might be expensive at the moment so the concept is probable more viable for APS. You can easily scale down the above chart, it works the same way. There is a small error in the diameter (44 vs 43.27) but that dos not affect the overall picture.

Click to expand...

This is a fantastic demonstration.

I actually think, and maybe I am 'original' that 36mm square with corners cut off by hard vignette from the lens circle would be absolutely best. It would be so easy to just click in LightRoom on different possible crops and get rid of it. But the number of options and the total light captured and information would be the greatest. So you would have a larger number of choices of different cropping options because you would be again, choosing from a larger starting point.

One problem - the vertical space is taken by the contacts for the popular FF mounts. You need a new mount.

Look at the MF ML cameras - they have 44x33 sensors, roughly speaking. You want a sensor larger than that! With a larger mount! Good luck with it.

Currantos said:
Fantastic idea, too bad most people would be freaked out by it. Perhaps manufacturers could have an internal setting as to what crop you want when you shoot, but the entire square sans corners is captured and available to in case it is needed. So many times I cut off a hand or a foot on a person, especially athletes and dancers that move around like crazy. To have those extra 2-3mm of sensor real estate would be so awesome. Otherwise I have to keep on shooting wider and wider with lower and lower resolution.

Christof21 · Sep 24, 2019

Currantos said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:

rurikw said:

I should have stated immediately that it should be oversized such as 18x18 for M43, 24x24 for APS and 36x36 for FF. Doesn't make sense otherwise. The corners of the sensor are wasted whereas you gain now wasted parts of the image circle. A clear win to me. I'm aware that FF is pushing the border of affordable sensor size so 36x36 might not be viable yet except as a medium format alternative with similar pricing but MF is coming down too. Another qualification is that it's not for DSLR as there is no space available for the bigger mirror. Nevertheless there's always been mirrorless where it's a logical solution. In the beginning of digital, sensors were probably much more expensive and made up a larger part of the price of the camera so it made sense to stick to film logic and statistics of format preferences thus saving crucial mm^2s of sensor area but that hasn't been the case for a long time now.

Click to expand...

For about 50 years a very (? the most) popular style of camera was an SLR. This used the frame size of 36 x 24mm that became popular 100 years ago and still is.

To make a camera with film or sensor 36mm high would mean increasing the height of every one of those cameras. For (D)SLRs it would also mean that the body would have to be 12mm deeper to accommodate the larger mirror; and that would mean that existing lenses would be needed with a longer flange distance. In other words, not an economic proposition.

Moreover, to utilise the full area of the 36 x 36mm frame the image circle is 51mm* compared to 43mm so either:

(a) a whole new series of bigger, heavier (and more expensive) lenses would be needed or

(b) much of the area of the sensor would be wasted. In fact, the square to fit inside 43mm is just under 26mm so all you get is a fractional increase over the 24mm currently available.

* Note that many medium format digital cameras require 55mm image circle so the new camera would cost close to the cost of medium format digital, camera.

Click to expand...

Please correct me if I am wrong.

To fit inside a 43mm circle the sides of the square would be 30.4mm, not 26mm. I do not understand where 26 comes from.

As for the area covered with pixels

30x30 =900 sq mm.

36x24 = 864 sq mm.

According to geometry the square "wins" against any rectangle so you always end up with more pixels total. I understand other things might make things more or less useful but from a point of capturing most light on most pixels the square wins according to Pythagoras.

This is not to win any debate or change anyone's mind, it's just that some people think different and would be interested in that idea, like myself. Not to prove me right or anyone else wrong or anything. I just really like the idea of a square for my shooting needs.

Cheers everyone, and don't be a square. They are not cool.

My personal opinion:

30x30 => I don't want it, too much waste for ratio 3:2. I prefer 36x24

36x30 => This is a winner for me ! Better than 36x24 overall

photonut2008 · Sep 24, 2019

Currantos said:
I find it possible to create more rectangular crops out of a square then rectangular crops out of a rectangle. It's always better to have extra and not need it.

Take existing 135 format ("Full Frame") lenses and look at the area you will use for common aspect ratios:

With every aspect ratio except square you get as much (with 5:4) or more sensor area with a 3:2 sensor than you get with a comparable 1:1 sensor.

Currantos said:
I think for human subjects the square is ideal, perhaps for landscape and architecture landscape orientation is better.

How many square prints do you see? I disagree that a square aspect ratio is ideal for human subjects and while I can freely do that with my online galleries I almost always choose 5:4 aspect ratio which is actually my favorite for most purposes.

--
Internet Interlocuter

Tom_N · Sep 24, 2019

Suppose that you were to increase the size of an APS-C sensor – increasing the length of the short side to match the length of the long side.

The "supersized APS-C" sensor would still be slightly smaller than the largest square you can fit on a standard 3:2 FF sensor. And the FF camera has the advantage that its lenses are designed to expose that entire 24mm x 24mm area every time.

Even if you ignored the FF sensor's extra 12mm of width – width that the camera would put to good use on 3:2 photos – the FF camera would be a better square format camera!

So why is an oversized sensor better than going up a sensor size, and adding viewfinder aids?

MarshallG · Sep 24, 2019

Member said:
Christof21 wrote:

Sensors are cut from a circular CMOS wafer, so square may be the most optimal. But I don’t think the industry is going to switch formats. The existing ecosystem and market is too entrenched to begin fabricating sensors in square format, except medium format.

Christof21 · Sep 24, 2019

Tom_N said:
Suppose that you were to increase the size of an APS-C sensor – increasing the length of the short side to match the length of the long side.

The "supersized APS-C" sensor would still be slightly smaller than the largest square you can fit on a standard 3:2 FF sensor. And the FF camera has the advantage that its lenses are designed to expose that entire 24mm x 24mm area every time.

Even if you ignored the FF sensor's extra 12mm of width – width that the camera would put to good use on 3:2 photos – the FF camera would be a better square format camera!

So why is an oversized sensor better than going up a sensor size, and adding viewfinder aids?

Bigger sensors come at a cost.

Bigger body (especially with IBIS), more expensive, slightly less efficient, slower to read..

Edit: last but not least lower pixel density !

But FF is definitely a solution, I agree.

I would miss the options for the different aps-c crops possible, I do hope it will be available in some cameras in the future.

rurikw · Sep 25, 2019

photonut2008 said:
Currantos said:

I find it possible to create more rectangular crops out of a square then rectangular crops out of a rectangle. It's always better to have extra and not need it.

Click to expand...

Take existing 135 format ("Full Frame") lenses and look at the area you will use for common aspect ratios:

With every aspect ratio except square you get as much (with 5:4) or more sensor area with a 3:2 sensor than you get with a comparable 1:1 sensor.

photonut2008 said:

I think for human subjects the square is ideal, perhaps for landscape and architecture landscape orientation is better.

Click to expand...

How many square prints do you see? I disagree that a square aspect ratio is ideal for human subjects and while I can freely do that with my online galleries I almost always choose 5:4 aspect ratio which is actually my favorite for most purposes.

--
Internet Interlocuter

Depends on what size sensor you choose. With a 6000x6000 sensor you get more or equal pixels from all aspect ratios.

Bob Janes · Sep 25, 2019

Currantos said:
Hello,

Sorry if this question was asked/answered previously.

To a newbie it seems a square sensor would make a lot of sense in practical terms, including a slight increase in actual area captured. I understand that a lot of other things like TV's and displays have rectangular dimensions. However, a square sensor would offer some advantages it seems?

There are problems in attempting to adapt current systems to a square sensor, assuming that you want it bigger in top to bottom than you get with 24x24.

Some of these have been pointed out in other posts, but just to gather together...

For a 135 image circle, you lose some width when you increase hight.
For an SLR, you need a bigger mirror, which may not fit in the mirror box, or may foul the rear element of some lenses.
The extra depth may be used in some systems by electrical contacts.
A lot of current lenses include baffles to limit reflections top and bottom, which may lead to vignetting (or the image circle isn't always a circle).

Currantos said:
I hear a long time ago sensors/photographic plates were square and people were ok with that.

I understand that old ways of producing silicone wafers would have to be changed, but isn't that what innovation all about? Is such a change really cost prohibitive? It would be a dream for me to not have to flip the camera back and forth in different orientations, just shoot and later crop.

Well in that case, don't. Just shoot everything in landscape and crop it to square or portrait as you desire.

Currantos said:
I supposed others prefer different?

For myself, I don't mind turning the camera. Square can be interesting, but mainly because it is challenging making it work properly.

Currantos said:
Vignette would decrease too, you get more pixels.

Thanks for the education.

Christof21 · Sep 25, 2019

MarshallG said:
Sensors are cut from a circular CMOS wafer, so square may be the most optimal. But I don’t think the industry is going to switch formats. The existing ecosystem and market is too entrenched to begin fabricating sensors in square format, except medium format.

3:2.55 is not square, i don't think there is a need for 3:3 if you accept to rotate the camera if necessary.

There were rumors some time ago of a bigger aps-c sensor (not FF) for Fuji. I think Fuji wanted it but Sony makes the sensor anyway...

There is not much competition now for sensors...

photonut2008 · Sep 25, 2019

rurikw said:
photonut2008 said:

Currantos said:

I find it possible to create more rectangular crops out of a square then rectangular crops out of a rectangle. It's always better to have extra and not need it.

Click to expand...

Take existing 135 format ("Full Frame") lenses and look at the area you will use for common aspect ratios:

With every aspect ratio except square you get as much (with 5:4) or more sensor area with a 3:2 sensor than you get with a comparable 1:1 sensor.

rurikw said:

I think for human subjects the square is ideal, perhaps for landscape and architecture landscape orientation is better.

Click to expand...

How many square prints do you see? I disagree that a square aspect ratio is ideal for human subjects and while I can freely do that with my online galleries I almost always choose 5:4 aspect ratio which is actually my favorite for most purposes.

Click to expand...

Depends on what size sensor you choose. With a 6000x6000 sensor you get more or equal pixels from all aspect ratios.

Then you have to have new lenses that project a larger image circle or your sensor always has significant vignetting and general weakness in its corners when using its native aspect ratio (which will also come up with the other aspect ratios too).

--
Internet Interlocuter

Leonard Migliore · Sep 25, 2019

fotowbert said:
hotdog321 said:

There is no reason that square sensors can't be made, but the square format has never been as popular as the rectangular format. Back in the film era we had a variety of very fine twin lens reflex, Hasselblad and other cameras that shot square, but often as not they ended up getting cropped to a rectangle anyway.

Click to expand...

The square format has the advantage that you didn't have to commit to landscape or portrait orientation while shooting. That decision can be made latter during editing/printing but at the expense of some image area.

I always assumed that TLR's had a square format because it was pretty much impossible to use the camera if you rotated 90 degrees because they had waist-level finders.

rurikw · Sep 25, 2019

photonut2008 said:
rurikw said:

photonut2008 said:

Currantos said:

I find it possible to create more rectangular crops out of a square then rectangular crops out of a rectangle. It's always better to have extra and not need it.

Click to expand...

Take existing 135 format ("Full Frame") lenses and look at the area you will use for common aspect ratios:

With every aspect ratio except square you get as much (with 5:4) or more sensor area with a 3:2 sensor than you get with a comparable 1:1 sensor.

photonut2008 said:

I think for human subjects the square is ideal, perhaps for landscape and architecture landscape orientation is better.

Click to expand...

How many square prints do you see? I disagree that a square aspect ratio is ideal for human subjects and while I can freely do that with my online galleries I almost always choose 5:4 aspect ratio which is actually my favorite for most purposes.

Click to expand...

Depends on what size sensor you choose. With a 6000x6000 sensor you get more or equal pixels from all aspect ratios.

Click to expand...

Then you have to have new lenses that project a larger image circle or your sensor always has significant vignetting and general weakness in its corners when using its native aspect ratio (which will also come up with the other aspect ratios too).

Yes if the sensor has to fit within the image circle but that is not necessary, better let it spill beyond:

photonut2008 · Sep 25, 2019

rurikw said:
photonut2008 said:

rurikw said:

photonut2008 said:

Currantos said:

I find it possible to create more rectangular crops out of a square then rectangular crops out of a rectangle. It's always better to have extra and not need it.

Click to expand...

Take existing 135 format ("Full Frame") lenses and look at the area you will use for common aspect ratios:

With every aspect ratio except square you get as much (with 5:4) or more sensor area with a 3:2 sensor than you get with a comparable 1:1 sensor.

rurikw said:

I think for human subjects the square is ideal, perhaps for landscape and architecture landscape orientation is better.

Click to expand...

How many square prints do you see? I disagree that a square aspect ratio is ideal for human subjects and while I can freely do that with my online galleries I almost always choose 5:4 aspect ratio which is actually my favorite for most purposes.

Click to expand...

Depends on what size sensor you choose. With a 6000x6000 sensor you get more or equal pixels from all aspect ratios.

Click to expand...

Then you have to have new lenses that project a larger image circle or your sensor always has significant vignetting and general weakness in its corners when using its native aspect ratio (which will also come up with the other aspect ratios too).

Click to expand...

Yes if the sensor has to fit within the image circle but that is not necessary, better let it spill beyond:

You will end up with a larger camera with a more expensive sensor that has little practical advantage over the existing 3:2 format. There will be no advantage using 16:9 or 3:2 aspect ratios, only a marginal advantage for 4:5 aspect ratio, the largest benefit will be for 4:3 ratio, and 1:1 aspect ratio that hardly anyone uses to display their work will get no benefit whatsoever over a 5000x5000 1:1 sensor.

Also, the argument that I might not want to turn the camera to achieve a vertical (portrait) orientation is practically moot as I can get a 19.3 MP 4:5 aspect ratio crop from my D800 using it in a horizontal (landscape) orientation, and using a 24 MP 3:2 sensor its a 16 MP file.

--
Internet Interlocuter

Square sensors impossible?

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Christof21

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Christof21

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Christof21

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts