Who wouldl like a camera with a SQUARE sensor?

[Floating_Fotoman]

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[Bobsworld]

I asked the same question some time ago and it was promptly shot down and picked apart by the more technically inclined here. Still seems like a good idea, though... Your point 2 particularly appealed to me -- it would be just like a jump in megapixels without actually increasing the size of the sensor since you'd utilize more of the area.

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[BillDrew]

To add to your list, a square sensor would be better for wide angle/stitching. Since it is the rare photo that doesn't benifit from a bit of cropping, having to crop for conventional sized paper is no hardship. In particular since no sensor is going to match all of the aspect ratios of the paper that is out there: 4x5, 4x5, 5x7, 11x13, and my favorite: 4x10.

Could even be done on consumer digicams with a selectable orientation and aspect ratio. In particular, those using an EVF or LCD as the viewfinder could easily change the aspect ratio and orientation electronically. So if you knew you were going to print a portrait 5x7", just dial that into the camera, and the EVF/LCD would show the crop and that crop from the square sensor would be saved.

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[synp]

Even better, get a circular or hexagonal sensor. That way you can use all (or nearly all) of the "image circle" and dynamically switch between square, 4:3, 3:2, or full circular output.

The circular output will be limited to RAW files, because jpegs and tiffs must be rectangular.

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[Floating_Fotoman]

Bill, that just might work. Add to that a mode that really crops a LOT out of the top and bottom, and they can hype it as having a "super panoramic" mode! It's all about presentation on lower end cams. But if it gets me my square sensor, I won't complain.

Could even be done on consumer digicams with a selectable
orientation and aspect ratio. In particular, those using an EVF or
LCD as the viewfinder could easily change the aspect ratio and
orientation electronically. So if you knew you were going to print
a portrait 5x7", just dial that into the camera, and the EVF/LCD
would show the crop and that crop from the square sensor would be
saved.

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[toughluck]

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

The idea is very good. Since we can't in our right minds expect 36x24mm sensors to be consumer-priced anytime soon, we have to work around that. 24x16 (APS-sized) sensors are typical now (or 22,5x15 Canon 1.6x ones). Let's analyse that situation.

The surface of a ff sensor is 2,25x larger than a 24x16 sensor. How would a 24x24 mm sensor perform? Well, it would:

1. Have a diameter of 34 mm, 9 mm less than an FF sensor. Its useful diameter would be a lot lower, however, same as the 24x16 mm sensor ( 28 mm) because you would usually crop the picture, and the composition is also usually either horizontal or vertical. No gain here.

2. Its surface would increase to 150% of a 24x16 sensor. So would number of pixels (50% more). Unfortunately, you would usually crop the picture. Having an increased surface, sensor yield would drop accordingly, raising the price.

As I pointed out in the subject line, the one case is if in some way they could make the sensor have its price same as a 24x16mm sensor. If it would be more expensive, then no. It would have a surface a good deal (15,6%) larger than a 27x18 mm sensor, which has 1,33x crop factor. Its surface is even larger than 28x18,67 mm sensor, which has 1,28x crop factor.

So, if I was faced with a choice between a camera with a 24x24 mm and a 27x18 mm sensor with the same price, I would choose the latter because of the more useful wide angle.

OTOH, if I would be left with a choice between a 27x27 mm and a 27x18 mm sensor with the same price, I would choose the former.

 

[Floating_Fotoman]

But thought that might be too radical for the market. Wait - I can see it now: The Nemo underwater camera featuring porthole mode! Yes!

While circular would use up all instead of most of the image area, it would have extremely limited use vs. the expense of the extra sensors that would almost always be cropped back out. When i do special cropping, I stick to variations on rectangles, which would give no value to the extra round sections I'd have eating up RAW file space.

The circular output will be limited to RAW files, because jpegs and
tiffs must be rectangular.

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[Floating_Fotoman]

Good points, Toughluck; but I was strictly speaking about full frame 36x36 for more money than 36x24 for DSLRs, or in the case of consumer cams, square sensors that use up the entire lens image area of those smaller sensors.

Would you be in for the 36x36 for a few extra dinero?

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

The idea is very good. Since we can't in our right minds expect
36x24mm sensors to be consumer-priced anytime soon, we have to work
around that. 24x16 (APS-sized) sensors are typical now (or 22,5x15
Canon 1.6x ones). Let's analyse that situation.
The surface of a ff sensor is 2,25x larger than a 24x16 sensor. How
would a 24x24 mm sensor perform? Well, it would:
1. Have a diameter of 34 mm, 9 mm less than an FF sensor. Its
useful diameter would be a lot lower, however, same as the 24x16 mm
sensor ( 28 mm) because you would usually crop the picture, and the
composition is also usually either horizontal or vertical. No gain
here.
2. Its surface would increase to 150% of a 24x16 sensor. So would
number of pixels (50% more). Unfortunately, you would usually crop
the picture. Having an increased surface, sensor yield would drop
accordingly, raising the price.

As I pointed out in the subject line, the one case is if in some
way they could make the sensor have its price same as a 24x16mm
sensor. If it would be more expensive, then no. It would have a
surface a good deal (15,6%) larger than a 27x18 mm sensor, which
has 1,33x crop factor. Its surface is even larger than 28x18,67 mm
sensor, which has 1,28x crop factor.

So, if I was faced with a choice between a camera with a 24x24 mm
and a 27x18 mm sensor with the same price, I would choose the
latter because of the more useful wide angle.
OTOH, if I would be left with a choice between a 27x27 mm and a
27x18 mm sensor with the same price, I would choose the former.

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[toughluck]

A 36x36 would be nice, but way off the imaging circle of the lens. The corners would protrude out. It would have 51 mm in diameter, and the IC of a typical 135 lens goes out to 45/48 mm, mind you, not nice looking corners.

Now then, a 30,4x30,4 mm square sensor would be possible (43 mm in diameter), and it would have a surface the entire 4% larger than a 36x24 one. But there are inherent flaws with such an approach:

• shutter - it would be 25% slower (due to longer traverse distance vs. 24 mm) with the same construction. Or, it would be more expensive. It would also induce more (much) more vibrations. Or they could make it a non-focal plane shutter (not next to the sensor, but the lens perhaps)
• mirror - it would be heavier, and have less support from either side (less stable), which would also contribute to image vibrations
• camera itself would have a different construction. Eyepiece would have to be much higher (accomodate sensor and larger pentaprism vertically), and the bottom would go further down. Oh, it might be just 3 mm in each direction, but the sensor is almost 'touching' the camera bottom, and it would be at least 6 mm higher (with a 100% 1.0 viewfinder).

There must be some logic behind medium format having switched to 645 (as in 60x45 mm). You have a 4:3 aspect, which you can crop into 3:2 by removing 5 millimetres. You can crop it to 1:1, to a 45x45 frame format. Or 2:1 (60x30), and everything still has higher quality than 135 format.

OTOH, you do have a point with stating that square sensors provide a lot more creative value.

Same goes to b&w sensors. I would really love to see a new camera with cheap interchangeable backs (as I've suggested some time ago on the Minolta forum here at DPR) to give possibility of high quality b&w photography. Three times more sensitivity would allow for ISO 300 with quality of ISO 100, or 3 times smaller photosites (3 times more resolution).

Would you be in for the 36x36 for a few extra dinero?

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

The idea is very good. Since we can't in our right minds expect
36x24mm sensors to be consumer-priced anytime soon, we have to work
around that. 24x16 (APS-sized) sensors are typical now (or 22,5x15
Canon 1.6x ones). Let's analyse that situation.
The surface of a ff sensor is 2,25x larger than a 24x16 sensor. How
would a 24x24 mm sensor perform? Well, it would:
1. Have a diameter of 34 mm, 9 mm less than an FF sensor. Its
useful diameter would be a lot lower, however, same as the 24x16 mm
sensor ( 28 mm) because you would usually crop the picture, and the
composition is also usually either horizontal or vertical. No gain
here.
2. Its surface would increase to 150% of a 24x16 sensor. So would
number of pixels (50% more). Unfortunately, you would usually crop
the picture. Having an increased surface, sensor yield would drop
accordingly, raising the price.

As I pointed out in the subject line, the one case is if in some
way they could make the sensor have its price same as a 24x16mm
sensor. If it would be more expensive, then no. It would have a
surface a good deal (15,6%) larger than a 27x18 mm sensor, which
has 1,33x crop factor. Its surface is even larger than 28x18,67 mm
sensor, which has 1,28x crop factor.

So, if I was faced with a choice between a camera with a 24x24 mm
and a 27x18 mm sensor with the same price, I would choose the
latter because of the more useful wide angle.
OTOH, if I would be left with a choice between a 27x27 mm and a
27x18 mm sensor with the same price, I would choose the former.

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[win39]

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[Paul Pasco]

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.
2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

I could live with it having started with a 6x6cm TLR in the early seventies. But be aware that if you output to "standard" rectangular formats you"ll be wasting a large percentage of MP with the part you crop out.

Paul

--
Lili's Dad

http://www.pbase.com/lilis_papa

 

[BillDrew]

Bill, that just might work. Add to that a mode that really crops a
LOT out of the top and bottom, and they can hype it as having a
"super panoramic" mode! It's all about presentation on lower end
cams. But if it gets me my square sensor, I won't complain.

Since Wal*Mart prints 4x10" (APS pano), the aftermarket is ready for it. Also, the "Why can't my digicam shoot panos like my APS can?" threads indicate there could be a real market for it.

So I'd think a square sensor is more likely to show up in consumer digicams than SLRs, see the threads that point out mirror issues. If the price of the CCD/CMOS sensors keep dropping the way most electronic stuff does, it would be cheap way for a manufacturer distinguish their camera.

 

[Floating_Fotoman]

toughluck, you're right - I forgot my basic geometry when I concocted the 36x36. Good points about the DSLR not working that way, all of which I overlooked.

As far as black and white sensors go, I keep flip-flopping. On one hand, I'd love the sensitivity and pure image with no bayer interpolation or de-mosaic algorithms. But then, I take a Canon image and turn it to black and white by properly mixing channels, and I say "how much better do I need than this?" and I think I wouldn't actually pay for the B&W back after all my screaming for them to make one.

In the end, I suppose it comes to looking at it as a glass half full or half empty. A square sensor uses most the image circle, but then you crop it to make your print. So too can a rectangle be cropped into a square, and re-cropped into a portrait if one is really loathe to tilt a camera and have to deal with a flash bracket that still puts a shadow to the side of a person's head in close quarters...

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

A 36x36 would be nice, but way off the imaging circle of the lens.
The corners would protrude out. It would have 51 mm in diameter,
and the IC of a typical 135 lens goes out to 45/48 mm, mind you,
not nice looking corners.
Now then, a 30,4x30,4 mm square sensor would be possible (43 mm in
diameter), and it would have a surface the entire 4% larger than a
36x24 one. But there are inherent flaws with such an approach:

• shutter - it would be 25% slower (due to longer traverse distance

vs. 24 mm) with the same construction. Or, it would be more
expensive. It would also induce more (much) more vibrations. Or
they could make it a non-focal plane shutter (not next to the
sensor, but the lens perhaps)

• mirror - it would be heavier, and have less support from either

side (less stable), which would also contribute to image vibrations

• camera itself would have a different construction. Eyepiece would

have to be much higher (accomodate sensor and larger pentaprism
vertically), and the bottom would go further down. Oh, it might be
just 3 mm in each direction, but the sensor is almost 'touching'
the camera bottom, and it would be at least 6 mm higher (with a
100% 1.0 viewfinder).

There must be some logic behind medium format having switched to
645 (as in 60x45 mm). You have a 4:3 aspect, which you can crop
into 3:2 by removing 5 millimetres. You can crop it to 1:1, to a
45x45 frame format. Or 2:1 (60x30), and everything still has higher
quality than 135 format.

OTOH, you do have a point with stating that square sensors
provide a lot more creative value.
Same goes to b&w sensors. I would really love to see a new camera
with cheap interchangeable backs (as I've suggested some time ago
on the Minolta forum here at DPR) to give possibility of high
quality b&w photography. Three times more sensitivity would allow
for ISO 300 with quality of ISO 100, or 3 times smaller photosites
(3 times more resolution).

--

My Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/thabear

 

[Floating_Fotoman]

nt means no text

 

[ChrisVJ]

I'm with you on the vertical format thing but I was under the impression that Nikon had already taken care of the annoyance with their orientation sensor. Use with Nikon software and the pictures are already oriented. Then why would you want to pay a load extra for the extra sensor real estate?

Mirrors and shutters can't be the problem, film cameras 2 1/4 sq been around for yonks and still the best .

 

[Steve W. Brewer]

Who would want one?

Me.

Philip Greenspun does a pretty good job of explaining the advantages of the square aspect ratio at http://www.photo.net/equipment/medium-format/choosing .

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

The medium format world has done well with square image capture:

1) You never have to tilt the camera sideways, just crop as needed.

In which case you have to crop every single picture. horrible workflow...

2) A rectangle wastes more useable lens image projection than a square

Unless you're printing square pictures, a square format wastes a lot more...

Try this. Take a lens with a 100mm image circle. It fits:

Square, 70.7mm x 70.7mm. Total area 5000mm2.

Rectangle (4:3), 80mm x 60mm. Total 4800mm2, an incredible 4% less than the square.

Rectangle (3:2), 83.2mm x 55.5mm. Total area 4615mm2, a whopping 7.7% less than the square.

Now, lets try to do something really radical, and make a print. How bout an 11x14? We crop like this...

Square, 70.7mm x 55.6mm. Total area 3927mm2.

Rectangle (4:3), 76.4mm x 60mm. Total 4582mm2, 16.7% more than the square.

Rectangle (3:2), 83.2 x 55.5mm. Total area 4615mm2. That's the same as the square.

But this won't work for consumer digicams, because you can't just
plug it in and print it without sitting down and thinking about how
you want to crop the picture.

No. You have to do something really radical, like visualizing and planning the picture, instead. Like the master photographers, who almost always used the rectangular view camera.

That leaves DSLRs, most of which already suffer from sensors that
don't utilize enough of the image projected by the existing lens.

Well, you've just seen that the rectangular pictures utilize at least as much (and usually more) of the image circle of the lens.

So if fullf rame DSLRs are to become the digital version of
mainstream medium format, there would be a place for square
sensors. Who would want one?

Very few people. Look at film cameras, the square MF makers (Hasselblad and Rollei) both went belly up. The rectangular 645, 6x7 and 6x9 makers survived.

The snapshot "shoot it square, crop later" philosophy works when you're trying to maximize the productivity of a high paid photographer, by throwing low paid "croppers" at the final product. Its great for the wedding and portrait mills. Not so good when there isn't a low paid "sweat shop" cleaning up after you.

But there's a reason every art or craft emphasizes the quality of the input of a process. Why we teach visualization as the first step in photography. Why we have sayings like:

Measure twice, cut once.

Garbage in, garbage out

You can't inspect quality into a product.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

To add to your list, a square sensor would be better for wide
angle/stitching.

Not really. It puts the worst aberrations in the corners. The very best thing for stitching is vertical stripes. Vertical rectangles are a close second.

For multirow stitching, you want bricks, in roughly the same aspect ratio as the final print.

Since it is the rare photo that doesn't benifit
from a bit of cropping, having to crop for conventional sized paper
is no hardship.

Sure it is. Every pixel is rare and special. The rectangular images waste much less of them than the square ones.

In particular since no sensor is going to match
all of the aspect ratios of the paper that is out there: 4x5, 4x5,
5x7, 11x13, and my favorite: 4x10.

4x10? I like you already!

See, if you're taking a single image, a 6mp square would leave you with 2.4mp. A 6mp 2:3 would have left you 3.6mp, a 50% increase over the square sensor.

Could even be done on consumer digicams with a selectable
orientation and aspect ratio. In particular, those using an EVF or
LCD as the viewfinder could easily change the aspect ratio and
orientation electronically. So if you knew you were going to print
a portrait 5x7", just dial that into the camera, and the EVF/LCD
would show the crop and that crop from the square sensor would be
saved.

You're on the right track. But keep the sensor rectangular (the cost of the digicam is determined by the size of the sensor and the number of pixels) and just spin it inside the camera for horizontal or vertical composition.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I'm with you on the vertical format thing but I was under the
impression that Nikon had already taken care of the annoyance with
their orientation sensor. Use with Nikon software and the pictures
are already oriented. Then why would you want to pay a load extra
for the extra sensor real estate?

I love that feature. Although in my case, only my Canon S400 (point & shoot) has it, my Nikon D100 DSLRs don't. Canon has it on their 10D DSLR. Nikon has it on the new D2H, but that's their first DSLR application.

Mirrors and shutters can't be the problem, film cameras 2 1/4 sq
been around for yonks and still the best .

At 1 or 2 frames / second, with terrifying vibration. That's one of the reasons why a lot of medium format cameras have multiple shutters, both a focal plane and a leaf shutter in the lens.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[BillDrew]

To add to your list, a square sensor would be better for wide
angle/stitching.

Not really. It puts the worst aberrations in the corners. The very
best thing for stitching is vertical stripes. Vertical rectangles
are a close second.

Unless you have a lens with a very rapidly changing distortion, that isn't likely to make a large difference since the distance from the center to the corner of a 3:4 aspect ratio vs 4:4 isn't that much: 13.13%. And there are good programs to deal with most of that distortion.

Also, the more "frames" that are used to stitch a pano, the more likely there is to be a flaw in the stitching. With a square format you will need fewer "frames" to cover the same vertical FOV so less chance for flaws.

...
You're on the right track. But keep the sensor rectangular (the
cost of the digicam is determined by the size of the sensor and the
number of pixels) and just spin it inside the camera for horizontal
or vertical composition.

I think price is the main point in most of the other parts your post - all valid on that basis. However, the price of electronics is likely to drop a lot in the future while the cost of a good lens won't. So I agree that a square sensor is not a good economic choice today, but that can change in the future.