how come they don't make circular sensors?

[space cap]

We could use circular cameras too. They should just invent one with 20+ stops of dynamic range already what's the hold up

 

[Ellis Vener]

Nah, I think we need spherical cameras where the entire surface is a mosaic of lenses and aspherical scalable resolution sensor layer lies directly below the lens surface..

I mean if if you’re going to hypothesize or speculate, go big or go home.

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
“It's not about the f-stop." -Jay Maisel
Don't be "a photographer.” Be photographing. (Paraphrasing William Faulkner's advice to writers.)

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Probably for similar reasons why very few film cameras produced circular images. A few did, but cameras that took rectangular images were always more popular.

I think the first Kodaks took circular photos.

Don

Correct, but they were soon replaced by cameras that took rectangular photos. I don't think even Kodak would claim that circular images were a great idea in the history of photography. But they have always been an attractive niche for photographers who want to be different from the main crowd.

It is also worth noting that there was a period in which vignettes (usually oval rather than circular) were all the rage. However these were usually created when printing images rather than in-camera, just as they are today in post-processing.

Oval pixels?

Cat's-eye pixels to correspond to cat's-eye bokeh?

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I looked this up before actually and I know that pictures (and videos) look better visually in rectangles/squares of course, and I understand that, but if these lenses project image circles, why not create a sensor that's circular to capture virtually every part of the image circle, and allow for cropping/reframing in post etc? Similar to how people might film in open gate to allow for better reframing for vertical and horizontal formats, etc. instead of letting the other parts of the image circle just fall into nothing... Is it that circular sensors wouldn't be as simple to manufacture in bulk? I could see that

I see that the disussion focusses on the "circular" term... but the goal is simplu to capture more of the image circle.

How about lenses with an image rectangle instead of an image circle?

Lenses are expensive, we have usually many lenses and we waste some important parts of the image circle.

Personnally, I would be interested that a sensor can cover 16:9 to 4:3 ratios, it just needs to be slightly bigger, not much and this means more resolution and cleaner images for these ratios.

How about organic sensors? From there it's not much of a stretch to have stretchable sensors. ;-)

Hmm, you could also have curved sensors to eliminate field curvature. Hmm, I think that one has actually been invented already.

I make light of this, but you may have a point about different aspect ratios. I guess it depends which you want to waste more of: silicon or glass?

If we could have these sensors, I would buy it without hesitating 1 second !!

 

[space cap]

no worries, I posted this thread somewhat in jest but also to see about the whole allowing for vertical/horizontal cropping in post, etc. The range of replies (from the funny ones to the scientific ones) are welcomed

 

[Sittatunga]

no worries, I posted this thread somewhat in jest but also to see about the whole allowing for vertical/horizontal cropping in post, etc. The range of replies (from the funny ones to the scientific ones) are welcomed

That was the whole point of 2¼" square format on 120 film, for reflex viewfinder cameras.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I looked this up before actually and I know that pictures (and videos) look better visually in rectangles/squares of course, and I understand that, but if these lenses project image circles, why not create a sensor that's circular to capture virtually every part of the image circle, and allow for cropping/reframing in post etc? Similar to how people might film in open gate to allow for better reframing for vertical and horizontal formats, etc. instead of letting the other parts of the image circle just fall into nothing... Is it that circular sensors wouldn't be as simple to manufacture in bulk? I could see that

I see that the disussion focusses on the "circular" term... but the goal is simplu to capture more of the image circle.

Lenses are expensive, we have usually many lenses and we waste some important parts of the image circle.

Personnally, I would be interested that a sensor can cover 16:9 to 4:3 ratios, it just needs to be slightly bigger, not much and this means more resolution and cleaner images for these ratios.

Don't forget 10:8. People print far more 8x10 images than ever printed 4:3.

Don't forget where 4:3 comes from: old-style television.

• It's the ratio that best frames a two-person "talking heads" talk show.
• It's a low Pythagorean triple: 3:4:5. The prop makers could use that simple ratio of horizontal, vertical, diagonal to save time in designing sets. The videographers could use it to quickly match focal length to desired scene coverage.

If we could have these sensors, I would buy it without hesitating 1 second !!

We did. You didn't.

Panasonic used to make them. There wasn't enough interest (voting with wallets) and they died.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Lenses are expensive, we have usually many lenses and we waste some important parts of the image circle.

Personnally, I would be interested that a sensor can cover 16:9 to 4:3 ratios, it just needs to be slightly bigger, not much and this means more resolution and cleaner images for these ratios.

How about organic sensors? From there it's not much of a stretch to have stretchable sensors. ;-)

Hmm, you could also have curved sensors to eliminate field curvature. Hmm, I think that one has actually been invented already.

Invented, but only used very rarely in certain ratified applications in science. They have to be matched precisely to the lens designed for a particular application.

See, there is no one "field curvature". Every lens design has its own. Every focal length has its own. The curvatures are often very complex, not simply spherical. As you add more elements to a lens design, you add more "degrees of freedom" to correct aberrations. So when a simple lens has an upward curving spherical field, the next element may reduce this by turning the "corners" downward. I've seen lenses with a rippling field curvature, like a pebble tossed into a puddle.

So, if you want a $100,000 fixed lens camera, curved sensors can do it.

I make light of this, but you may have a point about different aspect ratios. I guess it depends which you want to waste more of: silicon or glass?

Glass is silicon. SiO2, Silicone dioxide.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Lenses are expensive, we have usually many lenses and we waste some important parts of the image circle.

Personnally, I would be interested that a sensor can cover 16:9 to 4:3 ratios, it just needs to be slightly bigger, not much and this means more resolution and cleaner images for these ratios.

How about organic sensors? From there it's not much of a stretch to have stretchable sensors. ;-)

Hmm, you could also have curved sensors to eliminate field curvature. Hmm, I think that one has actually been invented already.

Invented, but only used very rarely in certain ratified applications in science. They have to be matched precisely to the lens designed for a particular application.

See, there is no one "field curvature". Every lens design has its own. Every focal length has its own. The curvatures are often very complex, not simply spherical. As you add more elements to a lens design, you add more "degrees of freedom" to correct aberrations. So when a simple lens has an upward curving spherical field, the next element may reduce this by turning the "corners" downward. I've seen lenses with a rippling field curvature, like a pebble tossed into a puddle.

So, if you want a $100,000 fixed lens camera, curved sensors can do it.

Joseph S Wisniewski, why not stretchy sensors to match different aspect ratios? The winky face is a hint that this was not a serious proposal, and neither was the field curvature suggestion, for precisely the reason you cited.

I make light of this, but you may have a point about different aspect ratios. I guess it depends which you want to waste more of: silicon or glass?

Glass is silicon. SiO2, Silicone dioxide.

Not exactly. Perhaps you were jesting. Glass is not silicon, although optical glass does contain silicon dioxide (SiO2), sometimes called silica. Nor is it silicone dioxide, which doesn't exist.

By "silicon", I meant the sensor, and by "glass" I meant "camera lenses" (although some lenses have non-glass calcium fluoride elements).

And while I'm at it, contrary to common product literature and internet discussions, lenses are most certainly not coated with fluorine, which is a gas that reacts with all other chemical elements except some of the noble gases. If it were confined to a container with a camera lens, it would probably attack every part of the lens including the glass. Some lenses do, however, have fluoride coatings.

 

[tbcass]

Don't forget 10:8. People print far more 8x10 images than ever printed 4:3.

I simply crop my 3:2 images if I want to print at 10:8.











--
Tom

 

[Doug J]

would you also print it on round paper ?

Yes and look at it on a round monitor!

Why not, our eyes are round aren't they?

Cheers,
Doug

Careful. Treading on cultural insensitivity. ;-)

Yeah, perhaps it's better to say our retinas are round?;-)


Cheers,
Doug

 

[Bob A L]

It would for sure change the existence of compact cameras if the sensor had to be FF width at any angle.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Don't forget 10:8. People print far more 8x10 images than ever printed 4:3.

I simply crop my 3:2 images if I want to print at 10:8.

I don't think I'd call the crops in your example "simple", but that's a discussion for another day.

The discussion is about crops that utilize as much of a lens's image circle as possible. Not every situation needs that (your own, for example), but there are many times where it's very convenient.

 

[ROUSSEL_Photographer]

Oddly enough the french call it HYBRIDE

Hybrid since Mirror less can do video and photo, dont ask my why

i am not french, but i speak it

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

tbcass wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Don't forget 10:8. People print far more 8x10 images than ever printed 4:3.

I simply crop my 3:2 images if I want to print at 10:8.

I don't think I'd call the crops in your example "simple", but that's a discussion for another day.

The discussion is about crops that utilize as much of a lens's image circle as possible. Not every situation needs that (your own, for example), but there are many times where it's very convenient.

 

[tbcass]

Don't forget 10:8. People print far more 8x10 images than ever printed 4:3.

I simply crop my 3:2 images if I want to print at 10:8.

I don't think I'd call the crops in your example "simple", but that's a discussion for another day.

Simple for me and far more flexible than doing it in camera. I purposely zoom out a bit to allow more cropping possibilities. I often do several crops of the same image. Today's high-resolution cameras make it possible.

The discussion is about crops that utilize as much of a lens's image circle as possible. Not every situation needs that (your own, for example), but there are many times where it's very convenient.

 

[chrisfisheye]

Don't forget 10:8. People print far more 8x10 images than ever printed 4:3.

I simply crop my 3:2 images if I want to print at 10:8.

I don't think I'd call the crops in your example "simple", but that's a discussion for another day.

Simple for me and far more flexible than doing it in camera. I purposely zoom out a bit to allow more cropping possibilities. I often do several crops of the same image. Today's high-resolution cameras make it possible.

You loose not only resolution but light also.

This means that you reduce the performance of the lens
Not a big problem but a bigger sensor ( and only slightly bigger) would be welcomed.

 

[tbcass]

Don't forget 10:8. People print far more 8x10 images than ever printed 4:3.

I simply crop my 3:2 images if I want to print at 10:8.

I don't think I'd call the crops in your example "simple", but that's a discussion for another day.

Simple for me and far more flexible than doing it in camera. I purposely zoom out a bit to allow more cropping possibilities. I often do several crops of the same image. Today's high-resolution cameras make it possible.

You lose not only resolution but light also.

That's theoretical but in simple cropping the light per unit area doesn't change so I don't agree that you lose light. Only the resolution changes. The only negative I can see is the resolution lost and maximum print size possible is reduced but I don't care as long as the image is 6-8 mp. In the example I gave there is no visible negative effect.

This means that you reduce the performance of the lens

Not that I can see. In fact, if the corners and edges of the photo are cut off the IQ may be better because that is where a lens has the worst IQ.

Not a big problem but a bigger sensor (and only slightly bigger) would be welcomed.

I do own a Full Frame high resolution camera for lower light. I own 3 cameras that serve different needs.

 

[Rene Gr]

I looked this up before actually and I know that pictures (and videos) look better visually in rectangles/squares of course, and I understand that, but if these lenses project image circles, why not create a sensor that's circular to capture virtually every part of the image circle, and allow for cropping/reframing in post etc? Similar to how people might film in open gate to allow for better reframing for vertical and horizontal formats, etc. instead of letting the other parts of the image circle just fall into nothing... Is it that circular sensors wouldn't be as simple to manufacture in bulk? I could see that.

There are technical issues with read out as others have pointed out. But a simple argument is that a circular sensor is guaranteed to have 1/3 of pixels waisted. It looks more efficient to hold a camera in portrait mode if needed.

 

[Enginel]

There are technical issues with read out as others have pointed out.

They are all solvable. Maybe there's expired patents just nobody of those who knows didn't point about.

But a simple argument is that a circular sensor is guaranteed to have 1/3 of pixels waisted.

Photographers hate circular images, but designers love them. If you shoot image for social media, getting a circle from 3:2 sensor wastes 48% of area which is well above 1/3. Please make these designers to change from circles to 2:3 rectangles. So waste depends on specific use case.

If you rotate camera on a tripod, then you need a much heavier tripod, the increase in weight is much more than increased sensor area would require.

 

[Enginel]

If we could have these sensors, I would buy it without hesitating 1 second !!

You can buy a Fuji 44x33 and use SLR lenses (or rangefinder) on it. It's a lot more expensive, well, it's kinda a tax on wishing unpopular things.

Maybe someone will make an adapter for m43 lenses to be used on aps-c cameras.