Why are sensors/film rectangular instead of square?

[joe mama]

I think that this one is a candidate for the best dpReview thread of
2008. It spans the gamut from "why are there no square format
cameras" to the very existence of matter.

And we even had the old "curved sensor" pop up near the end.

...but you raise a valid point. : )

Of course it is. What a silly question. It's like quantum physics,
matter doesn't even exist unless observed.

...matter does not necessarily exist even then, unless we define
"existence" as being an observation of the properties that we
associate with what we are trying to measure.

But at least that brings us to a point where we can declare that it
"probably exists".

And, so long as we know the wavefunction for "existence", we can compute that probability. : )

Anyway, as to mathematics being a "matter of belief", math is a map.
The map itself is not reality, but we interpret reality through it.
As the map gets more detailed and contains more information, we can
more accurately make predictions about the reality we observe. But
the map is never reality itself, it is just a description that is
never wholly accurate.

But what if the reality itself is colored by our ability to perceive
and map it. And our ability to map is also colored by our
preconceptions. So imagination does affect physical reality (if there
actually is such thing).

Exactly correct. But this is just as well, as there isn't really any point to have a map that contains information beyond our ability to understand, eh? : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[itt]

Portrait anyone ?

I'd take a free aspect ratio system any time anywhere and for any
circumstance.
It makes a lot of sense. (Whole image circle)
16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 1:1, and everything in between including the round
too, no need to rotate camera 90, no need for orientation sensors, or
worry about horizon alignment.

Except that any time you crop from a rectangle, you lose real estate.
Whether you should (h) or (v) unless you're printing square, you're
better off (aside from the inconvenience of having to rotate your
camrea) with a rectangular sensor. You're paying for more silicon
than necessary; you're losing contrast by not baffling your lenses to
allow for the square image; in the case of SLRs, you're requiring a
taller-than-necessary mirror complete with greater registration
distance and greater mirror-induced shake, as well as making the
camera bigger to accomodate a bigger viewfinder and taller LCD (else
losing LCD width).

In case you didn't notice, I was referring to a Free aspect ratio camera where the sensor circumscribes the whole image circle. Not an inscribed square sensor.

Obviously, this require a no SLR camera and a new lens format, not happening in the short term.
I'm saying this as the alternative to fixed aspect ratio cameras of today.
--

 

[itt]

But what if the reality itself is colored by our ability to perceive
and map it. And our ability to map is also colored by our
preconceptions. So imagination does affect physical reality (if there
actually is such thing).

Absolutely.

That is why in Philosophy there are two major branches.
1. Epistemology (Physics, Math, Science)
2. Phenomenology (Religion, Art, Perception Phenomenas, etc)

That is how Philosophers many many years ago put an end to the debate about "Reality"
--

 

[Joe Lavee]

No text

 

[Joe Lavee]

there are
many good and valid reasons why it isn't used.

And there are no reasons why it should be.

CD album covers?

Definitely. And framed mirrors.

But at 5 inches square, and typically a 72 screen, the CD album cover
does not justify the production of a square format camera. You can
shoot album covers with a square crop from a decent rectangular
format SLR. Heck, cropped rectangular is even fine for 12 inch square.

and just about any situation that calls for a square image.

I've run into very few of those.

One third of my printing is 10x10 images + 14x14 + 16x16 + 20x20.
Most studios here do the same.

Or you just like it?

And that's the key. Everyone has the right to like what they like.
You can shoot and crop how you like. Heck, if you market it well, you
may even make a living at it.

But square fans simply do not have the numbers to represent a viable
market for new technology development.

Most wedding pros would opt for the square format, had the cost not
been prohibitive.

I think it's great for portraits.

I'll take your word on that. I've never shot a portrait that I wanted
to print as square.

Any (almost) portrait that consists of four people and is 3/4 is a
square composition.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving
grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[rhlpetrus]

In fact, the square format was very popular in the 60x60mm format. The twin-reflex cameras, like Rollei and early Yashicas, used it lso the great first Hasselblad series, the standard studio camera for many decades, until they changed to 60x45mm.

There were also 40x40mm cameras and film (called 147 format if I'm not wrong, by Kodak), which was used in cheap box cameras.

The 3:2 ratio was started by Leitz and finally became the 135 standard format for portable RF and single-reflex cameras, even though a 4:3 RF was the first Nikon camera, using 35mm film and 32x24mm.

4:3 is the old TV format and also became the medium format of choice for Hassy/Mamiya with digital, also most P&S.

Finally, large format used mostly 5:4 format (5x4" and 8x10").

A square, as many said above, has more area than other formats given same diagonal, but any rectangular crop of that would be smaller than same rectangle with corners on same disk (i.e, same diagonal as square).

From a mathematical perspective, won't a square (also a rectangle)
and a rectangle yield the same area in a lens circle? It seems it
would be more appropriate to use square frame instead of a
rectangular.

--
Regards, Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11435304@N04
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

 

[Mark Smith145430]

morninglight wrote:

. BTW: both still exist

today, new.

Actually they don't. Rollei actually went bankrupt, and was
liquidated. Parts of their portfolio and property was bought by a
variety of companies, including Samsung and Franke and Heidecke.

Actually you CAN buy a new Rollei today:
http://www.adorama.com/RL28FX.html

You can buy a new Yashica, Polaroid, or Voigtlander, yet none of
those companies are actually in business. They're just licensed
"brands'.

Thank you for the Rollei history, must have taken some time to type and for that thanks for your trouble, but....

For someone such as myself contemplating buying a new Rolleiflex the financial holding company is pretty irrelevant, if the product is available and can meet demand (no problems here) then I'm happy, which I think was the point made by the other poster.

Since getting reacquainted withe the Rollei TLR in the last 2 weeks and having to give it back I'm seriously thinking of getting one, its good to know that I can buy new; but I'll probably get a serviced 1960's model.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

 

[Joe Lavee]

To gain acceptance larger acceptance by pros Hasselblad had to
introduce the RECTANGULAR format.

My friend, you are wrong.

Up to the digital era, majority of portrait/wedding photographers used the square format.

Yes Some used the Mamia and Bronica rectangular formats, however, Hasselblad & Rolleiflex prevailed with the portrait/wedding photographers.

Dennis Regie, Monte Zucker, David Ziser, Al Gilbert, Tibor Horvath, Stephen Rudd, Dean McDonnel, Sam Scherinou, just to name a few of the leading pros, all used 6x6 Hasselblad.

F&H today employs 70 people. At their heyday, they employed almost
100 times as many. The square format gained nothing at all.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving
grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joe Lavee]

Name correction. Should have been Sam Sciarrino

To gain acceptance larger acceptance by pros Hasselblad had to
introduce the RECTANGULAR format.

My friend, you are wrong.
Up to the digital era, majority of portrait/wedding photographers
used the square format.
Yes Some used the Mamia and Bronica rectangular formats, however,
Hasselblad & Rolleiflex prevailed with the portrait/wedding
photographers.
Dennis Regie, Monte Zucker, David Ziser, Al Gilbert, Tibor Horvath,
Stephen Rudd, Dean McDonnel, Sam Scherinou, just to name a few of the
leading pros, all used 6x6 Hasselblad.

F&H today employs 70 people. At their heyday, they employed almost
100 times as many. The square format gained nothing at all.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving
grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[exp1orer]

--



http://www.exp1orer.com

 

[nickoly]

Claptrap. T the two main proponents, Rollei and
Hasselblad,

Not accurate.

Read it again. What I said was Hasselblad and Roillei were the two main proponents.

Mamiya and Bronica were just Johnny-come-lately bit players. The former was just a better Rolleiflex, signed its own death warrant by bringing out an eye-level finder, and survived by going rectangular. Who knows, or cares, what happened to Bronica? It had a focal plane shutter.

 

[nickoly]

introduce the RECTANGULAR format.

My friend, you are wrong.
Up to the digital era, majority of portrait/wedding photographers
used the square format.
leading pros, all used 6x6 Hasselblad.

And you can bet their product is rectangular. It's got nothing to do with square format and pros typically marked out a rectangular view on the screen with China graph. The reason why Hasselblads and Rolleis were used for weddings is simply because they are well suited for use at weddings. They are well-made medium format, with advantage for group shots I guess you can understand, and they both have Compur shutters. Indeed, moving to Compur probably saved Hasselblad. This also explains why Rolleiflex was so popular with the Press, even though it was usually used at eye-level. If it wasn't for the film-winder, they could have just as easily used a Bessa II, and many did - for obvious reasons.

 

[sunflowerflyer]

Yes, the lens projects a circle, so a square is the most efficient shape (outside of a circle). Plus, it is much easier to compose! The format we have drifted to really isn't good. I'd rather have about a 4:5 ratio, and my second choice would be square.

I'm guessing we have this odd format to allow faster shutter speeds, and cheaper cameras. Faster as the shutter doesn't have as far to travel, and cheaper compared to the more expensive leaf shutters in the lens, or really large shutters that are both common in medium format.

Driven by the marketing department and the finance department, NOT by photographers.

Anyone notice Nikon's flagship has a 4:5 mode? But it achieves it by cropping, so why bother.

 

[mamallama]

Regardless of mathematical formulas and horizontal ratio debate, the
fact is that during the film era, the square format was used by most
pros for the very simple reason, it offered versatility.
Hence, if the price was right, it would be the choice for most pros,
including myself.

Square was not the CHOICE; it was the CONSEQUENCE of being the format of the best medium format cameras of the era: Rolleiflex and Hasselblad.

As someone else has noted some pros marked off the horizontal and vertical 5:4 ratio formats on the ground glass mat. I think Roelli and Hassy sold a mat so marked.

Why 5:4? Because the popular print size for wedding albums were 8"x10". Go back and check your parents or grandparents wedding album. I bet it's 8"x10" prints. That aspect ratio was set by the sheet size Kodak and DuPont printing paper sold by the millions in the 1950s-1980s and was set because of the 1940s 4X5 Speed Graphic.

--mamallama

 

[ewelch]

From a mathematical perspective, won't a square (also a rectangle)
and a rectangle yield the same area in a lens circle? It seems it
would be more appropriate to use square frame instead of a
rectangular.

Well, the main reason is that in 1911 Oakar Barnack, who was designing a still camera to test 35mm film for his movie camera, decided to divide the 35mm frame in half to make it smaller and more efficient.

That was the beginning of the Leica and 35mm.

Well, okay, it wasn't then, but that's where we got the 35mm full frame. :-D

The fact of the matter is, the human eye has always preferred rectangles for art. Look at paintings going back as long as people have been framing them. They are almost always rectangular of some kind of proportion.

When I was in grad school, the head of magazine design at the University of Missouri-Colombia, Paul Fisher, was considered one of the leading experts in magazine design in the world. BTW, he also founded the Freedom of Information Center which lead to the FOI law we know and love today. I clerked for Paul in the FOI center for work study.

One of the things I learned from Paul was that research showed that the proportions of the 35mm frame were the most natural proportion for the human eye. In other words, our eyes tend to prefer that proportion (24mm x 36mm) to any other.

Hasselblad used to argue that square was the perfect composition proportion, but that's not true. It's can be inefficient for a lot of subjects. But I guess that's the long answer to your question. It's just that way because over the centuries, that's what we chose as the better alternative.

For me, square can be very difficult to compose in natural settings. In the studio, where you are in control of everything, that's not necessarily the case. But I find the 35mm frame much easier to find compositions with than square. Even when I shot with a square camera (Hassy and Rollei) I usually cropped it to a rectangle.

--
Eric

All cats are mortal.
Socrates died.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.

 

[Kerry Munroe]

I resemble that remark.

 

[Kerry Munroe]

i resemble that remark

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

and just about any situation that calls for a square image.

I've run into very few of those.

One third of my printing is 10x10 images + 14x14 + 16x16 + 20x20.
Most studios here do the same.

Where is "here", because it appears your "hear" is a lot different from my "here".

And that my "here" is more representative of the overall market. If the market demand really were 1/3 square, Rollei wouldn't have gone bankrupt, Hasselblad wouldn't have gotten bought by a tractor company, and Bronica wouldn't have been shut down. I think the real figure is closer to 1/30 than 1/3.

Or you just like it?

And that's the key. Everyone has the right to like what they like.
You can shoot and crop how you like. Heck, if you market it well, you
may even make a living at it.

But square fans simply do not have the numbers to represent a viable
market for new technology development.

Most wedding pros would opt for the square format, had the cost not
been prohibitive.

You haven't read most of this thread. Square MF digital was created as a low cost alternative to rectangular. It is about 1/2 the price of 645. Most pros opted to pay more for rectangular.

I think it's great for portraits.

I'll take your word on that. I've never shot a portrait that I wanted
to print as square.

Any (almost) portrait that consists of four people and is 3/4 is a
square composition.

A very special case, if it ever came up, I'd crop it out of a rectangle.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

To gain acceptance larger acceptance by pros Hasselblad had to
introduce the RECTANGULAR format.

My friend, you are wrong.

Sorry, my friend, but you are wrong about me being wrong.

Up to the digital era, majority of portrait/wedding photographers
used the square format.

That is not even close to correct. Not only was the majority shooting rectangular over a decade before the "digital era", but it wasn't a "simple majority", it was such an overwhelming majority that the square market segment was rendered non-viable by the business models of the day.

Yes Some used the Mamia and Bronica rectangular formats, however,
Hasselblad & Rolleiflex prevailed with the portrait/wedding
photographers.

You have a weird definition of "prevailed". Rollei went bankrupt in 1981. Where do we consider the "digital era" to have begun? 1995? 1999? The early 80s were also the time CINven bought the failing Hasselblad and halted development of the 6x6 Blads in favor of 645 designs that they farmed out to Fuji.

Dennis Regie, Monte Zucker, David Ziser, Al Gilbert, Tibor Horvath,
Stephen Rudd, Dean McDonnel, Sam Scherinou, just to name a few of the
leading pros, all used 6x6 Hasselblad.

But eight photographers, at three cameras each, was not enough to sustain the 6x6 operation at Hasselblad.

F&H today employs 70 people. At their heyday, they employed almost
100 times as many. The square format gained nothing at all.

That bears repeating.

In 1981, while Rollei was being liquidated and Hasselblad was being converted to a 645 company by a British investment bank, the Bronica ETR-S was the best selling medium format camera on the market.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

In fact, the square format was very popular in the 60x60mm format.
The twin-reflex cameras, like Rollei and early Yashicas, used it lso
the great first Hasselblad series, the standard studio camera for
many decades, until they changed to 60x45mm.

You've mistaken a cause and effect.

The TLR camera, with bright viewscreen and near silent shutter, was popular. From Rollei, to Yashica, to my old Argoflex, right down to the Kodak Brownie Starflex...

TLR cameras don't turn for vertical shooting, so the square format was something people were forced to tolerate, in exchange for the TLR.

There were also 40x40mm cameras and film (called 147 format if I'm
not wrong, by Kodak), which was used in cheap box cameras.

127, and it was even used in some fancier cameras, including Retina series, if memory serves.

The 3:2 ratio was started by Leitz

I have much older 3:2 ratio cameras. My Kodak Number 3 Autographic folding 6x9 is one. The right angle reflex finder rotates for horizontal or vertical shots.

and finally became the 135
standard format for portable RF and single-reflex cameras, even
though a 4:3 RF was the first Nikon camera, using 35mm film and
32x24mm.

3:2 turned out to be the "happy medium". All 35mm formats more square than 3:2 either failed outright (Nikon format, Zeiss 24mm square) and all formats with aspects greater than 3:2 became novelties (WideLux, Xpan).

4:3 is the old TV format and also became the medium format of choice
for Hassy/Mamiya with digital,

Correct, and for a camera who's customers produced mainly 8x10 and 11x14 prints, it was a pretty good size.

Whenever there was more to life than just the grinding out endless portraits, when there was "fun" in photography, 3:2 reigned...

also most P&S.

That was purely a side effect of the P&S market evolving from the first P&S cameras that used video camera sensors.

Finally, large format used mostly 5:4 format (5x4" and 8x10").

Yup.

A square, as many said above, has more area than other formats given
same diagonal, but any rectangular crop of that would be smaller than
same rectangle with corners on same disk (i.e, same diagonal as
square).

Exactly.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com