Why not a Super Camera?

[nickleback]

Sorry, I am not sure where yuo want to go, but since the eyes focus
on one ipoint, this doesn't work.

Unless you are a pirate, you probably have two eyes. The coverage chart was for a typical right eye. Flip it in the vertical axis and you have the coverage for a typical left eye. The coverage of your two eyes overlap, but not completely. There's about a 30 degree shift. So take these two charts, give them a bit of separation, and you'll end up with coverage that looks like a wide oval. Or a 2:1 rectangle with the corners rounded. Whatever you like to call it. But not a circle.

I think you are being silly.

That's uncalled for.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[nickleback]

Yes sensors are cut that way to save $$.

Or because round just doesn't work well with the tools we have.

thats why I would guess
that the sensor would be square to encompass the full diameter of
the lens.

So you'd have an bigger square. Might as well fill out the corners and light them up, too.

As fpr [rinting .. I no longer so that. I work for the CRT and
often use Ken Burns effects to show as an eye sees.

You have a round CRT? Man, that's a museum piece!

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

I used the word silly because the comparison you are making is besides the point. The point was that there is nothing intirinciscally rectangular in the photogrpahic process. I used the eye as an example, I could have used any conventional lens.

Moreover, the eye is more complex than the FOV diageam used here because we only really "see" as opposed to detecting objects, over a small circle subtended by the fovea. The we use SW to stitch thinsg together.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

No, but the Ken urns effect is not limited by thew frame.

Look, you like 4 sided, staight things, be my guest.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com