/p/ - Photography » Thread #2872545

[43 / 8 / ?]

36KiB, 640x360, square.jpg

round lenses, rectangular sensors

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 15:02:49 No.2872545 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2872547 >>2872553 >>2872639 >>2873042 >>2873057 >>2876200 >>2876745

Why are lenses round when sensors are rectangular? Could (do?) manufacturers cut round lenses down to rectangles matching the sensor's aspect ratio and reduce lens size and weight?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 15:06:29 No.2872547 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872545
I suspect you would get strange flaring/ghosting/reflections from the flat lens surfaces.

Muhmegapickels !!0Z+XAssRGPW

Muhmegapickels !!0Z+XAssRGPW Wed 29 Jun 2016 15:19:14 No.2872553 Report

Quoted By: >>2872558

>>2872545
no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 15:36:40 No.2872558 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872553
No what?

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Wed 29 Jun 2016 16:24:06 No.2872586 Report

Quoted By: >>2872596 >>2872639 >>2872726 >>2872942 >>2876749 >>2877006

better yet, where are the round sensors to fully harness the usable image circle lenses have?¿

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 16:51:15 No.2872596 Report

Quoted By: >>2872605

>>2872586
Great idea! I guess though it would be really expensive because of the space that the circles take up on a wafer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 16:55:03 No.2872599 Report

Quoted By: >>2872639

I agree. With film, it is impossible to have a circle shaped film that could advance to the next frame.
Digital sensors should be circle shaped. Enough with the rectangular shaped sensor meme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 16:59:44 No.2872602 Report

Quoted By: >>2872604

Cutting circles would waste a lot in the manufacturing process

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 17:00:51 No.2872604 Report

Quoted By: >>2872620

>>2872602
We could have huge square sensors that covered the image circle, like a medium format size sensor in a FF camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 17:01:14 No.2872605 Report

Quoted By: >>2872627 >>2872661

>>2872596

I think square sensors would be better, after all it IS the best aspect ratio

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 17:29:38 No.2872620 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872604
What a waste of sensor.

!kurwaRB7YU

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1463226514708.png, 45KiB, 565x408

!kurwaRB7YU Wed 29 Jun 2016 17:34:44 No.2872627 Report

Quoted By: >>2872646 >>2876909 >>2876914

>>2872605
>aspect ratio wars, pt.CMLXXVII

Why stop with round sensors? Film grain is round, why can't we have round pixels to fully emulate film's superior resolving power and feel!¡

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 17:52:24 No.2872639 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872545
Many lenses have image circles way larger than the intended format. It's not always advantageous to cut things to within a hair's margin, because the increase in required manufacturing tolerance could far exceed the downsides of an over-designed lens.
Recently, the tendency has been towards over-designed lenses anyway, like the Sigma Art series, the Zeiss Otus, and many of the Sony FE lenses. It seems people are willing to pay with size and weight for ultimate image quality.

>>2872586
>>2872599
Just like all silicon chips, sensors are produced in a grid on a large wafer that is then cut into pieces. The importance of maximizing product per wafer is such that we can easily see the price difference between cameras with varying sensor sizes, a 33x44mm sensor camera is like 3x as expensive as a high-end 24x36mm camera, which itself carries a hefty premium over APS-C (although prices are constantly falling).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 18:00:54 No.2872646 Report

Quoted By: >>2872982 >>2872995

>>2872627
You don't need round pixels to produce round grain, you just need a proper demosaicing algorithm. Sensor pixels are sampling points. There's space between them in the sensor. The fact that they look square in your screen is a software design decision.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 18:17:13 No.2872654 Report

Quoted By: >>2872690 >>2872717

Wtf would you do with a round photo? Look at it on your round computer screen? Print it onto your round paper? Get a fucking clue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 18:30:41 No.2872661 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872605
You spelled 4x5 wrong, anon.

!kurwaRB7YU

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO roundtop1.jpg, 206KiB, 573x684

!kurwaRB7YU Wed 29 Jun 2016 19:53:19 No.2872690 Report

Quoted By: >>2877043

>>2872654
>he fell for the rectangle meme

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO aspectratios.jpg, 121KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 20:52:44 No.2872717 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872654

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Jun 2016 21:13:13 No.2872726 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872586
Lets make airplanes out of black boxes too!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ogkodak.jpg, 60KiB, 400x493

Anonymous Thu 30 Jun 2016 04:35:59 No.2872942 Report

Quoted By: >>2872982

>>2872586
Kodak already did it. Their first cameras produced circular images on the negative (making a white vignette).

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Thu 30 Jun 2016 06:07:21 No.2872982 Report

Quoted By: >>2872995

>>2872942
You do know they did that with a mask over the negative, solely to make their first amateur-friendly idiot-boxes impervious to the possibility of crooked/askew photos, regardless of how you held the camera, right?
Some daguerrorypes were in oval frames but that was more to do with artistic conventions/tradition and hiding the atrocious blurry viginette first optical systems had, if we really want to go there. Also, microdots, I suppose? A few pocket "spy cameras", the odd birdwatching photo-gun (I sound deranged listing these huh) of old.

I'm genuinely worried people gave me serious replies btw. I know every excuse to share a bit of your knowledge is useful but seriously, round sensors? Evem worse, round pixels? I hoped I went overboard with that yet we still have >>2872646 to set us straight. Scary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Jun 2016 06:47:37 No.2872995 Report

Quoted By: >>2873005 >>2876240

>>2872982
I'm >>2872646 and I think round sensors are stupid and I know you are kidding, but such basic understanding of how pixels work is helpful in many ways aside from memes on this jamaican photo gear catalog board.

Now, on topic, a round sensor would be useful for video in a smartphone. Not to produce a round video, but to crop it to 16:9 and always have horizontal video, straight horizons and a constant field of view. We would never have Dutch angles, and vertical video would be a thing of the past.

There are already apps who crop your video according to motion sensors on your phone, so you always have perfect straight horizons. But since the sensor is not round, you have to sacrifice a huge portion of your FoV and image quality.

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Thu 30 Jun 2016 08:10:50 No.2873005 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872995
A good idea, but given silicon wafer technology (also thoroughly seriously discussed above) it would raise the costs exponentially for a negligible (cost, quality and consumer expectation-wise) gain. Easier to churn out wide angle, high resolution cameras and crop the usable center from a shaky video. The tech's here, unlike round sensors.

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9 Thu 30 Jun 2016 08:38:21 No.2873042 Report

Quoted By: >>2877077

>>2872545
How can sensors be real if photos aren't real

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Jun 2016 08:50:35 No.2873057 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872545
how do you polish rectangular lens?
share me your sekret.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 02:51:25 No.2876200 Report

Quoted By: >>2876232

>>2872545
There's a much simpler explanation for this than anybody has mentioned, and it's that lenses are made on lathes, which by nature make circular things. There isn't really a good way of mass-producing optically smooth surfaces on anything but a lathe, so they'd have to make round elements and then cut them down. This might change as glass and plastic molding become more capable of making optical elements, though.

Another benefit of round glass, and one that's hard to get over, is that it can rotate while focusing or zooming and not affect the image. That wouldn't be possible with rectangular elements, and you'd have to figure out whole new focus and zoom mechanisms too because helicoids wouldn't work anymore.

Also, at least in theory, it's much harder for round elements in a round tube to be put in crooked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 04:28:05 No.2876232 Report

Quoted By:

>>2876200
>Another benefit of round glass, and one that's hard to get over, is that it can rotate while focusing or zooming and not affect the image

never thought of this, it is very valid tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 04:53:26 No.2876240 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872995
this is genius!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 04:58:38 No.2876242 Report

Quoted By: >>2876555 >>2876735

Okay but can we talk about how 3:2 is a terrible aspect ratio

!!Me2iIexFVez

!!Me2iIexFVez Tue 05 Jul 2016 16:08:59 No.2876555 Report

Quoted By:

>>2876242
>hahahah
shutup

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 20:15:40 No.2876735 Report

Quoted By: >>2876750

>>2876242
Yeah, we can.

1:1 and 2.35:1 are the only aspect ratios that are acceptable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 20:36:29 No.2876745 Report

Quoted By: >>2876918

>>2872545
Round lenses are more stable and less prone to fracturing under stress

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 20:41:22 No.2876749 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872586
Ive wanted circle phone sensors for awhile, so when ppl film videos in potrait, the rest of everyone doesnt have to suffer from it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1423885678274.jpg, 244KiB, 1846x1212

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 20:43:41 No.2876750 Report

Quoted By:

>>2876735
>2.35:1

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v Tue 05 Jul 2016 23:29:56 No.2876909 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872627
Film grain isn't round.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F000055f005-010ab-9780323096331.jpg, 48KiB, 512x503

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 23:40:10 No.2876914 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872627
wat

Left is T-grain, right is cubic (traditional) grain

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 23:43:33 No.2876918 Report

Quoted By: >>2876991

>>2876745
they're also a fuckload easier to get a sharp, consistent image with

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 00:51:50 No.2876981 Report

Quoted By:

lol this thread.
>/p/ just doesn't know (anything)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 00:59:02 No.2876991 Report

Quoted By:

>>2876918
I don't think that would be a problem if the curvature was round/the lens cut out of a round lens

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1.jpg, 80KiB, 1028x468

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 01:07:24 No.2877006 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872586
Nowhere because the amount of wasted space on a wafer would be too great, and would probably make the cameras that use them too expensive to catch on.

Op Wed 06 Jul 2016 01:42:12 No.2877043 Report

Quoted By:

>>2872690
the keys are too rectangular

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 01:49:07 No.2877053 Report

Quoted By:

ITT: Retards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 02:24:34 No.2877077 Report

Quoted By:

>>2873042
Really makes you think...

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

round lenses, rectangular sensors