Why not square?

[TiCoyote]

Why are sensors and frames rectangular? Why don't they make them square? It would eliminate the need to hold the camera sideways, and for many it could eliminate the need for grips (although I know how much people love their grips, and I'm sure people could still buy them if they wanted them). It would also eliminate the need to rotate photos (or the technology inside the camera that rotates the photo automatically).

I realize that a square is not always ideal for composition, but anyone can digitally crop an image into a 3:2 either portrait or landscape.

I guess part of this is a throwback to film. But couldn't we move beyond this?

 

[ErectedGryphon]

Do you have square computer monitor, or a square TV? These might be a few other influences on the shape of camera sensors.

 

[Derrel]

With a high resolution sensor, it's quite easy to crop the sides off to a square; I have cropped this way myself a few times. As MP counts go up and up, cropping off the sides to a square format might be more common.

Cropping off the sides to make a square on the few frames that need to be seen as squares makes more sense than cropping EVERY,single square capture into horizontal or vertical compositions.

 

[DScience]

Do you have square computer monitor, or a square TV? These might be a few other influences on the shape of camera sensors.

LOL this argument DOES NOT work. Computer monitors have been square since the beginning, as well as TV's. However this changed with the advent of the LCD.

Sorry, but fail.:thumbdown:

 

[ErectedGryphon]

Do you have square computer monitor, or a square TV? These might be a few other influences on the shape of camera sensors.

LOL this argument DOES NOT work. Computer monitors have been square since the beginning, as well as TV's. However this changed with the advent of the LCD.

Sorry, but fail.:thumbdown:

I've never seen a 1:1 TV or computer monitor, where do you buy your electronics?

So you fail? (I'm not 12 so I'm doubt I'm using this right)

 

[Plato]

Do you have square computer monitor, or a square TV? These might be a few other influences on the shape of camera sensors.

LOL this argument DOES NOT work. Computer monitors have been square since the beginning, as well as TV's. However this changed with the advent of the LCD.

Sorry, but fail.:thumbdown:

Actually, TVs were originally ROUND. The size of the screen was the diameter. Little by little (as permitted by the technology), they became somewhat squarish and the "diameter" became the corner to corner measurement. When they became fairly close to true square, the 4:3 rectangle evolved but we still used the corner to corner dimension as the screen size. The true square didn't last long at all.

Because of the silliness of the corner to corner dimension, the feds required that the size be stated in square inches. However, as realistic as that might be, it simply didn't make sense to consumers that just knew what a 19-inch or 21-inch or 23-inch size looked like. That regulation was dropped within a year.

 

[JamesMason]

Medium format is square

 

[boomer]

I don't really like square images. Images that are closer to matching the "Golden Ratio" are much more pleasing to look at. I think the golden ratio is a big contributing factor of a lot of things we view.

 

[Actor]

Medium format is square

It's also 6x7 and 6x4.5 and 6x9 (2:3) depending on which camera you buy. You can probably buy other ratios.

I personally don't care for 6x6. I wind up cropping just about every image, at least the ones that are keepers. It's a waste of film (or pixels). I'd like to get a 645.

 

[bigtwinky]

I would think that the standard rectangular landscape position matches closely how my actual vision works?

As in, I see more on the sides than up and down (peripheral vision) and thus creates a rectangular viewing area.

As photography tries to capture what the artist's eye sees and allows viewers to see the same image, would having it square not be too awkward for viewing?

 

[McNugget801]

LOL this argument DOES NOT work. Computer monitors have been square since the beginning, as well as TV's. However this changed with the advent of the LCD.

Sorry, but fail.:thumbdown:

err... I dont think so

 

[gsgary]

Why are sensors and frames rectangular? Why don't they make them square? It would eliminate the need to hold the camera sideways, and for many it could eliminate the need for grips (although I know how much people love their grips, and I'm sure people could still buy them if they wanted them). It would also eliminate the need to rotate photos (or the technology inside the camera that rotates the photo automatically).

I realize that a square is not always ideal for composition, but anyone can digitally crop an image into a 3:2 either portrait or landscape.

I guess part of this is a throwback to film. But couldn't we move beyond this?

They do, loads of square format cameras to choose from
Bronica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[battletone]

Do you have square computer monitor, or a square TV? These might be a few other influences on the shape of camera sensors.

LOL this argument DOES NOT work. Computer monitors have been square since the beginning, as well as TV's. However this changed with the advent of the LCD.

Sorry, but fail.:thumbdown:

So those old 640x480(?) monitors were square?

I like 3:2 personally. Square is boring.

 

[Derrel]

Here is an interesting article on The Golden Rectangle

Fotogenetic - 35mm Film and the Golden Rectangle

Another issue with a potential square format sensor camera is brought up in this thread Larger sensors: what Nikon should do is "Full Size" 3:4 ratio [Page 3]: Nikon D300 - D100 Forum: Digital Photography Review

where Joseph S. Wisniewski points out that due to the backfocus distance used in modern 35mm SLR camera systems (the distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor), there's not enough space to increase the size of the sensor to any higher than about 24mm, simply because the mirror needs to swing,and a taller capture format would require a bigger mirror, and so, if we want a square format sensor, the maximum dimension would be 24x24mm. So, given the huge number of lenses originally designed for 35mm cameras system that are in everyday use, if we wanted a capture format larger than 24mm tall, we'd need to designs an all-new lens system, with a longer backfocus distance, to allow for the swinging mirror.

Medium format SLR cameras have much,much longer backfocus distances, which allows medium format lenses to be easily adapted to both DX and FX format d-slr bodies with quite deep lens adapters that cost around $69-$79 on eBay. If there's a short to medium to long telephoto lens you'd like to have for occasional use on your Canon or Nikon d-slr, Mamiya and Bronica to name two, have some awesome lenses available cheaply on the used market.

 

[TiCoyote]

Thanks for the info Derrel.

I think a lot of other people missed what I was trying to say. Why not shoot a square image, and then crop it to a rectangle in PP? That way orientation of the camera would be less important.

I agree that a rectangular image is more pleasurable to view, but that's the finished product. As for monitors, no they're not square, but they dp seem to be getting wider.