The Future: Round Sensors?

EchoingWhisper · Sep 24, 2011

Will it be possible to have a round sensor in the future?
You won't ever need to tilt to get a portrait! Any aspect ratio of your choice! Any crop factor of your choice!

Big Mike · Sep 24, 2011

Well, the crop factor issue wouldn't disapear...the size of the sensor, in relation to the image circle of the lens, would still be something to consider. But I can't argue that it wouldn't make sense to use a round sensor. After all, the image circle is always going to be round so why waste it?

But on the other hand, image quality is almost always significany better in the centre than on the edges. So when a square frame/ sensor crops the edges of the circle, you raise the percentage of high quality pixels in the image. Round sensor images might look terrible at the edges. Plus, people will still want square prints/frames to look at.

Now. If the could make a concave sensor, so that the light from the lens didn't have to hit the sensor at an angle, that would probably make for great images (with no chromatic aboration). But the sensor would probalby only work for a specifc focal length/lens. So what we really need, is a sensor that is flexable and can change it's shape (concavity) to suit the focal length of choice.

Just remember that this was my idea.

Patrice · Sep 25, 2011

Hey Mike,

You might just be a bit late with the part about curved (concave) sensors. A curved image plane is the basis of some astropgraphs.

Drake · Sep 25, 2011

I don't think it would be easier for photographers. You'd actually have to think even more about your shot, kind of predict how you'll want to crop. Composition would still exist, you know.

And besides that, sensors are cut from bigger sheets. If you cut out round sensors, you will leave a lot of unused area. The consumer would end up paying for a square sensor and getting just a smaller circle. Not really a good deal. Of course you can optimize the process to get more, but there will always be some pieces left.

EchoingWhisper · Sep 25, 2011

I mean, the RAW file would have no crop. But the JPEG would have. So if you can't decide the aspect ratio, shoot RAW, if you could, then you can set the aspect ratio in camera.

Patrice · Sep 25, 2011

I really like using my c330, and my Rollieflex before that, because of the square 6 cm by 6 cm format.

KmH · Sep 25, 2011

How many fine art painters use a round canvas?

Biggs88 · Sep 25, 2011

Big Mike said:
Well, the crop factor issue wouldn't disapear...the size of the sensor, in relation to the image circle of the lens, would still be something to consider. But I can't argue that it wouldn't make sense to use a round sensor. After all, the image circle is always going to be round so why waste it?

But on the other hand, image quality is almost always significany better in the centre than on the edges. So when a square frame/ sensor crops the edges of the circle, you raise the percentage of high quality pixels in the image. Round sensor images might look terrible at the edges. Plus, people will still want square prints/frames to look at.

Now. If the could make a concave sensor, so that the light from the lens didn't have to hit the sensor at an angle, that would probably make for great images (with no chromatic aboration). But the sensor would probalby only work for a specifc focal length/lens. So what we really need, is a sensor that is flexable and can change it's shape (concavity) to suit the focal length of choice.

Just remember that this was my idea.

Hey!! Get it to a patent office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a very interesting idea!

Markw · Sep 25, 2011

Drake said:
I don't think it would be easier for photographers. You'd actually have to think even more about your shot, kind of predict how you'll want to crop. Composition would still exist, you know.

Composition exists now. That's what you're supposed to do now before taking a photograph. This would simply force the chimps to think first. Which can only be a good thing. Mikes idea sounds very interesting.

Mark

2WheelPhoto · Sep 25, 2011

Big Mike said:
Well, the crop factor issue wouldn't disapear...the size of the sensor, in relation to the image circle of the lens, would still be something to consider. But I can't argue that it wouldn't make sense to use a round sensor. After all, the image circle is always going to be round so why waste it?

But on the other hand, image quality is almost always significany better in the centre than on the edges. So when a square frame/ sensor crops the edges of the circle, you raise the percentage of high quality pixels in the image. Round sensor images might look terrible at the edges. Plus, people will still want square prints/frames to look at.

Now. If the could make a concave sensor, so that the light from the lens didn't have to hit the sensor at an angle, that would probably make for great images (with no chromatic aboration). But the sensor would probalby only work for a specifc focal length/lens. So what we really need, is a sensor that is flexable and can change it's shape (concavity) to suit the focal length of choice.

Just remember that this was my idea.

My college photo professor explained the same thing to us explaining the round image hits the sweet spot of a framed capture and why this has been the case thus far for film and digital.

dakkon76 · Sep 26, 2011

I found myself wondering the other day why they don't just make the sensors square instead of the rectangular shape they are now. Granted, it may cost more to produce because of the added size, but it would eliminate needing to change the orientation of the camera. You could then handle landscape/portrait cropping either in post, or with a simple camera setting that was a toggle between the two.

EchoingWhisper · Sep 26, 2011

You could always decide the crop factor, composition and aspect ratio first. As for the low quality pixels, you could crop it if you want.

dakkon76 · Sep 26, 2011

You're throwing people off with your use of "crop factor"... crop factor refers to the size of the sensor as it relates to the 35mm standard. Simply saying "crop" instead would be more accurate and avoid confusion for the more anal-retentive types who like to derail these threads

Robin Usagani · Sep 26, 2011

Interesting thought. Maybe a square sensor would make more sense. It would be a lot of pixels and the files will be ridiculously big. Its like multiplying your MP by 1.5.