![]() While the shape of cameras could change to accommodate it, it's a lot of R&D for a small payoff. One of the things is that inside a DLSR you also need space for a mirror to move into and also for a shutter mechanism. Going back to squares - other square sensors are available in the 35mm size range outside of the SLR space (like the SBIG stx-16803 aimed at astronomers - thanks Dan.) The camera then used the surface area it needed to make the chosen aspect. ![]() There were some attempts at circular sensors in the phone space when Nokia were working on the PureView cameras like the 808 before PureView just became a marketing thing for their best cameras. But by that logic the question we may actually need to be answering is why aren't sensors circular given that lenses present a circular image? ![]() The sensors could be made to a square format (though the current diameter would not accommodate 36x36mm, it would need to be about 30mm) if there was a demand for it. If you prefer square images for any reason, you can set many cameras to record a square image, or you can crop after the fact. Indeed, people often prefer images that are even wider than the 3:2 aspect ratio that we have in the typical full frame sensor. There's a variety of aesthetic and practical reasons that non-square images are preferred. You can see from the diagram that the green 24x36mm rectangle fits within the yellow image circle, but a 36mm square does not - the corners fall outside the image circle and will be dark. The diameter of the image circle has to be at least as large as the sensor diagonal. A square sensor is certainly possible, but square frames were possible with film as well. A 36x36mm sensor would require an image circle of about 51mm diameter. Specifically, a 24x36mm sensor requires a minimum diameter of about 44mm to cover the sensor. A 24x36mm sensor will easily fit in an image circle that's too small for a 36x36mm sensor. Is it possible and why it has not been done yet ?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |