On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:51:57 Tom Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Konstantinos Bibis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > So a 36x36mm sensor ? > > > > Actually, a 30.6 x 30.6mm, the limiting factor being the diagonal measure. > > While this sounds cool to some, I wouldn't want to give up nearly 6mm of > negative width just to eliminate camera rotation. > > Tom P.
Hi Tom, Agreed, but to me it's only an issue with very wide angle zooms**. That was why my suggestion was that the camera manufacturers could implement a choice of square or rectangular format using either 30.6mm square format, 24mm x 36mm rectangular format (2:3) or even some other ratio (like 3:4 - approx 26mm x 34.6mm) as required. I don't see it being a "hardware masking" solution either like the current APS cameras use.. I'd say it could be implemented in software *provided* the image sensor covers the required areas - which almost points to a *circular* image sensor (or close to it). I don't expect so see this in the near future, and maybe not ever, but it's on my wish list. ** Why I think it's only an issue at wide angles: If you're not using your widest lens (or widest lens setting on a zoom), then you always have a choice to go wider. Once you're at your widest lens setting, the rectangular format Vs Square format can provide addition angle of view (in one direction anyway). At longer focal lengths, particularly with zooms, the field of view in not so limited as you usually have a wider focal length available - although I will admit that choosing a rectangular format will provide a greater number of pixels on the longer orientation at any given focal length. Regards Gary This mail has passed through an insecure network. All enquires should be directed to the message author. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
