Yes, it would make more sense and waste less raw materials if the
sensor was a 36mm circular one. No longer any worries about tilted
horizons. Image formatting would be done entirely post, choosing
whatever orientation you wanted. Never did understand why we have to
use round lenses to create rectangular images, after all.
Leftover pixels from rounding off the square sensor could be carried
over to the next sensor, or used in point and shoot models.
<vbg>
On Apr 26, 2009, at 07:16 , Mark Roberts wrote:
Sandy Harris wrote:
Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
Dario Bonazza wrote:
I've never considered the square sensor as a credible option.
The "square sensor" idea was ridiculous fantasy from the very
beginning.
It makes sense in terms of getting the most out of your lenses.
For any given criterion of what acceptable performance at the
edges, and any lens, you'll get a circular area in which the
lens is capable of that performance. A square sensor is
more efficient than any other rectangle at using that.
From that point of view, it is an obvious optimisation.
On the other hand, it may not be marketable, it would
need a different mirror/viewfinder assembly, and I have
no idea how it would affect sensor manufacturing cost.
Yes, it would need a different mirror/viewfinder assembly. It would
increase sensor cost significantly, for sensor area that wouldn't
even be used most of the time (except when shooting in square format
-- a rarity for most of us). A large cost increase for small benefit
isn't even remotely practical or marketable. That's *why* it was
always a ridiculous fantasy.
Joseph McAllister
[email protected]
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
