I highly doubt that but would like to be proven wrong, please do :)
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote:
Not really. While you can pack rectangular sensors at 100% efficiency,
you don't lose that much using circular sensors - the obvious layout
only wastes a
It's fairly easy. Start with the regular tiling of the plane by
hexagons. Now inscribe a circle in each hexagon (so you end up
with rows of circles, with alternate rows staggered by half width).
A little simple mathematics shows that the area of each circle is
just over 90% of the area of the
algorithm to
correct the light fall-off in the corners. Maybe enough to push current
14mp to 16+ without breaking too many eggs.
LF (ok, just another wild theory)
William Robb escreveu:
- Original Message -
From: JC OConnell
Subject: RE: Square sensor, was Re: Pentax K7
SQUARE has two
LOL!!!
I'll make my CD covers only from square-sensor cameras...
...personal taste...
LF
Godfrey DiGiorgi escreveu:
I grew up with a Rolleiflex TLR. I love square photos, although for
practical reasons most of my photos are rectangular. 2:3 format always
seems too oblong for my taste, I
Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu 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
Sandy Harris wrote:
Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu 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
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu wrote:
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
Certainly not marketable. Most photographers are conditioned to using
the rectangle to shape their work. I shot 6x6 for many years. Never
did like it, never will. Square is definitely a niche market. And
yes, Hasselblad and other MF makers have been successful in that
niche, but it's
I grew up with a Rolleiflex TLR. I love square photos, although for
practical reasons most of my photos are rectangular. 2:3 format always
seems too oblong for my taste, I find 3:4 and slightly squarer
proportions more appealing. It's definitely one of the reasons I like
FourThirds format.
Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:09 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Square sensor, was Re: Pentax K7
Certainly not marketable. Most photographers are conditioned to using
the rectangle to shape their work. I shot 6x6 for many years. Never
did like it, never
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Certainly not marketable. Most photographers are conditioned to using
the rectangle to shape their work. I shot 6x6 for many years. Never did
like it, never will. Square is definitely a niche market. And yes,
Hasselblad and other MF makers have been successful in that
- Original Message -
From: JC OConnell
Subject: RE: Square sensor, was Re: Pentax K7
SQUARE has two huge advantages:
1. No need to rotate camera for portrait orientation if using a cropped
retanglular subset of the square
2. More efficient usage of the lens image circle
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Square sensor, was Re: Pentax K7
Hasn't even Hasselblad dropped square format?
No.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Certainly not marketable. Most photographers are conditioned to using the
rectangle to shape their work. I shot 6x6 for many years. Never did like it,
never will. Square is definitely a niche
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Hasn't even Hasselblad dropped square format?
No.
I meant with regard to digital. In film there's little cost increase
associated with square format (because the camera maker doesn't have to
provide the sensor) so it's
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu wrote:
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts
Hasn't even Hasselblad dropped square format?
No.
I meant with regard to digital. In film there's little cost increase
associated with square
On Apr 26, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Certainly not marketable. Most photographers are conditioned to
using the rectangle to shape their work. I shot 6x6 for many years.
Never did like it, never will. Square is definitely a niche market.
And yes,
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Square sensor, was Re: Pentax K7
The company Victor Hasselblad doesn't exist anymore. Hasselblad today
is just a brand, the cameras are built by Fuji. The classic Hasselblad
6x6 film cameras are all out of production
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Certainly not marketable. Most photographers are conditioned to using the
rectangle to shape their work. I shot 6x6 for many years. Never did like
On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com
wrote:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Certainly not marketable. Most photographers are conditioned to
using the
rectangle to shape
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com
wrote:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Certainly not
On Apr 26, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
The info you were getting sounds a lot more like 'I heard it from a
salesguy' than an 'industry source', considering that it's about as
accurate as most 'Pentax/Leica is dead' type rumours.
My sources are the owners of a commercial photographic
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
The info you were getting sounds a lot more like 'I heard it from a
salesguy' than an 'industry source', considering that it's about as
accurate as most 'Pentax/Leica is
On Apr 26, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
And thanks for confirming the 'I heard it from a salesguy' provenance
of your info. Retailers, unless you're talking about BH or Robert
White sized ones, are not 'Industry Sources', even if well-connected.
I've heard far sillier things from the
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
And thanks for confirming the 'I heard it from a salesguy' provenance
of your info. Retailers, unless you're talking about BH or Robert
White sized ones, are not 'Industry
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Bong Manayon bongmana...@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly, 3 photos recently accepted in PPG in the past months
were square crop...I sort of feel that I am being 'conditioned' to
'like' the square format...
It's a slippery slope. I've started, as a matter of
What a hoot!!
And I still don't like square format:-)).
Paul
On Apr 26, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com
wrote:
On Apr 26, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
And thanks for confirming the 'I heard it from a salesguy'
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
Joseph McAllister wrote:
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
No, t would waste a lot more materials on a manufacturing point of
view and as a consequence, pice would sky rocket.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
Yes, it would make more sense and waste less raw materials if the sensor was
a 36mm circular one. No
Not really. While you can pack rectangular sensors at 100% efficiency,
you don't lose that much using circular sensors - the obvious layout
only wastes a little less than 10% of the total area. and that's if
you assume infinite wafer sizes - for current wafer sizes losses at
the edge are going
31 matches
Mail list logo
