Circular four thirds sensor

[frode_inge_helland]

<p>When photographing architecture or landcapes with a horizon, the majority of the pictures don't get the horizonal og vertical line properly. It is very simple to correct. But at a price: Cropped file seize.<br>

If the in-camera sensor was circular I never would have to sacrifice picture area.<br>

I would also always have the option to choose <em>any format without loosing anything</em> of a beforehand choosen format, eg. from a 4:3 (or from16:9 or 3:2). <br>

The corresponding area of the picture circle is about 1,7 times bigger than the four thirds format. So, the cost of the circular sensor wold at least be accordingly more expensive.<br>

But - it would offer much greater freedom in correcting verticals and horizonals, and to choose any preferred format within the picture circle. </p>

 

[Sanford]

<p>Same thing could be said about the square format.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Sensors are not made individually, they are laid out in a grid on a much larger silicon wafer. If you wanted to make them circular, there would be a lot of wasted space on the wafer between the circles. Very expensive waste. For ease of handling and packaging, they would be made as squares with a circular sensor area, so you would have approx 21% of wasted area that could be active sensor area for almost no additional cost.</p>

[frode_inge_helland]

<p>If you rotate a sqare format, it will be cropped.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>FIH, you are correct; but I do not think that enough people will want the flexibility you value at the probably much increased price. In the film world, the nearest thing to your ideal is the 6x6 format.</p>

[frode_inge_helland]

<p>In architecture photographs, when the distance to the building is not satisfactory, I have from time to time risked to loose some part of the building when rotating or perspective correcting the photograph.<br>

The sensor is after all a fraction of the total camera cost, but how much I do not know.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Perspective correction is a complex area; but rotation can be avoided or minimised by using a sensitive level in the accessory shoe.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Perhaps stitching a couple of frames prior to perspective corrections would leave enough pixels for IQ. As a Paint Shop Pro user I have Warp Mesh available to me and this can make corrections ... but it is a tricky tool to use if fun. I gather it works on the principle of controlable interpolation. The 'level' suggestion is probably the easiest answer :-)<br>

Part of the problem is that we are all slaves to rectangular images.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Those who do architectural work can find a perspective wide angle control lens, PC lens. Seems like the best way to predict unwarranted distortions and adjust a priori . They are not inexpensive, involve a lot of sliding elements and set screws and large image circle. I can't see a round sensor being cut out of a dye, though that is out of my <em>kuliana</em>...or techno turf. gs</p>

[frode_inge_helland]

<p>A circular sensor is bound to be cheaper than a wider lens, but can by no means substitute one. I do not se it as a step bacwards. The idea will not solve <em>all</em> problems that expensive can, just utilize the picture circle in the camera. It could certainly be great for fisheye lenses.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Having a round image is not going to allow you to do perspective correction without giving some of it up. The end result is the same as cropping some of the picture out of the frame. <br>

P.S. The original Kodaks in the 1880's made round photographs.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>In the film world, the nearest thing to your ideal is the 6x6 format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, one of Kodak's first cameras created round images. An added advantage of this is you don't need to worry about getting the horizon level!</p>

[bob_sunley]

<blockquote>

<p>"A circular sensor is bound to be cheaper than a wider lens",</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true, in small quantities, you could easily be paying $20k per sensor. Not to mention having to have custom hardware and firmware to handle all the incamera processing as every row and column has differing numbers of photo sites. If a camera maker was going to do it, they would just cut a circle out of the square or rectangular image from a normal sensor.</p>

<p> </p>

[harold_gough]

<p>How many pictures have much flat horizon included? If using a tripod some have integral leveling bubbles or hotshoe-fitting leveling bubbles can be obtained. The OM 35mm shift lens can now be purchased for less than £300.</p>

[rdm]

<p>And Why not just a square sensor that captures the entire Image circle, utilizes ETC and also can be set to any aspect ratio similar to the GH1 and GH2?. So then when using Legacy lenses they would fill the whole sensor. I would love that, & I have been wishing for thet since the GH1 first came out.. lol... Ahh, if only we all had our own private R&D Digital camera division ..<br>

Hmmm .. isn't Samsung supposed to come out with a square sensor mirror-less camera? Maybe that would be the camera for you when it arrives?</p><div></div>

[rdm]

<p>Woops! i meant to type 22x22 in my little chart mock up</p>

[bob_meyer6]

<p>FYI, the Panasonic GH2 has a multi-aspect sensor. Not circular, but larger than the standard m43 sensor. If you select 3:2 or 16:9 format you get the greatest sensor area that will fit the image circle. There's an interactive image showing the various formats here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2/ almost all the way down the page.</p>

<p>Yes, you have to rotate the camera to get vertical shots, but it does let you shoot 3:2 images without losing data as you would if you cropped from the 4:3 format. I shoot the vast majority of my shots at 3:2, but sometimes 16:9.</p>

<p>Yes, you do have to choose before you shoot, but really, you should be giving at least that much thought to a photograph before you push the shutter release anyway.</p>

[frode_inge_helland]

<p>I do agree that the square sensor format has more benefits than rectangular, and frankly I would prefer it for any rectangular. BUT, then the picture circle from the lens had to be accordingly larger. <br>

I never ment to make circular pictures. Only to make better utilisation of the lens and loose as little as possible og the picture when adjusting it.</p>

[rdm]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5141945">Frode Inge Helland</a> , Dec 04, 2011; 02:49 p.m. I do agree that the square sensor format has more benefits than rectangular, and frankly I would prefer it for any rectangular. BUT, then the picture circle from the lens had to be accordingly larger.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I like the idea of a square sensor also, <strong>but </strong>the image circle need not be larger. In-fact you can use the example in the diagram of the Panasonic GH camera sensor, where i drew a square around the image circle of an m4/3 lens. Just if someone or them figured out a way to make that sensor as tall as it is long then you can just crop to what ever aspect you wish, vertically or horizontally. And mirrorless is the ideal vehicle for a camera like that. I just hope they build in the option if using the full sensor so you can utilize legacy lenses or play with peep hole effects on native lenses, or better yet to take advantage of 3rd party native lenses designed for larger sensors with bigger image circles, like Sigmas new Line.</p>