Why are lenses round when sensors are rectangular? Could (do?) manufacturers cut round lenses down to rectangles matching the sensor's aspect ratio and reduce lens size and weight?
>>2872545
I suspect you would get strange flaring/ghosting/reflections from the flat lens surfaces.
>>2872545
no.
>>2872553
No what?
better yet, where are the round sensors to fully harness the usable image circle lenses have?¿
>>2872586
Great idea! I guess though it would be really expensive because of the space that the circles take up on a wafer.
I agree. With film, it is impossible to have a circle shaped film that could advance to the next frame.
Digital sensors should be circle shaped. Enough with the rectangular shaped sensor meme.
Cutting circles would waste a lot in the manufacturing process
>>2872602
We could have huge square sensors that covered the image circle, like a medium format size sensor in a FF camera.
>>2872596
I think square sensors would be better, after all it IS the best aspect ratio
>>2872604
What a waste of sensor.
>>2872605
>aspect ratio wars, pt.CMLXXVII
Why stop with round sensors? Film grain is round, why can't we have round pixels to fully emulate film's superior resolving power and feel!¡
>>2872545
Many lenses have image circles way larger than the intended format. It's not always advantageous to cut things to within a hair's margin, because the increase in required manufacturing tolerance could far exceed the downsides of an over-designed lens.
Recently, the tendency has been towards over-designed lenses anyway, like the Sigma Art series, the Zeiss Otus, and many of the Sony FE lenses. It seems people are willing to pay with size and weight for ultimate image quality.
>>2872586
>>2872599
Just like all silicon chips, sensors are produced in a grid on a large wafer that is then cut into pieces. The importance of maximizing product per wafer is such that we can easily see the price difference between cameras with varying sensor sizes, a 33x44mm sensor camera is like 3x as expensive as a high-end 24x36mm camera, which itself carries a hefty premium over APS-C (although prices are constantly falling).
>>2872627
You don't need round pixels to produce round grain, you just need a proper demosaicing algorithm. Sensor pixels are sampling points. There's space between them in the sensor. The fact that they look square in your screen is a software design decision.
Wtf would you do with a round photo? Look at it on your round computer screen? Print it onto your round paper? Get a fucking clue.
>>2872605
You spelled 4x5 wrong, anon.
>>2872654
>he fell for the rectangle meme
>>2872654
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1500 Image Height 1500 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:07 12:23:22 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 800
>>2872586
Lets make airplanes out of black boxes too!
>>2872586
Kodak already did it. Their first cameras produced circular images on the negative (making a white vignette).
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:11:16 20:30:50 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 400 Image Height 493
>>2872942
You do know they did that with a mask over the negative, solely to make their first amateur-friendly idiot-boxes impervious to the possibility of crooked/askew photos, regardless of how you held the camera, right?
Some daguerrorypes were in oval frames but that was more to do with artistic conventions/tradition and hiding the atrocious blurry viginette first optical systems had, if we really want to go there. Also, microdots, I suppose? A few pocket "spy cameras", the odd birdwatching photo-gun (I sound deranged listing these huh) of old.
I'm genuinely worried people gave me serious replies btw. I know every excuse to share a bit of your knowledge is useful but seriously, round sensors? Evem worse, round pixels? I hoped I went overboard with that yet we still have >>2872646 to set us straight. Scary.
>>2872982
I'm >>2872646 and I think round sensors are stupid and I know you are kidding, but such basic understanding of how pixels work is helpful in many ways aside from memes on this jamaican photo gear catalog board.
Now, on topic, a round sensor would be useful for video in a smartphone. Not to produce a round video, but to crop it to 16:9 and always have horizontal video, straight horizons and a constant field of view. We would never have Dutch angles, and vertical video would be a thing of the past.
There are already apps who crop your video according to motion sensors on your phone, so you always have perfect straight horizons. But since the sensor is not round, you have to sacrifice a huge portion of your FoV and image quality.
>>2872995
A good idea, but given silicon wafer technology (also thoroughly seriously discussed above) it would raise the costs exponentially for a negligible (cost, quality and consumer expectation-wise) gain. Easier to churn out wide angle, high resolution cameras and crop the usable center from a shaky video. The tech's here, unlike round sensors.
>>2872545
How can sensors be real if photos aren't real
>>2872545
how do you polish rectangular lens?
share me your sekret.
>>2872545
There's a much simpler explanation for this than anybody has mentioned, and it's that lenses are made on lathes, which by nature make circular things. There isn't really a good way of mass-producing optically smooth surfaces on anything but a lathe, so they'd have to make round elements and then cut them down. This might change as glass and plastic molding become more capable of making optical elements, though.
Another benefit of round glass, and one that's hard to get over, is that it can rotate while focusing or zooming and not affect the image. That wouldn't be possible with rectangular elements, and you'd have to figure out whole new focus and zoom mechanisms too because helicoids wouldn't work anymore.
Also, at least in theory, it's much harder for round elements in a round tube to be put in crooked.
>>2876200
>Another benefit of round glass, and one that's hard to get over, is that it can rotate while focusing or zooming and not affect the image
never thought of this, it is very valid tho
>>2872995
this is genius!
Okay but can we talk about how 3:2 is a terrible aspect ratio
>>2876242
>hahahah
shutup
>>2876242
Yeah, we can.
1:1 and 2.35:1 are the only aspect ratios that are acceptable.
>>2872545
Round lenses are more stable and less prone to fracturing under stress
>>2872586
Ive wanted circle phone sensors for awhile, so when ppl film videos in potrait, the rest of everyone doesnt have to suffer from it.
>>2876735
>2.35:1
>>2872627
Film grain isn't round.
>>2872627
wat
Left is T-grain, right is cubic (traditional) grain
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2876745
they're also a fuckload easier to get a sharp, consistent image with
lol this thread.
>/p/ just doesn't know (anything)
>>2876918
I don't think that would be a problem if the curvature was round/the lens cut out of a round lens
>>2872586
Nowhere because the amount of wasted space on a wafer would be too great, and would probably make the cameras that use them too expensive to catch on.
>>2872690
the keys are too rectangular
ITT: Retards.
>>2873042
Really makes you think...
