Someone expressed the desire to shoot in square format and the
discussion here mostly centered on ways to modify your Pentax DSLR with
duct tape applied to the sensor or the lens elements. Amusing, but
hardly practical.
I saw this today and it occurred to me that it might offer an actual
This is a strict trapezoïd (translated from french) which mean a
trapezoïd which isn't anything more particuliar than a trapezoïd.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:10 AM, ann sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote:
eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/19/2009 11:41:04 A.M. Pacific Standard
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:55 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
Hey, frank? You reading this thread?
If this doesn't qualify as intelligent discussion, I don't know what does.
Marnie ;-) Me, all over my head, HS geometry was long ago and far away.
I've been reading it, but have found
In a message dated 2/23/2009 2:10:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
knarftheria...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:55 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
Hey, frank? You reading this thread?
If this doesn't qualify as intelligent discussion, I don't know what does.
Marnie ;-)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
My point was your comment about the Pentax forum and intelligent discussion.
MarnieBut, on second thought, according to what you said above, maybe
this thread doesn't prove intelligence here in PDML as well. Heh.
Exactly...
From: Bob W
They must teach you some strange things in your schools.
JCO is quite
correct - at least, our schools taught us that a rectangle is a
quadrilateral with 4 right angles, so a square is a
rectangle. A rectangle
with unequal sides is an oblong.
Bob
C'mon, Bob.
In a message dated 2/19/2009 11:41:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
papenf...@juneau.me.vt.edu writes:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
I (somewhat) hate adding to this pedantism, but a square can be
accurately called
- A rectangle
eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/19/2009 11:41:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
papenf...@juneau.me.vt.edu writes:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
I (somewhat) hate adding to this pedantism, but a square can
Sorry, but every time you get underwater the different media (water vs
air) causes the subjects to appear larger and closer - so you need to
think wider underwater than on air. Positive side effect, the less water
between you and your subject, better the image - even clear and pure
water degrades
Still, strictly speaking a square is indeed a rectangle.
For all intend and purposes, it is confusing to talk about a rectangle
when it is also a square. But well... ;)
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:56 AM, keith_w keit...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM
Thibouille wrote:
Mmm Nikon is rumoured to introduce a medium format lineup (MX format)
based on a sensor of 54x54 mm.
If this is true, Pentax MF'd better be cheap enough, and Leica is screwed ;)
Anyway, rumours ... :p
A tiny bit smaller than the old time 2 1/4 square format. What would
JC OConnell wrote:
Rectangle Definition :
From Latin: rectus right + angle,
A 4-sided polygon where all interior angles are 90°
=
JC O'Connell
As far as you go, your statement is totally correct.
keith whaley
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
While all 4 corners of both a square and a rectangle must be
90 degrees, the
commonly accepted (preferred) definition states that a
rectangle has adjacent
sides of UNequal length.
I think
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote:
# Whiz? In what class?, remedial school?
#
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
# format. # its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh, c'mon
square-format dSLR rumor
Larry Colen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote: # Whiz?
In what class?, remedial school? #
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a
rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh
Bob W wrote:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
While all 4 corners of both a square and a rectangle must be
90 degrees, the
commonly accepted (preferred) definition states that a
rectangle has adjacent
sides of UNequal length.
I
JC OConnell wrote:
A square is a special rectangle, but it IS a rectangle.
I just googled it last night, nowhere in any of the
definitions does it say that a rectangle has to have
any requirements on side lengths. Its just has to
have all 4 corners at 90 degreees. There is differentiation,
the
On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:40 AM, keith_w wrote:
Bob W wrote:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
While all 4 corners of both a square and a rectangle must be 90
degrees, the commonly accepted (preferred) definition states that
a rectangle
- Original Message -
From: keith_w
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
Thibouille wrote:
Mmm Nikon is rumoured to introduce a medium format lineup (MX format)
based on a sensor of 54x54 mm.
If this is true, Pentax MF'd better be cheap enough, and Leica is screwed
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote:
# Whiz? In what class?, remedial school?
#
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh, c'mon
smaller than the old time 2 1/4 square format. What would
the point be?
Probably a fab constraint.
These all have to come out of (usually) 200mm or 300mm circles,
remember; that's the size of the silicon wafer in the fab. The chip is
going to be larger than the sensor area and the die (the chunk
I guess many rumours have some truth behind them - and they hardly come
true anyway.
I'd pass a square sensor for my current uses. For me, the best format
would be 3:4, but I can live with 35mm and with APS formats. About lens
coverage, I believe many FF lens would be easily offered simply by
On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:45, keith_w wrote:
JC OConnell wrote:
A square is a special rectangle, but it IS a rectangle.
I just googled it last night, nowhere in any of the
definitions does it say that a rectangle has to have
any requirements on side lengths. Its just has to have all 4
corners at
Therefore, if all four sides are equal, then three of those sides are
also equal, so a square is an equilateral triangle. QED.
On Feb 18, 2009, at 23:03 , Larry Colen wrote:
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a
rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:40 AM, keith_w keit...@dslextreme.com wrote:
C'mon, Bob. You're putting me on, right? Or making jokes.
An oblong is a squashed circle.
I thought oblong was a type of tea?
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML
I thought it was an asian coin of some sort...
Jostein
2009/2/19 frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:40 AM, keith_w keit...@dslextreme.com wrote:
C'mon, Bob. You're putting me on, right? Or making jokes.
An oblong is a squashed circle.
I thought oblong was a
They must teach you some strange things in your schools.
JCO is quite
correct - at least, our schools taught us that a rectangle is a
quadrilateral with 4 right angles, so a square is a
rectangle. A rectangle
with unequal sides is an oblong.
Bob
C'mon, Bob. You're putting me
JC O'Connell
As you wish, JC.
AS YOU WISSHHH!
:)
--
*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, PPSEL-IA*
* Research Associate, Vibrations and Acoustics Laboratory
If one were to cram a square sensor into a 35mm-based body, wouldn't the
size of the mirror need to be increased vertically (assuming the sensor
is the same height and width as the width of the current sensor Pentax
uses)? This is the reason I doubt a square sensor'd dSLR is on the way.
The
As you wish, JC
MARK !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: keith_w keit...@dslextreme.com
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
JC OConnell wrote:
A square is a special rectangle, but it IS a rectangle.
I just googled it last night
The mirror and mirrorbox would be same same size as the old analog
camera;s. Should be easy. You only need to remove a small part of the
mirror on the left and right.
I think I want this square FF pentax.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:16 PM, John Celio n...@neovenator.com wrote:
If one were to cram
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:16:42PM -0700, John Celio wrote:
# If one were to cram a square sensor into a 35mm-based body, wouldn't the
# size of the mirror need to be increased vertically (assuming the sensor
# is the same height and width as the width of the current sensor Pentax
# uses)? This
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:16:42PM -0700, John Celio scripsit:
If one were to cram a square sensor into a 35mm-based body, wouldn't
the size of the mirror need to be increased vertically (assuming the
sensor is the same height and width as the width of the current sensor
Pentax uses)? This is
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
Lets have a contest to see who can come up with the most outlandish
rumor that gets picked up and spread around.
They've already got the square sensor body in (secret) production. In
order to assuage the sensibilities of
Not an issue as the vertical size of the mirror would be very close to
a 35mm mirror (needs to handle 25mm instead of 24mm). Pentax couldn't
use the current mirror boxes, but the old *ist or MZ-S mirror boxes
would do just fine.
-Adam
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM, John Celio
Cory,
You forgot:
- A parallelogram with all four sides equal, and all four corners equal
(and hence 90 degrees).
:-D
Igor
Thu Feb 19 14:40:45 EST 2009
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
I (somewhat)
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
I (somewhat) hate adding to this pedantism, but a square can be
accurately called
- A rectangle with equal-length sides
- A rhombus with 90 degree corners
- A trapezoid that has (the required) two
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/02/wild-rumor-pentax-k3d-with-a-22mp-square-sensor-dslr.html
I don't know about you, but I think it would be a pretty neat idea. I
imagine it would be strange to get used to a square view while using a
non-MF camera.
I doubt there's an ounce of truth to
On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:00 PM, John Celio wrote:
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/02/wild-rumor-pentax-k3d-with-a-22mp-square-sensor-dslr.html
I don't know about you, but I think it would be a pretty neat idea.
I imagine it would be strange to get used to a square view while
using a
There are some advantages to a square format, just ask anyone who has shot 2
1/4 x 2 1/4 for any extended period. While I love my 645 dearly for its
large negative size, the square format is always framed optimally. At 1.3
times the size of a 35mm negative according to the article I guess
from a technical standpoint, the square format is
the most efficient rectangular format because it
more closely approximates the image formed by the
lens which is a circle.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:00 PM, John Celio wrote:
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/02/wild-rumor-pentax-k3d-with-a-22mp-square-sensor-dslr.html
I don't know about you, but I think it would be a pretty neat idea. I
Wow! I was a whiz at plane geometry in grade school, but I never was
presented the hypothesis of squaring a rectangle, or rectangling a
square!
On Feb 18, 2009, at 17:51 , JC OConnell wrote:
from a technical standpoint, the square format is
the most efficient rectangular format because
with rectangular
photo formats, the square format uses more of the useful
lens image circle than any of the other rectangular formats,
the ultra wide panoramic being the worst offender.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun
Rectangle Definition :
From Latin: rectus right + angle,
A 4-sided polygon where all interior angles are 90°
=
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
Wow! I was a whiz at plane geometry in grade school, but I
Damn!
On Feb 18, 2009, at 18:50 , JC OConnell wrote:
a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
format.
its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
From: John Celio n...@neovenator.com
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/02/wild-rumor-pentax-k3d-with-a-22mp-square-sensor-dslr.html
I don't know about you, but I think it would be a pretty neat idea. I
imagine it would be strange to get used to a square view while using a
non-MF
I shot 6x6 extensively for at least ten years, probably longer. Never
fell in love with it.
Paul
On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:29 PM, John Mullan wrote:
There are some advantages to a square format, just ask anyone who
has shot 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 for any extended period. While I love my
645 dearly
: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:13 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
I shot 6x6 extensively for at least ten years, probably longer. Never
fell in love with it.
Paul
On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:29 PM, John Mullan wrote:
There are some advantages
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote:
# Whiz? In what class?, remedial school?
#
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a
Shit, why don't they go straight to the point and make a circular field
camera? ;-)
I have no problems in rotating a camera 90°, really.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: John Celio n...@neovenator.com
To: PDML@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:00 AM
Subject: Amusing square
Larry Colen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote:
# Whiz? In what class?, remedial school?
#
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing
Mmm Nikon is rumoured to introduce a medium format lineup (MX format)
based on a sensor of 54x54 mm.
If this is true, Pentax MF'd better be cheap enough, and Leica is screwed ;)
Anyway, rumours ... :p
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t
I've only shot with my new TLR once, but I really
enjoyed composing within a square. Here are the
fruits of my first effort:
http://www.dirtybackroad.com/photos/tlr/index.html
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
While we are on the square format subject , I just picked up
(possibly a mistake) an argus 75 TWL for $15.00 - more out
of curiousity than anything else. IT takes 620
film...ergo..
but is 620 film still called that? I'd kinda like to try
this little antique out - anyone have any experience
You'll need a 620 take up spool. I'll search around and see if I can
find one.
Paul Stenquist
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
On 30 Dec 2001 at 16:56, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
snip
could recommend a good fine grain film for me to play with
in this format? (square 620)
Rob replied:
I have a
Nice thing about a square format is you don't have to worry about mounting
the camera horizontal or vertical because you wish you had a larger format.
You just shoot and crop a little. A shot using a 6x6 format means you don't
have to go through the potential contortions you might need shooting
This thought comes from Bob Monaghan:
The larger the neg the more versatility you gain.
Feel free to use your 6x6 or 6x7 camera as a virtual 6x4.5.
You can change, to a limited degree, some of the characteristics of your image by
shifting the camera to give the same effect as shift the lens on
with the rangefinder and changed film
holders between shots. I guess that's why I think I'm going to prefer the 6x7 to the
square format cameras that I used for may years. More negative to work with. And, as
you note, you can use the extra area to your advantage, even in terms of perspective
control
It seems that one of the objections to using the square format is that
enlarging paper is rectangular. While checking out BH to replenish
my paper stock, I discovered several brands - Agfa, Ilford, Kodak, and
some others - that manufacture square paper.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
While we are on the square format subject , I just picked up
(possibly a mistake) an argus 75 TWL for $15.00 - more out
of curiousity than anything else. IT takes 620
film...ergo..
but is 620 film still called that? I'd kinda like to try
this little antique out - anyone have any experience
On 30 Dec 2001 at 16:56, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
While we are on the square format subject , I just picked up
(possibly a mistake) an argus 75 TWL for $15.00 - more out
of curiousity than anything else. IT takes 620
film...ergo..
but is 620 film still called that? I'd kinda like to try
played against a square
format can have a stronger effect because it goes against the viewer's
expectations and leads to a contrast, which is one of the most
important elements of visual grammar.
Some subjects are well-suited to a square format. These tend to be
ones where there is no strong
in composition. The square
tends to be a more secure, stable and balanced composition. Symmetry
is more obvious within a square, but asymmetry played against a square
format can have a stronger effect because it goes against the viewer's
expectations and leads to a contrast, which is one of the most
Hi, Paul,
With the greatest of respect, that's just a silly argument. Have you never
turned your rectangular format cameras sideways, to capture tall buildings,
statues, etc.? Is that in correspondence with out natural field of vision?
You're just not used to shooting (and perhaps viewing)
It seems humans have a preference for rectangular shapes in art, as Paul
alluded to. Paintings, film, prints, media, books, magazines, movie
screens, are almost universally rectangular.
It makes one ask why?
Tom C.
Tom,
Whatever Huey Lewis says, it is NOT hip to be square. BG
Cory
Nonsense. One crops where appropriate. Effective use of the square
format, just as effective use of any other format, negates or minimizes
the need to crop.
http://www.philborges.com/tibetanportrait/portrait00.html
http://www.philborges.com/enduringspirit/esphoto00.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED
I disagree - why would you want to crop to a rectangle unless your
framing was off. I think there are those who just don't know how to
maximize the format. Square, to me, is just another way of seeing the
world. The windows in many houses are square g.
Some people, it seems, just have to use
I don't use all of the paper, but I almost never crop square. Perhaps it has
something to do with the way we see the world. Our vision is basically
rectangular or, more correctly, oval. I don't know what it is, but I rarely
find square prints pleasing to the eye.
Paul
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I
I like the square format, but, I'll admit, using it requires more care
in framing than when using a rectangular format. However, perhaps
because it's less commonplace, a good image in a square format can
really stand out from the crowd.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't use all of the paper
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0008LF
http://www.philborges.com/tibetanportrait/portrait00.html
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't use all of the paper, but I almost never crop square. Perhaps it has
something to do with the way we see the world. Our vision is basically
A scroll of mail from "Peter Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 5
Apr 2001 00:00:02 +0100
Read it? y
Last weekend I discussed with my eldest son (an poor student) his desire to
do some "square" format photography. He has a Pentax MG and a SFX1n. He
uses the MG mostly and was
I write:
So you would agree with me that for someone on a tight budget
then a used
Yashica would be a better bet than a Kiev?
Maybe, maybe not. A YashicaMat 124-G in Exc condition (or better) could be a
very reliable camera. A new Kiev 88 can be a bit "iffy" right out of the
box. However,
I think your son should experience the square format. There are old Yashica
6 X 6 cameras out there in different price ranges. He might realize that
medium format could be the way to go in his future photographic endeavors.
Jim A.
From: "Peter Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-
Take a pair of scissor to the print!
Otherwise choose your favorite square in the darkroom or on the scanner!
At 12:00 AM 4/5/01 +0100, you wrote:
Last weekend I discussed with my eldest son (an poor student) his desire to
do some "square" format photography. He has a Pentax MG a
75 matches
Mail list logo
