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 tas
rorestrial 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: Pen
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 ci
I highly doubt that but would like to be proven wrong, please do :)
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Francis 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 little less
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 t
er 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 cou
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.
You win!
:)
Though the chances of us getting a round sensor in the next Pentax
camera are about the
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.
On Apr 26, 2009, at 07:16 , Mark Roberts wrote:
Sandy Harris wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Dario Bonazza wrote:
I've
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
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
7;m oversimplifying, but I'd say a virtue of 1:1 is that it
subtracts many elements of "shape" and leaves the focus on the
picture.
I don't know how long my current 1:1 mania will last, but at the
moment I'd love to try working with a square sensor. -Tim
--
PDML Pe
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi 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 B&H or Robert
>> White sized ones, are not 'Industry Source
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 B&H or Robert
White sized ones, are not 'Industry Sources', even if well-connected.
I've heard far sillier things from the ow
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi 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 dead' typ
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 e
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>>
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> Certainly not marketable
On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
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 sho
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi 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 i
Since I process my own images, I'd love the aspect ratio flexibility provided
by a square format. IOW, if I were given an equal IQ choice of either square or
rectangular, it would be no contest.
Shot with a Mamiya6 for some years.
Jack.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
- 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
&g
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, Hasselbl
. 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 not surprising they've kept their
> square-format film cameras.
>
> The ratio of sensor-cost-to-practical-advant
provide the "sensor") so it's not surprising they've kept their
square-format film cameras.
The ratio of sensor-cost-to-practical-advantage is why we aren't going
to see a DSLR with a square sensor.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mail
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:38 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: "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 U
- 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 us
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 nic
.net] On Behalf 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
ormat. A square sensor would do me very nicely.
Square format photographs have been the standard for record albums, CD
jewel cases, etc for, what, 60 years? It's a pretty big niche.
Godfrey
On Apr 26, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Certainly not marketable. Most photogr
x27;s still a niche.
Paul
On Apr 26, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Sandy Harris wrote:
Mark Roberts 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
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Mark Roberts 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 most of
> us). A
Sandy Harris wrote:
Mark Roberts 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 giv
Mark Roberts 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 an
32 matches
Mail list logo
