Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Square Sensor

Robert Hofmeyr

Robert Hofmeyr

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
South Africa
Hi everyone. This is my first post but I've been lurking for a while. I've rented a Red One a few times in the past for music videos and have found the collection of knowledge on this forum to be invaluable. So thanks for that.

I've had an idea and wanted to see if you guys think it makes sense. Why not add 33% in size to the FF Epic/Scarlet sensor and make the sensor square? Then, when shooting stills, one can flip between portrait and landscape at the push of a button (no need for a bottom handle, much faster when on a tripod) or shoot full frame square images at 36MP.

A square senson on a VDSLR would also allow one to shoot video with the camera on it's side, which I think would reduce the jello on horizontal motion.
 
Sounds like a plan... if you don't mind a 50%+ Increase in price. I'll stick with 3:2.

3x2 = 6
3x3 = 9

9 - 6 = 3

3/6 = 1/2 = 50% more pixels. More ASICs more boards more $$.
 
The other counter to your proposal Robert is that you can crop the sides of the sensor to get a square image and that on a 6K or 9K camera you can probably spare some pixels.

IBloom
 
That's true. I do like square as a photographic ratio. And on the S35 that would give me about a 7MP image. However, what I'm referring to is the ability to shoot portrait as well without tilting the camera (and cropping a landscape image to portrait will waste a lot of resolution).

The other reason a square sensor would be useful for the DSMC system is that it would be great to be able to carry one tripod for both stills and motion and most video heads can't tilt the camera 90 degrees.
 
Just to point out for a point of interest, the Phantom HD Gold does in fact have a square sensor.
 
This would be great for IMAX. In fact, it might seal the deal, because then you could use the entire "6K" for IMAX, without chopping off the sides.

Would Canon FF35 lenses, for example, cover a square FF35 sensor?
 
How about the Zeiss Compact Primes?
 
Tom L said:
How about the Zeiss Compact Primes?
Click to expand...

Dunno. Internal baffles are sometimes indicated on the lens diagrams, but I could find any lens diagrams on the web. Permanent 3:2 lens hoods are visible looking at the lens itself, and sometimes you can see the internal baffles that way too.

Robert Hofmeyr said:
That's interesting Daniel. I assumed most lenses had a circular image area. Is this the case with any stills lenses?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is, but I don't know how many or which ones. It occurs in lenses starting at least in the 70's all the way up to the most recent lenses. Here are a few that do have 3:2 baffling internally or permanent hoods:

Nikon 300mm f2.8
Nikon 200mm f4 macro
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8
Nikon 55mm f2.8 macro
Nikon 14mm f2.8

As mentioned above, the cost of the sensor itself can be an issue. Just going from 36x24 to 36x36 causes the cost to increase by a factor of 2 or more, because cost rises *exponentially* with area.

But I think the more vital issue is the glass itself. The optimal lens hood for a 3:2 sensor blocks out a lot of stray light and reduces flare. A 1:1 sensor would require a much less beneficial hood, resulting in more veiling glare, flare, and loss of contrast. Same thing with internal baffling.

But even if you're willing to live with more flare, all the other aberrations are far more difficult and expensive to correct over an image circle that large, just as it is more difficult to correct aberrations for 60 lp/mm on MF 645 than it is for 60 lp/mm on FF35.

My preference for moving images is 2:1 baffled to 16:9, because you don't lose much going to 16:9 or 2.35:1. But for stills I prefer 3:2 because I often crop to 5:4 or 16:9.
 
in the case of square sensor.. motion guys should think anamorphic.. that's 36Mp for the wide image shot on more than Full Frame.. isn't that an interresting format.. in case no body shoots 35mm horizontal these days.. and if so.. its limited 8-perf = 36x24mm ... not 36x36mm and add anamorphic.. it would be nicer than 35mm hor for IMAX releases..
 
When I look through the back of a Canon 24 or 50mm or whatever wide open, I don't see anything blocking the image circle.
 
Tom L said:
When I look through the back of a Canon 24 or 50mm or whatever wide open, I don't see anything blocking the image circle.
Click to expand...

When I look through the front of my Canon 24mm f/1.4 II, I see a 3:2 rectangular baffle behind the 5th element (in front of the first focusing group).
 
Oh, I see. Yes, I see that in the front of my 24 Mark I.

So this would interrupt the image? I guess it could be rehoused?
 
Mohammed El Sharqawy said:
in the case of square sensor.. motion guys should think anamorphic.. that's 36Mp for the wide image shot on more than Full Frame.. isn't that an interresting format.. in case no body shoots 35mm horizontal these days.. and if so.. its limited 8-perf = 36x24mm ... not 36x36mm and add anamorphic.. it would be nicer than 35mm hor for IMAX releases..
Click to expand...

Yeah but where are you going to find a FF35 anamorphic lens? The S35 M-X sensor almost covers 4:3 academy which most anamorphic lenses are designed to cover.
 
Tom L said:
Oh, I see. Yes, I see that in the front of my 24 Mark I.

So this would interrupt the image?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it would cause vignetting of a 36x36 image. Only way to know for sure is to put it on a 36x36 lens projector, I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top