Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] And Another Thing

Subject: Re: [OM] And Another Thing
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:54:52 -0700
OK, so stop listening to the marketing people and think about it.

The most technically sensible sensor is square. A square sensor uses 88% of the image circle of the lens and 35mm uses 59%, or only 2/3 of the square. With a square, you minimize the size, weight and cost of the lens relative to the amount of information gathered. On the other hand the public doesn't particularly like square pictures. If you don't believe this, you haven't looked at the history of photography and don't know how much market research goes into something like a new film format such as APS. So the compromise is a format as close to square as possible. (There is probably lots of market research on this, too.). Once that is established and turns out to be fairly close to 4:3, a standard in TV and computer monitors, the die is cast.

There is no way DCs not based on old 35mm lenses will move toward less square formats in the forseeable future. The 16:9 of HDTV, for example, would require a 22% larger diameter lens than a 4:3 image with the same height. This means a lens area 50% larger. And since lens elements of the same shape get thicker at the center or edge as they get bigger, weight goes up even faster than area. Panorama shots in consumer cameras will continue to come from cropping, internal mechanical (35mm), automated printing (APS) or electronic (DC, once sensor sizes get big enough).

And yes, it's true, there is less waste (7%) of image info in printing 4:3 to 8X10 and the other matching ratio sizes than printing 35mm to the same ratio (20%), but I suspect that had only a small weight in determining the image dimension ratio.

Moose

Thomas Bryhn wrote:

I've been thinking along the same lines. Making images to fit a certain paper size sounds like a pretty silly constraint, something only a marketing department could come up with. Shouldn't paper be made to fit the images? I'm actually amazed there aren't more papers precut to fit the usual modern aspect ratios like 2:3, 1:2 or even 1:3 or 2:5.




< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz