Darylcheshire
04-02-2010, 04:45 PM
I read with interest a thread in dpReview about a company who is prototyping cameras with circular sensors from http://www.rokton.com/
Some dpReview forum posters claimed that this was an April Fools joke and the article disappeared from dpReview. However the original link to rokton remains so I don't know if it's real concept or an April Fools joke.
Joke or not, it got me thinking.
Leaf released an Aptus II camera with rotating sensor. It would be redundant if it had a circular sensor instead.
I used to use a Hasselblad 500C which had a 6x6 CM film frame and a chest height viewer, so a square frame got around the need to use a look down viewer sideways.
I'm no professional and I'm not a video maker.
A circular sensor would have the following advantages:
The rectangular format would be a matter of post processing in software and not by hardware.
A circular movie would have interesting possibilities.
lenses make circular images and is currently cropped into a rectangle.
Apparently "full frame" is easier on a wider choice of lenses because vignetting would be eliminated.
Old and obsolete lenses could be used and be a matter of adapters rather than how it would fit in a rectangle.
Printing pictures on CDs and DVDs would be a lot easier.
The eye is circular.
The iris is circular
some cameras (like Hasselblad) used a circular shutter (iris) mechanism, I'm not sure about movie cameras. I think they use a rotating shutter of some type. may be no advantage there.
possibly, you could have more options by varying the distance between the lens and the sensor as you won't have to worry about fitting it into a rectangle as this would be a matter of post processing. You could vary the crop ratio by moving the lens in or out. eg from 1.6 to a 1.0 and change a standard lens into a small telephoto. Might be a return to the bellows type camera. Tilt and shift lenses would be easier too.
I don't know how much harder it would be to produce circular sensors in the factory, as they are (I think) are cut from a big circle of silicon, so there would be more wastage cutting circles than if they are cut into rectangles. What if they are grown into the right size rather than (say) a 3 foot diameter circle? Would that improve the yield, if they are grown smaller in the first place? On the other hand, growing a crystal may be too expensive to do this for each camera compared to making a number of sensors from a great big circle.
What if movies could vary the aspect ratio during viewing? So you play the circular movie and vary the aspect ratio for extra effect? That would be hell on the frame rate? The jello effect may be reduced by post processing.
The subject matter could determine the aspect ratio in real time, such as panoramas, railway and road photos or variable aspect ratios to suit room sizes and confined spaces like submarines or space ships which would be good for circular format.
Camera design can be based on a cylinder.
Would two circular (binocular) movies make a better 3D experience?
Anyway it might be a fantasy and it was interesting thinking about it. (disclaimer) I clearly shown you that I'm not a movie maker nor a professional, but I do have a good SLR
I haven't gone into the technical obstacles.
Film forced us to think about rectangles.
Thanks for reading this rambling discourse.
Daryl.
Some dpReview forum posters claimed that this was an April Fools joke and the article disappeared from dpReview. However the original link to rokton remains so I don't know if it's real concept or an April Fools joke.
Joke or not, it got me thinking.
Leaf released an Aptus II camera with rotating sensor. It would be redundant if it had a circular sensor instead.
I used to use a Hasselblad 500C which had a 6x6 CM film frame and a chest height viewer, so a square frame got around the need to use a look down viewer sideways.
I'm no professional and I'm not a video maker.
A circular sensor would have the following advantages:
The rectangular format would be a matter of post processing in software and not by hardware.
A circular movie would have interesting possibilities.
lenses make circular images and is currently cropped into a rectangle.
Apparently "full frame" is easier on a wider choice of lenses because vignetting would be eliminated.
Old and obsolete lenses could be used and be a matter of adapters rather than how it would fit in a rectangle.
Printing pictures on CDs and DVDs would be a lot easier.
The eye is circular.
The iris is circular
some cameras (like Hasselblad) used a circular shutter (iris) mechanism, I'm not sure about movie cameras. I think they use a rotating shutter of some type. may be no advantage there.
possibly, you could have more options by varying the distance between the lens and the sensor as you won't have to worry about fitting it into a rectangle as this would be a matter of post processing. You could vary the crop ratio by moving the lens in or out. eg from 1.6 to a 1.0 and change a standard lens into a small telephoto. Might be a return to the bellows type camera. Tilt and shift lenses would be easier too.
I don't know how much harder it would be to produce circular sensors in the factory, as they are (I think) are cut from a big circle of silicon, so there would be more wastage cutting circles than if they are cut into rectangles. What if they are grown into the right size rather than (say) a 3 foot diameter circle? Would that improve the yield, if they are grown smaller in the first place? On the other hand, growing a crystal may be too expensive to do this for each camera compared to making a number of sensors from a great big circle.
What if movies could vary the aspect ratio during viewing? So you play the circular movie and vary the aspect ratio for extra effect? That would be hell on the frame rate? The jello effect may be reduced by post processing.
The subject matter could determine the aspect ratio in real time, such as panoramas, railway and road photos or variable aspect ratios to suit room sizes and confined spaces like submarines or space ships which would be good for circular format.
Camera design can be based on a cylinder.
Would two circular (binocular) movies make a better 3D experience?
Anyway it might be a fantasy and it was interesting thinking about it. (disclaimer) I clearly shown you that I'm not a movie maker nor a professional, but I do have a good SLR
I haven't gone into the technical obstacles.
Film forced us to think about rectangles.
Thanks for reading this rambling discourse.
Daryl.