What do you think about a this square sensor design

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

What do you think about a this square sensor design

(13 posts) (8 voices)

Started 3 years ago by bmxdad
Latest reply from bmxdad
Related Topics:
1. Like Samsung's new Dual Sensor design, what about a dual D3X sensor for MF

Tags:

bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Hi There

I am sure you have all fought with flash brackets and tripods etc when shooting vertical (portrait) I certainly have. Even just adjusting camera settings while the camera is turned to shooting portrait can be difficult (flipping the camera back to horizontal is mostly what I end up doing)

Now I tried to post this idea on Dpreview and other have also in the past including this Pentax rumor. Yes If you look at my post it did not get a very warm respond, I hope that you are more open minded to a new idea

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=30983324

What I like to see in future SLR's is a square sensor with electronic masking for 2by3, 4by5 and 9by16 (mainly for video) crop and vertical to horizontal switching:

DX would be the first to be made this way, because I think FX would need to have an Electronic Viewfinder due to the app 32by32 mm sensor would make the mirror to large to fit inside the camera body

Yes I realize the cost will increase to somewhere between DX and FX, but cost of sensors are falling

The Sensor should be app 23by23 mm, Then you will get (note: portrait setting might not work or need extra cropping) on all DX lenses but most people would properly use FX lenses for portrait anyway

No need to turn camera for portrait, flash is always on top, no need to fight with that bracket. Easy to use on tripod

Portrait (4by5 crop) will have larger mm2 sensor area used than regular DX

DX app 18.8mm (80% of 23.6mm) by 15.8mm = app 297 mm2
DX square app 23.0mm by 18.4 mm (80% of 23mm) = app 423 mm2 (some DX lenses would need to be cropped more)
FX app 28.8mm (80% of 36mm) by 24mm = app 688 mm2

So if my D300 is using app 10MP in portrait crop (12/6 * 5)MP
then the DX square sensor would use (423/297 * 10)MP = 14.2MP If using same pixel density.

Yes normal 2by3 crop would be smaller

DX app 23.6mm by 15.8mm = app 373 mm2
DX square app 23mm by 15.3 mm ( 66% of 23mm) = app 351 mm2
FX app 36mm by 24mm = app 861 mm2

When you shot portrait pictures you don't have to worry if what you see in your viewfinder will actually fit in that planned 8by10 frame, because what you see in your viewfinder will work. Someone on the Dpreview forum kind of cut me down for admitting that I have shot pictures to tight and suddenly having to decide to crop or move up to a 8by12 frame, but I am sure that some you have done that a few times

Anyway sorry for this long story, but I think we all properly a few years back thought that this digital thing would newer replace our film SLR's but it did, video also would newer invade our SLR's but it did, so why not make the digital SLR even more digital and move on to a Square Sensor

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I think I mentioned it some where else recently as well .. I have not done the maths but I think I would prefer to see a roundish sensor design(probably Octagonal) before I see a Square one. Which will allow you to have Whatever configuration (X : Y) and provide the maximum MP count with minimal edge degradation. with the least amount of wasted ( masked out) area for any configuration. My Patent! :-)

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

well this is exactly the same reason people used to shoot 6x6 (two and a quarter) instead of 645 or 35mm, just in a digital implementation.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

I was thinking about it for some time, and I post this thoughts here as something I wish for.
I agree on most thongs but your math is not entirely correct.
Maximum usable DX square sensor must have maximum 20.08mm sides to have exact the same diagonal as current DX sensors and to be able to use all current DX lenses, but if we consider that much smaller area of the sensor would be at the lowest quality circular area of the lens regarding light fall off (Vignetting) or loss of sharpness we could probably enlarge this to still safe 20.5 mm. Schematic drawing of this is here:

If we maintain current pixel density of the sensor calculation would be:
APS-C Sensor 23.6mm x 15.8mm 372.88mm2 12.00Mpix
Square Sensor 20.5mm x 20.5mm 420.25mm2 13.52Mpix
If we crop this to be able to print borderless on A4 paper size it would give:
20.5mm x 14.5mm 297.16mm2 9.56Mpix
Old 4 by 5 crops would give:
20.5mm x 16.40mm 336.20mm2 10.82Mpix
Traditional 2 by 3 crops would give:
20.5mm x 13,67mm 280,17mm2 9,02Mpix
All resolutions and crops are very usable in my opinion.
Octagonal sensor would certainly give better results but would be very hard to cut that shape in production.
One other thing to consider, square sensor would eliminate the need to rotate the camera and would give possibility to design camera body more ergonomically.

Posted 3 years ago #
New Fanboy

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 19
offline

Generally, I like the idea.

For some reason, it made me think of my first camera -- a Polaroid Square Shooter.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Hi Thanks for your positive feedback

Yes your are right that 23mm by 23mm square would be outside the circle of most DX lenses.

Anyway, 2by3 crop OK and closer to regular DX resolution

4by5 would properly need DX lenses (I use mostly DX lenses for Portrait anyway) to be OK but you gain app 3 MP

Electronic Masking could be done if needed

Last and most important, This idea would not be very like by the Canon Crowd, because the longer mirror will not work with their AF-S lenses

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I doubt that there will be square sensors for DSLR's, more likely octagonal as they gave You all the pros of circular sensors and are much cheaper to produce (much less unused material is being destroyed).

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

If you think about it the sensor chip is just an integrated circuit that could be actually left square and there is no need to make it octagonal or any other shape.
Active and photosensitive pixel layer on it could be any shape you like, octagonal or even circular.

Posted 3 years ago #
longzoom

member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 16
offline

I am afraid sensor based on DX couldn't be enough - do not forget a printing crop about 25-30%. FX-based sensor with diagonal not bigger than 43,1mm to accept already existed lenses looks more promising. 35-38 MP ready for printing crop looks OK.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

mb - I pretty much understand sensor's production process, but the fact is that with the graph You've posted square is not an option, You either need a circular sensor - like You've proposed or octagonal which in one hand will do the same job, and in other is cheaper to produce, as You can cut more of them form one big waffle.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

In my graph only red square represents the proposed sensor, horizontal and vertical rectangles are just there to show different positions and size of current APS-C sensors.
Rectangular integrated circuits, square or not, are standard for today production technology, and they are cut from wafer into shape using big, thin and sharp circular sows in just 2 operations, first to cut stripes that contains couple of chips in line, and second to cut individual chips.
Octagonal chips would require 4 more cuts and rotation of every single silicon dye which would be time consuming, technologically challenging and risky because silicon dyes are very fragile, and you will have to do the same difficult process on a color array and microcell layer that are integral part of sensors and you would not actually save anything as we could see here:

Actually you could use wafer surface of the square chips unused by photosensitive elements to integrate chipset circuitry on the sensor itself that would really be beneficial.

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

Perhaps you've already read about this: http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canonrumors%2Frss+%28Canon+Rumors%29

Posted 2 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Yes, my square sensor is back, and as sensor cost moves down it would make sense to have a square sensor, Pro Cameras first, then lesser cameras later as sensor cost moves down even more. I really think that default picture proportion in DSLR should move to 4by5 from the current 2by3, I would love to use a camera that does not have the flash either on a bracket, which I rarely use anymore, simply makes my camera huge and clumsy, or flash sticking to the side with my small softbox attached

It would be so much easier to aim portrait sport shots if camera stays the same direction, controls are easier to adjust while in that mode etc

Pete

Thanks for finding this, BTW my first post on NR

Posted 2 years ago #