Shooting in portrait orientation

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

RE sensor shape - you guys need to think it through a bit more.

<snip>

Round? - What's your plan for mapping the pixels? What's your plan for reading columns/rows of different lengths? What's your file format for a round image? Are you going to "square it up" with empty black or white pixels around the edge, so that LR or Photoshop can open it?

 

Anyone can have "an idea" - but if you're not the Wright Brothers, or Steve Jobs, or Elon Musk, and actually make it a reality, who cares? How do you plan to make it a reality?

 

I completely agree, ideas are cheap. I'm just trying to kindle the desire. The implementation details are trivially resolved (perhaps not the shutter); we will just need to shut our ears to a lot of noise about the camera being a different shape to an M3.

[Peter H]

I would have no interest in a round-sensored camera. Circular images are not very appealing to me, and there's a good aesthetic reason why so few artists who could relatively easily make a round image don't do so.

 

Square, on the other hand, is wonderful and I'd love a  properly square format digital sensor in a purpose-built camera.

[erl]

I spent most of my working life 'fighting' standard rectangular shapes, as in standard paper sizes et al. I was mostly using a Hasselblad, and still do.

 

Finally, I caved in and accepted that I prefer the square shape over the rectangular, in so many instances. So instead of cropping my negative, I now crop the paper, the same a s a builder cuts a piece of wood to fit his task, instead of the other way round.

 

Finally, my images are free of constraint, (as long as they come from a Hasselblad. )

[Exodies]

I would have no interest in a round-sensored camera. Circular images are not very appealing to me, and there's a good aesthetic reason why so few artists who could relatively easily make a round image don't do so.

 

Square, on the other hand, is wonderful and I'd love a  properly square format digital sensor in a purpose-built camera.

 

The point of the round sensor is that you crop out any shape you want. With a non-round sensor the camera manufacturer has cropped out a shape not suitable for all scenes. What's not to like? The lens provides a circle of pixels, keep them all for the photographer to make an unconstrained selection.

 

As for artists not making round images it's because their imagination is stuck in a box bounded by the canvas rectangle.

[Guest]

The point of the round sensor is that you crop out any shape you want...

...and lose fewer pixels than with any other proportions of the sensor.

The painters' freedom to chose a new canvas for each new picture, while keeping the maximal image quality would be a dream come true.

 

I have never heard of painters in the course of history to be known as "the master of the square format" (as Kenna or Haenle) or of the 3:2 format (HCB et al.), not to mention the masters of the panoramas.

Presently everybody uses digital scissors when cropping (WHAT A WASTE!) whereas with a round sensor each shooter would have his ideal image prportions - always at an optimal resolution.

 

Expecting new camera bodies for existing lens systems with a square sensor (30X30mm?), or 16:9, or 3:1=pano, or, or....is even unlikelier imo.(A different camera body for each format??) But in a saturated market they will look for new niches

 

The photographers' crop as the second resolution loss, after the present cameras' crop from the lenses' full image circle, that would be history.

Looking forward - I'm confident there will be a brand to start this.

(With the horizon leveling - in frontal view - as an extra bonus).

[Peter H]

 

 

.....................

 

As for artists not making round images it's because their imagination is stuck in a box bounded by the canvas rectangle.

 

Hardly. Just take a look at the nearest painted chapel ceiling, triptych, or modern galleries where shapes are taken in directions you'd find hard or even impossible to define. Yet amongst all the variations the circle has always been very rare, even before the days of canvas. 

 

 

 

 

................

 

I have never heard of painters in the course of history to be known as "the master of the square format" (as Kenna or Haenle) or of the 3:2 format (HCB et al.), not to mention the masters of the panoramas.

.....................................

 

Quite: the format is not the important thing, but a circle, perhaps simply by becoming uncommon because people don't like it much, draws attention to itself and makes its shape a more significant element in the image that shape ought to be.

 

And, circular images are not popular so I suspect more wasteful cropping would be needed more often than with a square, where quite often no cropping at all would be needed, otherwise why use a square format in the first place? I accept that cropping has already taken place from the circle, but I don't want to compose in a circle knowing I'll always have to crop. I suppose though that the camera could accommodate this in many ways, but there's little that compares with the simple beauty of a Rolleiflex (or Hasselblad if you must go downmarket!) focussing screen.

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In all due respect: circular images as a print or on the screen are besides the point, I'm afraid.

 

Not having the proportions of my images dictated by the camera is very interesting imo.

The maximal visual information that comes through the lens unreduced at the fingertips of the photographer, that would be welcome.

[Peter H]

In all due respect: circular images as a print or on the screen are besides the point, I'm afraid.

.......

 

 

Don't be afraid.

[erl]

Considering the circular image produced naturally by a lens I can't help wondering why some protagonists desire to capture all those aberrations that exist in the outer fringes of the circle. At least with the square or rectangular crop from the circle, most of them are eliminated or reduced. No real loss, but rather a gain of sorts in most cases. Of course I realize some photographers like to stop down more than I do and may solve some problems that way.

 

A Noctilux may be an exception. I do like the wide open aberration facility sometimes, but still prefer it in the rectangular configuration offered by Leica.

[Guest]

that was my exact answer 40 years ago, when I visited England as a teen-ager for the first time, upon hearing this polite introduction/end of a sentence, not expressing full agreement.

 

Serious: as far as the internet gossip goes, presently the research-heat is on - in the field of 3D in mobile phones.

 

But a small photo-company that dared to bring out cameras, that don't show colours und sells lots of them for > 5k each

is at the same time "putting duct tape" (as Carlos suggested in a previous post here) on Mr. Koudelka's S-digital camera to take his magnificent panoramas.

 

Imagine no discussion any more, as to what is better: to hold the camera in portrait mode either with both elbows tucked against the ribs, or with the right arm pretending to scratch the head in an artistic gesture.

No second set of buttons on the back of pro-Canikons for portrait mode either.

No more snide remarks about the horizon on photo-fora...etc

 

It would make photography easier, TECHNICALLY better and most of all: more FREE for the users' creativity.

Those investing into R&D have to decide how it would sell.

[Guest]

Considering the circular image produced naturally by a lens I can't help wondering why some protagonists desire to capture all those aberrations that exist in the outer fringes of the circle. At least with the square or rectangular crop from the circle, most of them are eliminated or reduced. No real loss, but rather a gain of sorts in most cases. Of course I realize some photographers like to stop down more than I do and may solve some problems that way.

 

A Noctilux may be an exception. I do like the wide open aberration facility sometimes, but still prefer it in the rectangular configuration offered by Leica.

Now it's two times cropping when not using the full 24X36

 

If the above quoted was a major concern (specially when using some of the best lenses in the world, the ones with the red dot) smaller sensor bodies for full-frame lenses would be the way to go.

[Exodies]

You often see comments "I don't crop". If the camera produced a circle and you wanted a 24*36 rectangle then you would have to abandon this kind of declaration. Is there any other downside to having a circular sensor?

[Peter H]

You often see comments "I don't crop". If the camera produced a circle and you wanted a 24*36 rectangle then you would have to abandon this kind of declaration. Is there any other downside to having a circular sensor?

 

 

Yes.

 

The intolerable risk that we'd start seeing loads of circular photos.

[ECohen]

You often see comments "I don't crop". If the camera produced a circle and you wanted a 24*36 rectangle then you would have to abandon this kind of declaration. Is there any other downside to having a circular sensor?

 

When I first saw the suggestion of a circular sensor.....I thought you guys were kidding............are you?

"Is there any other downside to having a circular sensor"   .........custom mats    My vote would be for square  as the perfect most flexible format but it depends ...on a lot of things. Mostly  on resolution and the size of the camera.

As for this Forum I love the Leica M and 35mm Full Frame ....it works for me and what and how I shoot. Also I don't want the camera any bigger.

 

 

On a different note  as to cropping 

I was taught in school not to crop, It made you more deliberate. Teaching you to understand your choice of focal length and your commitment to the image...before shooting. We filed out our negative carriers as proof of that commitment 

Forty years later I still think about not cropping  as I shoot and print.......Today its more of a preferred way of working not a rule...yes I do crop...when necessary. Not cropping is a valuable technique when learning the craft. 

One should never shoot with the intention of "figuring" it out later.

 

Working professionally ...you have to crop ...your shooting square and the clients wants an 8X10. Or for perhaps the photo will have many uses and needs different formats.

 Most of the time, I know as I shoot that I'll need to crop a little for different reasons.

 

How do you all look at cropping ?

.....Is ok to change the direction of the thread? 

[Exodies]

Yes.

 

The intolerable risk that we'd start seeing loads of circular photos.

 

Peter H, your eyes are circular. Don't fight it.

 

ECohen, the square that fits in the circle which covers 24*36 is less than 36 on a side so you would be throwing away more light than we currently are. Waste not, want not.

[ECohen]

Peter H, your eyes are circular. Don't fight it.

 

ECohen, the square that fits in the circle which covers 24*36 is less than 36 on a side so you would be throwing away more light than we currently are. Waste not, want not.

 

 

 

OK  I'm flexible...I can work with the circular and I can see how that is the perfect format . I never considered the lens into that equation ...you are 100% correct.

 

Lets call marketing and get this new format rolling      ........I'm going to need a new mat cutting machine

[Peter H]

Peter H, your eyes are circular. Don't fight it.

 

.....,,,,,,,,,

But my brain isn't.

 

Though it sometimes leads me round and round.

[marchyman]

I love the direction this thread is taking.   

 

As for sensor shape -- I do like the 6x7 aspect ratio, especially when it comes with a rotating back a la the Mamiya RB67.  However, I guess I'm still thinking inside the box. 

 

The add on focus tab I ordered for my 75mm Summarit arrived.  There is no longer any excuse for getting my thumb in the way when shooting in any orientation.

[Guest]

Yes.

 

The intolerable risk that we'd start seeing loads of circular photos.

We all see a 3D film on an screen in the shape of a horizontally oriented ellipse all day long, all life long. Except when we blink or close our eyes.

 

The problem might be, whether the ones in charge (of generating a good return on investment) see this as a marketable concept.

 

The timing is right: now everybody's got their 2 to xy number of cameras already.

What's the next successful thing? This is their problem: much, much more than our problem.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

We all see a 3D film on an screen in the shape of a horizontally oriented ellipse all day long, all life long. Except when we blink or close our eyes.

..................

 

 

I think you understate to a radical degree the role of the brain in the process of interpreting visual input.

 

I agree with the rest of your post though.