[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_20210610_164810.jpg (357 KB, 1080x1848)
357 KB
357 KB JPG
I know canon -just- started to R&D curved sensors (https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/canon-has-just-patented-its-first-lenses-for-a-curved-sensor) but how useful will they theoretically be?

Obviously more light means more dynamic range, and the lenses/mounts don't have to change as its the body/sensor that is being optimized, so its viable to do from a business standpoint because it doesn't canaibalize full frame and aspc against a new format. And hey it forces a sense of FOMO for people with bodies without curved sensors, they'll feel like how people with MF or ASPC bodies feel when they know a FF lens they have in their kit performs better with a FF body because it captures more light. So it's happen eventually because money is to be made.

What really are the pros and cons though?

Won't you need to crop in your pictures to prevent them from looking like a circle thus potentially negating all the benefits? Or is possible to squeeze/desqueeze like an anamorphic lens(complete with 'favorable abnormalities' like elongated bokeh?).

Or perhaps we'll just adapt to ovalular pictures because they're closer to how our eyes perceive things? Or maybe even if we crop we still maintain the resolution of a non curved sensors with the benefit of added DR and less noise? Would a FF circular sensor be a half step to the DR we can find on medium format or would it be equivalent?
>>
File: IMG_20210610_170842.jpg (100 KB, 1080x902)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
I'm not good at math but it does seem that if you grab the pieces of wasted light from Asp and overlay them over the FF sensor it becomes really close if not equivalent to FF
>>
File: 1554912304787.png (541 KB, 550x462)
541 KB
541 KB PNG
>>3899401
You WILL invest in new lens mount every 5 years.
>>
File: TEDWASRIGHT.jpg (220 KB, 1200x800)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
EVERY
DAY
WE
STRAY
FARTHER
FROM
GOD
>>
>>3899401
>>3899406
Curved as in not flat, not as in not rectangular.
It will be useful just for lenses calibrated for it, likely a fixed lens camera instead of an interchangeable one.
>>
>>3899408
Eh I've had my d3300 for half a decade+ (released in 2014 jesus time flies), I just like looking at the incremental improvements.
>>
>>3899427
Ah I see. A dedicated 35mm FF with great DR and low noise sounds p gud to me
>>
File: spaceplate-2-800x494.jpg (115 KB, 800x494)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
Spaceplate is the future.
>>
>>3899437
Fascinating. Gonna try and follow each contributer to that study for updates
>>
>>3899401
Pro is for Canon, they can make a new mount that's not compatible with any old lenses, and ask you for more dosh to upgrade to the new tech.
>>
File: tab-1.jpg (56 KB, 490x490)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>3899476
>laughs in K-mount
>>
I don't want round sensors.
I want square lenses.
Make it fucking happen, geniuses.
>>
File: Trifocal.jpg (48 KB, 903x1024)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>3899491
almost there

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareCapture One 12.0.4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Width903
Image Height1024
>>
>>3899486
Lel
>>
>>3899406
>if you grab the pieces of wasted light from Asp and overlay them over the FF sensor it becomes really close if not equivalent to FF
aren't you just describing a speedbooster?
>>
>>3899551
I don't know I'm not a camera engineer lol. If so uh cool
>>
>>3899401
A curved sensor would ensure that corners are sharper. On a flat sensor, the corners are a touch further from the Center of the lens so the projected image is sharpest just before it hits the corners. But some lenses seems to be able to deal with this, especially more expensive ones lately.

As for round sensors, they wouldn’t be brighter at all, not would they have better dynamic range. They would just record the light that’s coming in anyway but landing past the sensor edge. You would just get a circular image. That’s all. Each pixel would still be recording the same amount of light as on a normal shaped sensor
>>
>>3899486
I’ll never accept Kardassian technology!
>>
>>3899856
Ahhh I see thanks for the explanation
>>
>>3899858
>Kardassian technology
Yeah, it’s famous for being famous, but in reality contributes nothing to anything.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width234
Image Height216
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3899401
its' not wasted light, it's waste image, if you were to capture that light, you would be technically changing the FoV of the lens, if you're curving the sensor to capture more like you're just adding distortion which will need further corrections to what your lens already needs and hence lower IQ. This is not going to be for consumer cameras, but probably some sort of automation systems sensor tech
>>
File: square-bokeh.png (174 KB, 1008x567)
174 KB
174 KB PNG
>>3899491
No thanks.
>>
>>3899401
This just seems like a way to keep 3rd party lens makers at bay for a while, so customers are locked into the lens library of whatever matches their brand's signature sensor curve.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.