At 07:54 29.06.2003, Moose wrote:
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.
No you don't! You stop your argument when it's only half finished, by your
logic the sensors should be circular. It's a sound argument, and I have no
problem with square or circular sensors, or banana shaped for that matter.
My point was only that it puzzles me to see film manufacturers use one set
of length/width ratios, paper manufacturers a second set, and now digital
sensors use a third - and it's largely the same companies. If they REALLY
wanted to do it right and minimize waste, they'd first make a sensor in the
aspect ratio people use the most and then make the papers to fit. Instead
they throw us a line about reducing waste by making the sensor fit the
century old paper dimensions - without mentioning what ratio people
actually prefer and use when they print/enlarge - and then the sensor
doesn't even fit the paper.
I'm not loosing sleep over this, it's just an observation.
Thomas
< 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 >
|