round sensor
- Thread starter zod
- Start date
- Status
first off, I suspect the bayer sensor to be built on a piece of silicon and sliced up just like most cpu's are built today, so if you slice it into circles there's a lot of loss material..
then again, I could be wrong, since people say making a big sensor is more costly, *or it could be a qc problem, ie: you have to discard more FF sensor due to dead pixels etc* just like the LCD industry
then again, I could be wrong, since people say making a big sensor is more costly, *or it could be a qc problem, ie: you have to discard more FF sensor due to dead pixels etc* just like the LCD industry
Your assumption on loss of material is not really true. The amount of unused region in a silicon wafer is a function of the sixe of the uncut silicon, and the different sizes of the final product. Assuming that we are cutting squares and circeles of unit dimension, Erich Friedman (http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/packing.html) lists a list of known bounds on the enveloping circle. A quick check on the density of packing obtained when packign either circles or squares gives the following list:
# of units, circle, square
1, 1, 0.636
2, 0.5, 0.509
3, 0.646, 0.633
4, 0.686, 0.636
5, 0.685, 0.636
6, 0.666, 0.670
Meaning that when you want to pack 5 circles, you can be more dense than packing squares and vice versa when packing 6 items. Of course, the results willl vary when you consider packing different size circles and squares at the same time.
I bet the manufacturers know how best to minimize loss of material and base their decision on making standard sensor sizes on a multitude of other variables like aesthetics, packaging etc etc...
Some one asked a long time back why the lenses are circular and not rectangular. I guess the reasons are, yet again, similar.
Hope you have fun reading the web site mentioned above
cheers
# of units, circle, square
1, 1, 0.636
2, 0.5, 0.509
3, 0.646, 0.633
4, 0.686, 0.636
5, 0.685, 0.636
6, 0.666, 0.670
Meaning that when you want to pack 5 circles, you can be more dense than packing squares and vice versa when packing 6 items. Of course, the results willl vary when you consider packing different size circles and squares at the same time.
I bet the manufacturers know how best to minimize loss of material and base their decision on making standard sensor sizes on a multitude of other variables like aesthetics, packaging etc etc...
Some one asked a long time back why the lenses are circular and not rectangular. I guess the reasons are, yet again, similar.
Hope you have fun reading the web site mentioned above
cheers
zodnm said:
I think round sensors will produce round pictures which will look a little awkward. It's the way our eyes, which most of us have 2, see the world. Our field of vision is more horizontal than vertical. Therefore the rectangular sensors we have now, and stills/motion picture film formats and TV screens too, for that matter. Till evolution deems us necessary with only 1 eye, I guess it is quite unlikely that we will get round sensors?
- Status
Similar threads
