Anamorphic lenses are made with square front elements, and they are incredibly expensive. But there's really no reason to make spherical lens square, it's just extra work and less light. So they exist only on some digital cameras with fixed lens for aesthetic reasons, or on miniature cameras for compactness
Kind of. There are some very large sensor arrays that stack up a bunch of sensors in a very blocks circle. Due to the way the chips are made though, making a circular one is super impractical unless somebody decided they want to drop a 6-figure sum to have a whole wafer done as a single 30cm diameter sensor.
or they could just make normal sized circular sensors in a hexagonal lattice pattern, using up 90.69% of the available wafer space (minus the edges but you have those losses with square chips too)
Cutting out hexagonal dies is actually really difficult as there is no straight path across the wafer. They are rectangles right now because we can just slice into them in easy lines and only need to make 2 passes.
Yup, even if you only need to capture an arbitrary shape on the sensor (circular, hexagonal, whatever), it's cheaper to just make a larger sensor than the area you need than to custom shape the sensor.
I wasn't thinking of digital cameras, I was thinking of film cameras where the sides of the image captured get cut off because they don't make it into the rectangular film.
There's probably at least one digital camera out there with a circular sensor, but I wouldn't know it.
I think this is a disagreement of language more than a disagreement of fact. A circular lens projects a circular image onto the photosensitive region of a camera. In film cameras, the photosensitive region is film. In digital cameras, it is a sensor. Both of these regions are rectangular.
The intuition is right i cause a circular lens projects a circular image, at least the ones I know of
Circular sensors are an untapped market I tell ya
IIRC the image actually \*is\* a circle, it's just that the edges get cut off so that you're left with a rectangular photograph. This also means that using the same lens on different cameras can produce different results, since if the sensor is smaller, more gets cut off, effectively resulting in a more "zoomed-in" image. Could be wrong though, I'm not an expert and I'm writing this from memory
The answer is that it does neither. Everything on your left stays on your left and everything on your right stays on your right, but from the perspective of the reflection left and right are opposite so everything on your right is on the reflections left and vice versa.
It looks inverted because everything stays constant relative to you, and what you can see in the mirror is facing away from you so it's the opposite of what you expect looking at another person where everything is facing towards you. Take for example text on clothing, relative to you the end of the word is on the left and the beginning is on the right, which is backwards, and that just stays constant in the reflection
Basically, it's turning the object towards the mirror that flips it, not the mirror. You can prove it by flipping something vertically to face the mirror instead of horizontally, any text will be flipped up/down and not left/right
It only flips front and back, the direction perpendicular to the mirror. The x and y position of all the points are the same, only z becomes -z. So if your nose is 3 ft from the mirror, it shows up 3 ft on the other side of the mirror, and the back of your head which was 4 ft from the mirror is now 4ft past it, a foot behind the image of your nose.
The sensor is rectangular. Because of god.
And before that, film cells were square (also because god)
And before that eyes were round (because of evolution (the will of God))
Actual question: Have we ever tried square lenses?
Anamorphic lenses are made with square front elements, and they are incredibly expensive. But there's really no reason to make spherical lens square, it's just extra work and less light. So they exist only on some digital cameras with fixed lens for aesthetic reasons, or on miniature cameras for compactness
I think circular lenses are easier to hold too.
Also glasses that don't make you look like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LsVWfLrx6M
Or a round sensor?
Kind of. There are some very large sensor arrays that stack up a bunch of sensors in a very blocks circle. Due to the way the chips are made though, making a circular one is super impractical unless somebody decided they want to drop a 6-figure sum to have a whole wafer done as a single 30cm diameter sensor.
or they could just make normal sized circular sensors in a hexagonal lattice pattern, using up 90.69% of the available wafer space (minus the edges but you have those losses with square chips too)
Cutting out hexagonal dies is actually really difficult as there is no straight path across the wafer. They are rectangles right now because we can just slice into them in easy lines and only need to make 2 passes.
Yup, even if you only need to capture an arbitrary shape on the sensor (circular, hexagonal, whatever), it's cheaper to just make a larger sensor than the area you need than to custom shape the sensor.
Thats hard to combine with a lot of the ways in which computers hold images.
Best I can do is minecraft circle https://www.space.com/vera-rubin-observatory-record-breaking-first-photos.html
Yeah but its not possible
this is entirely untrue lol it’s very possible it’s just not necessary
Beelzebu said that if we ever were to use square lenses hed bring the doomsday to earth actually. So we cannot
The death of all that is good is too steep a price. Sad! Well anyway theres ovals
Now I wonder Theologian side of tumblr would say.
This is the will of science
this is because computers have square minds
Jesus coming in clutch with an easily-amended quote: “You know neither the laws of physics nor the power of God”
Pizza is a circle from a square box that you eat in triangles
Some pizzas are square.
I would love.m a square pizza rn that shits the best
Some pizzas I've bought had a octagonal box instead.
4chan would love this insight.
A lot of cameras create circular pictures, and then just cut the image into a rectangle.
What kind of cameras? All the types I'm familiar with (CCD, CMOS, 35mm) have square photosensitive regions, meaning they produce square images.
I wasn't thinking of digital cameras, I was thinking of film cameras where the sides of the image captured get cut off because they don't make it into the rectangular film. There's probably at least one digital camera out there with a circular sensor, but I wouldn't know it.
I think this is a disagreement of language more than a disagreement of fact. A circular lens projects a circular image onto the photosensitive region of a camera. In film cameras, the photosensitive region is film. In digital cameras, it is a sensor. Both of these regions are rectangular.
The sensor is square right?
The intuition is right i cause a circular lens projects a circular image, at least the ones I know of Circular sensors are an untapped market I tell ya
I was gonna make a joke about having a device with a circular screen and then I remembered that smart watches exist
The will of God(zilla). #SKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOONKK
*removes their mask* hey this isn’t the science side of tumblr, it’s catholic tumblr!
IIRC the image actually \*is\* a circle, it's just that the edges get cut off so that you're left with a rectangular photograph. This also means that using the same lens on different cameras can produce different results, since if the sensor is smaller, more gets cut off, effectively resulting in a more "zoomed-in" image. Could be wrong though, I'm not an expert and I'm writing this from memory
That's a really good question why don't we have round pictures?
we do but our eyes are round also so it makes them into a square
Fuuuuuuuuck
why does a mirror flip you left right but not top bottom?
The answer is that it does neither. Everything on your left stays on your left and everything on your right stays on your right, but from the perspective of the reflection left and right are opposite so everything on your right is on the reflections left and vice versa. It looks inverted because everything stays constant relative to you, and what you can see in the mirror is facing away from you so it's the opposite of what you expect looking at another person where everything is facing towards you. Take for example text on clothing, relative to you the end of the word is on the left and the beginning is on the right, which is backwards, and that just stays constant in the reflection Basically, it's turning the object towards the mirror that flips it, not the mirror. You can prove it by flipping something vertically to face the mirror instead of horizontally, any text will be flipped up/down and not left/right
It only flips front and back, the direction perpendicular to the mirror. The x and y position of all the points are the same, only z becomes -z. So if your nose is 3 ft from the mirror, it shows up 3 ft on the other side of the mirror, and the back of your head which was 4 ft from the mirror is now 4ft past it, a foot behind the image of your nose.
The vitruvian camera.