just wondering

[bnjlosh]

are there any camera's out there (rangefinder, etc) that capture a round image??? how much of an image is lost b/c of the square/rectangle format???

just wondering or wandering

 

[bmattock]

are there any camera's out there (rangefinder, etc) that capture a round image??? how much of an image is lost b/c of the square/rectangle format???

just wondering or wandering

No, none that I know of.

What is lost? Well, I am sure that there is a mathematical formulae that would calculate the area of a circle cast by a lens over 'not-sensor' instead of over 'sensor' could be made - it would be beyond me.

However, if film were to be made circular - then an equivalent and offsetting amount of film would be lost in between frames, presuming a roll of film such as we use in 35mm or 120mm roll film photography. Instead of having a thin vertical line between frames, we'd have a half-moon shaped area that was 'wasted' by not being illuminated. Film would also have to be made wider to make use of the extended area - so it would presumably cost more and cameras would be more expensive as well.

Perhaps it would be just as efficient to contstruct a circular digital sensor instead of a rectangular one - but then we'd transfer the inefficiency to the paper we print upon, presuming that people don't want to view photographs in the round, so to speak.

Interestingly, anamorphic lenses were created for movie film - which is 35mm like our own 35mm film - so that a greater 'height' could be captured in the same amount of film than normal. This has to be 'undone' by being viewed through a lens that uncompresses the image to the same extent in a theatre. This would partially address your thoughts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bnjlosh]

I am really just shooting in the dark here...the question about DOF sparked my interest and so I asked the question...I was thinking, how would DOF with a round capture instead of rectangle? would it abide by the same equation?

thanks for the thoughts bill...and the post to anamorphic...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The original Kodak cameras of the 1880's took circular images.

Googled this:

http://www.vintagephoto.tv/no2kodakcouple.shtml

 

[bnjlosh]

brian, your search led me to this
http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/No2Kodak-1.html
and this
http://brightbytes.com/collection/kodakNo1.html

very interesting...wonder if you could construct a pinhole camera to project a round image...

 

[Photar]

An easy way to achieve this is to use a lens with a too small image circle on a view camera. Say a 100mm lens for 6x9 on a 8x10 camera. Also, the Nikon 6mm fish-eye produces round images on 35mm film.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Try this Lomo.

Update: that URL links to several models. It was the fisheye holga set that I was referring to, scroll down about six cameras to see it.

 

[pvdhaar]

I recall that my great-grandparents had a foldable stereo picture viewer. The pictures that went into them where two round photographs on a single sheet of glossy paper. These came with biscuits or something like that. I can imagine that these photos were taken as circular images, though probably on a rectangular medium...

 

[oftheherd]

An easy way to achieve this is to use a lens with a too small image circle on a view camera. Say a 100mm lens for 6x9 on a 8x10 camera. Also, the Nikon 6mm fish-eye produces round images on 35mm film.

That is true on both counts. Since lenses are created round, except for specialty lenses like the anamorphics bmattock mentioned, they project a round image. The area of coverage can be calculated and is, by lens designers. Thay have to be able to to insure the circle covers the entire film (or sensor) area without light loss at the corners. Of course, we mere mortals aren't likely to be able to, or want to for any practical reason. The circular fisheye auxillery lenses attacted to filter rings of lenses will also give circular images depending on the focal length lens they are used on.

I am really just shooting in the dark here...the question about DOF sparked my interest and so I asked the question...I was thinking, how would DOF with a round capture instead of rectangle? would it abide by the same equation?

thanks for the thoughts bill...and the post to anamorphic...

DOF is uneffected. It is measured from the plane of focus, which is a plane that extends beyond not only beyond the film, but beyond the camera. And anyway, as stated already, the image is circular anyway, but normally only caputured on a squar or rectangular area of film (or sensor).

 

[bmattock]

"how much of an image is lost b/c of the square/rectangle format???"

If you assume that the image circle just covers the frame edge-to-edge, and the frame is centred in the circle, then 58% of the available image circle is lost for 35mm film.

I knew it! Lens math weenie!

😀

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Photar]

If you assume that the image circle just covers the frame edge-to-edge, and the frame is centred in the circle, then 58% of the available image circle is lost for 35mm film.

Isn't it rather 1 - PI x 12^2 / 24 x 36 = 48% ?

 

[bmattock]

Isn't it rather 1 - PI x 12^2 / 24 x 36 = 48% ?

Another one! Back, back, I say! Get thee behind me!

 

[bnjlosh]

wonderful replies...on my drive back to work from lunch I thought of the fisheye lens...but those are distorted...right?

so on a 6x6 negative, less is left out...it makes sense then why the viewfinders are always rectangle on cameras and not on telescopes (I guess)

good info here and great links provided...thanks

 

[Photar]

Isn't it rather 1 - PI x 12^2 / 24 x 36 = 48% ?

I answer myself: you placed the rectangle in the circle and computed how much is lost from the circle: 24 x 36 / (0.5*sqrt(24^2 + 36^2))^2 x PI = 58%

I placed the circle in the rectangle and computed how much is lost from the rectangle. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Photar]

How appropriate: the last post was my 43rd in the forum. 43 = sqrt(24^2 + 36^2). Ok, I better stop here. Sorry, Bill 🙂

 

[bobofish]

This applies somewhat I suppose;
I've seen work done by large format photographers who apply their own emulsions to glass plates and the like. They can obviously apply the emulsion in any shape or size they'd like. Of course this has been done in the past, but I know of a few photographers who work in circles, they use lenses from for example 4x5 cameras on 8x10 cameras to get some interesting vignetting effects. I can't think of a name at the moment, but if I do, I'll be sure to post it. Some really unique perspectives, I must say.

As has been stated, the rectangle or square is just a matter of convenience, and mankind's general tendency to wall things in nice and square. Although we are organic, we have a distinct preference to right angles, much to the consternation of the great Catalan architects of the early 20th century...

 

[AlexC]

The Hobo is a hand-holdable 8x10" camera that takes circular images:

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Hobo/technical.htm
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Go_mark/Gordon Mark.htm

 

[JoeFriday]

are there any camera's out there (rangefinder, etc) that capture a round image??? how much of an image is lost b/c of the square/rectangle format???

just wondering or wandering

how bizarre is this.. look what just popped up for sale on p.net

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=637384

 

[bnjlosh]

ok, that's freaky...but it does look cool