Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > I bet no one knows enough to answer THIS question... !

Reply
Thread Tools

I bet no one knows enough to answer THIS question... !

 
 
Nervous Nick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Jul 14, 7:52*pm, Scotius <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> * * * * Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
> square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!


Because they fit into the frame better.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010


"krishnananda" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <i1loqb$36i$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Scotius wrote:
>> > Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
>> > square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!

>>
>> It's a mystery that'll never, ever be explained.

>
> The Nikon 8mm 180-degree fisheye produces a circular image on
> rectangular film, as do other non-full-frame fisheyes.
>
> But a much more important question is why are hot dogs sold in packs of
> 10 but hot dog buns are sold in packs of 8?
>
> In philosophy this is known as the "Hot Dog Dilemma".


It was also the question asked by the Bulletproof Monk. His answer: because
they do.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
"Scotius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
> square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!


Horribly simple:

Because the earth is round, we need round lenses to see it. But because
paper is flat and rectangular, we need cameras and stuff to process the
round images into flat rectangular images so we can see them. Same goes for
monitors.

I'm really surprised you even had to ask.

 
Reply With Quote
 
whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010

"Scotius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
> square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!


It's because trees are round which is what we use to make paper,
but the paper we print them on is square (or rectangle).
It's a government conspiracy that's been going on since the dawn of
photography.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Jul 15, 2:42*am, "whisky-dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Scotius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
> > square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!

>
> It's because trees are round which is what we use to make paper,
> but the paper we print them on is square (or rectangle).
> It's a *government conspiracy that's been going on since the dawn of
> photography.


You could make a square lens, but then you would need to take round
photos and that would be a pain.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:52:04 -0400, Scotius wrote:

> Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are square? Hmmm?
> Tell me that ya' smarteys!


1) the pictures taken by most cameras I'm familiar with are rectangular
rather than round.

2) it's a lot easier to make a round lens.

3) it's a lot easier to make film and/or sensors rectangular.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
"Scotius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
> square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!





I'll answer hen I get a round to it.
--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:20:16 -0400, Peter wrote:

> "Scotius" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are square? Hmmm?
>> Tell me that ya' smarteys!

>
>
>
>
> I'll answer hen I get a round to it.


I have some extra round toit's I can spare - how many do you need?
 
Reply With Quote
 
BF
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2010
On 7/14/2010 8:52 PM, Scotius wrote:
> Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
> square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!



What a bunch of worthless answers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
krishnananda
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2010
In article <2010071517465243658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-07-15 16:29:43 -0700, BF <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > On 7/14/2010 8:52 PM, Scotius wrote:
> >> Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
> >> square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!

> >
> >
> > What a bunch of worthless answers.

>
> The answers may seem worthless to you, but they are responses to the
> smart ass query from the OP.
>
> So if you want an answer which might be just as worthless to you, try
> the following:
>
> To keep things simple. the virtual image produced by any "circular"
> lens system IS circular. Check "circle of good definition" in "The
> Camera. The New Ansel Adams Basic Photography Series - Book 1" by Ansel
> Adams
> However due to the limitations of plate, or film manufacture, the
> plate, or film is either square, or rectangular. In order to avoid
> vignetting, the area of the medium, plate or film must remain within
> the image circle. This is one of the reasons view cameras and
> perspective control lenses have some tilt/shift adjustment to keep the
> image area (square or rectangle) within the image circle, resulting on
> a square, or rectangular image being exposed.
> Now if you used a plate which was larger than the image circle, you
> would have a circular image exposed on that large plate or film.
>
> I am sure there are some here far more knowledgeable in this area than
> me, and would be more than happy to provide other answers to correct,
> or expand on what I have given you.


You've got it in a nutshell. If it were possible to mount a lens
designed for APS-C sized sensors on a "full frame" camera you'd get
exactly that vignetting. On a view camera if you mount a lens with an
image circle big enough for 4"x5" on an 8"x10" camera you'd get a
perfectly circular image, suitable for cutting out with scissors and
putting in a round frame.

Ultra wide angle large-format lenses have an image circle much larger
than the active film area. This gives them the ability to
rise/fall/shift so much the regular bellows has to be replaced with a
"bag" bellows, as the front standard's range of motion would seriously
damage a pleated bellows. These lenses are extremely expensive.

As far as manufacturing is concerned, optical glass is extruded under
very tightly controlled conditions, then sawn into lens blanks which are
then ground into convex/concave circle-based curves. Aspheric elements
are either pressed into ceramic molds under extremely high pressure, or
are CNC machined, like "Varilux" eyeglasses lenses.

Unlike aluminum, which can be extruded into very complex shapes with
sharp corners, glass is technically a very viscous liquid. As such it
cannot be extruded into hard-edged/sharp-corner shape. The extruded
glass "salami" (yes, that's what it's called) _could_ be machined into a
square/rectangular shape. However, that would increase costs by more
than an order of magnitude and would serve no optical purpose. The
negative mask at the back of an SLR's mirrorbox does a virtual version
of just that.

Fiber-based paper can be made in any shape or thickness required.
However, this requires using the antique mould-made process where the
paper pulp is pulled onto the laid and then pressed entirely by hand.
There are some beautiful Gum Bichromate, Platinum, and Palladium prints
done on hand-made 300 lb. deckle-edged paper. For mere mortals, paper
pulp is carried by a web belt through progressively narrowed gaps
between rollers, compressing the fibers, driving out the water, and
applying the surface finish. This is an industrial process and as such
is governed by cost. The cost of mould-made paper produced in the
tremendous quantities required for consumer use would bankrupt the
Sultan of Brunei.

Many of Eugene Atget's photos of paris were taken with the front
standard of his glass plate camera at maximum rise. This vignetted the
top corners of the image where the image circle failed to fill the
entire frame. Didn't bother him.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: No one knows the answer.......... Drew Windows 64bit 3 09-17-2010 08:23 PM
Re: No one knows the answer.......... BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com Windows 64bit 0 09-15-2010 12:56 PM
Bet nobody is smart enough to solve this!! G Dean Blake ASP .Net 0 01-15-2005 12:54 AM
Nobody knows the Answer!!! :-( Neshat Cisco 3 08-20-2004 08:59 PM
I think no one knows the answer of timeout in formsauth!!!!!! the one i posted last week.. .NET Follower ASP .Net Security 0 02-09-2004 09:43 AM



Advertisments