Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > X for x-it?

Reply
Thread Tools

X for x-it?

 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2011
On Oct 29, 4:04*pm, android <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> *Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >news:(E-Mail Removed)....
> > > []
> > >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. *Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

>
> > > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>
> > No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
> > crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.

>
> > -Wolfgang

>
> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
> cake.
> It hip to be square though! ;-@


I thought the silicon wafer was 'grown' and being round was a more
natural shape
for it to form, it's also stronger not having any brittle snapable
sides I guess.
I remmeber someone saying it was more like a round cheese that you
slicet rather than the square cheeses burger
flippers use.


>
> --
> moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed
>
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to (E-Mail Removed) ---


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
android
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I thought the silicon wafer was 'grown' and being round was a more
> natural shape
> for it to form, it's also stronger not having any brittle snapable
> sides I guess.
> I remmeber someone saying it was more like a round cheese that you
> slicet rather than the square cheeses burger
> flippers use.


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

--
moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) ---
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2011
Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> android <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> > "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
>>> >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

>
>>> > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>
>>> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
>>> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.

>
>> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
>> cake.

>
> The wafers are circular, though ...


Cutting rectangles from a circle is easier than cutting circles from a
circle, though. And more efficient (well, I expect it depends on
relative sizes, especially as the number of dies within the wafer
decreases).
 
Reply With Quote
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2011
On 3/11/2011 6:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:40:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> android<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> David J Taylor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> "RichA"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
>>>
>>>>>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
>>>
>>>>> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
>>>>> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
>>>
>>>> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
>>>> cake.
>>>
>>> The wafers are circular, though ...

>>
>> Cutting rectangles from a circle is easier than cutting circles from a
>> circle, though. And more efficient (well, I expect it depends on
>> relative sizes, especially as the number of dies within the wafer
>> decreases).

>
> ... I presume you mean 'increases'.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens


Bigger sensor = the number of dies which can fit on a wafer decreases.
I personally wouldn't mind a 36x36mm sensor camera, that would take
advantage of the image circle of most existing 35mm lenses and allow
cropping to almost any ratio without too much loss of resolution.
Also, no need to decide on horizontal or vertical framing at the time of
exposure.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2011
dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 3/11/2011 6:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:40:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> android<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> David J Taylor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> "RichA"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
>>>>
>>>>>> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
>>>>>> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
>>>>
>>>>> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
>>>>> cake.
>>>>
>>>> The wafers are circular, though ...
>>>
>>> Cutting rectangles from a circle is easier than cutting circles from a
>>> circle, though. And more efficient (well, I expect it depends on
>>> relative sizes, especially as the number of dies within the wafer
>>> decreases).

>>
>> ... I presume you mean 'increases'.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens

>
>Bigger sensor = the number of dies which can fit on a wafer decreases.
>I personally wouldn't mind a 36x36mm sensor camera, that would take
>advantage of the image circle of most existing 35mm lenses and allow
>cropping to almost any ratio without too much loss of resolution.
>Also, no need to decide on horizontal or vertical framing at the time of
>exposure.



I agree that there is a lot to be said for square format.

Some early digital backs for medium format cameras were 37 x 37 mm,
notably the Imacon Express and Kodak DCS Proback 645 (ironic name
given the square format).

But you're wrong to assume that lenses designed for the 35mm film or
DX format would cover this sensor size. The diagonal of 35mm film is
about 43.3 mm. The diagonal of a 36 x 36 mm sensor would be 50.9 mm,
so there would be significant vignetting if 35mm/DX lenses were used.

 
Reply With Quote
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2011
On 3/11/2011 10:07 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:29:12 +1100, dj_nme<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2011 6:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:40:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> android<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> David J Taylor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "RichA"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
>>>>>>> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
>>>>>> cake.
>>>>>
>>>>> The wafers are circular, though ...
>>>>
>>>> Cutting rectangles from a circle is easier than cutting circles from a
>>>> circle, though. And more efficient (well, I expect it depends on
>>>> relative sizes, especially as the number of dies within the wafer
>>>> decreases).
>>>
>>> ... I presume you mean 'increases'.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens

>>
>> Bigger sensor = the number of dies which can fit on a wafer decreases.
>> I personally wouldn't mind a 36x36mm sensor camera, that would take
>> advantage of the image circle of most existing 35mm lenses and allow
>> cropping to almost any ratio without too much loss of resolution.
>> Also, no need to decide on horizontal or vertical framing at the time of
>> exposure.

>
> I would think that the efficiency of cutting rectangles from a circle
> increases as the number of rectangles (per circle) increases.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens


Eric, I hope that you realise that Wolfgang was writing about the exact
opposite: "...as the number of dies within the wafer decreases."
That implies bigger sensors, not smaller.

I agree that making more, smaller rectangular sensors means more usable
dies (greater yield) per wafer (increased number of dies per wafer).
With smaller dies (increasing the number of possible dies per wafer),
there are more located in the defect-free areas.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2011

"dj_nme" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4eb1b628$0$22468$(E-Mail Removed) u...
> I personally wouldn't mind a 36x36mm sensor camera, that would take
> advantage of the image circle of most existing 35mm lenses and allow
> cropping to almost any ratio without too much loss of resolution.


The image circle for 36x24 wouldn't give you 36x36 but slightly less.

> Also, no need to decide on horizontal or vertical framing at the time of
> exposure.


Just like 6x6cm or 2-1/4"" square did.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
android
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On 3/11/2011 6:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:40:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> android<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>>> David J Taylor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "RichA"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
> >>>>>> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
> >>>>> cake.
> >>>>
> >>>> The wafers are circular, though ...
> >>>
> >>> Cutting rectangles from a circle is easier than cutting circles from a
> >>> circle, though. And more efficient (well, I expect it depends on
> >>> relative sizes, especially as the number of dies within the wafer
> >>> decreases).
> >>
> >> ... I presume you mean 'increases'.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Eric Stevens

> >
> >Bigger sensor = the number of dies which can fit on a wafer decreases.
> >I personally wouldn't mind a 36x36mm sensor camera, that would take
> >advantage of the image circle of most existing 35mm lenses and allow
> >cropping to almost any ratio without too much loss of resolution.
> >Also, no need to decide on horizontal or vertical framing at the time of
> >exposure.

>
>
> I agree that there is a lot to be said for square format.
>
> Some early digital backs for medium format cameras were 37 x 37 mm,
> notably the Imacon Express and Kodak DCS Proback 645 (ironic name
> given the square format).
>
> But you're wrong to assume that lenses designed for the 35mm film or
> DX format would cover this sensor size. The diagonal of 35mm film is
> about 43.3 mm. The diagonal of a 36 x 36 mm sensor would be 50.9 mm,
> so there would be significant vignetting if 35mm/DX lenses were used.


The idea was to think outside the circle of confusion and only use what
you need too get the desired proportion of your image. You don't use
that that's outside it.

--
moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to (E-Mail Removed) ---
 
Reply With Quote
 
android
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:29:12 +1100, dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >On 3/11/2011 6:45 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:40:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> android<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>>> David J Taylor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "RichA"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
> >>>>>> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
> >>>>> cake.
> >>>>
> >>>> The wafers are circular, though ...
> >>>
> >>> Cutting rectangles from a circle is easier than cutting circles from a
> >>> circle, though. And more efficient (well, I expect it depends on
> >>> relative sizes, especially as the number of dies within the wafer
> >>> decreases).
> >>
> >> ... I presume you mean 'increases'.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Eric Stevens

> >
> >Bigger sensor = the number of dies which can fit on a wafer decreases.
> >I personally wouldn't mind a 36x36mm sensor camera, that would take
> >advantage of the image circle of most existing 35mm lenses and allow
> >cropping to almost any ratio without too much loss of resolution.
> >Also, no need to decide on horizontal or vertical framing at the time of
> >exposure.

>
> I would think that the efficiency of cutting rectangles from a circle
> increases as the number of rectangles (per circle) increases.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens


Well, yes. That was what I meant...

--
moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to (E-Mail Removed) ---
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2011
android <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>The idea was to think outside the circle of confusion



Please define what you mean by that.

 
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




Advertisments