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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Scotius, Jul 15, 2010.

  1. Scotius

    Scotius Guest

    Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
    square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!
     
    Scotius, Jul 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scotius

    Robert Coe Guest

    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!

    IOW, Will we help you cheat on your take-home physics exam?

    Ans.: No
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2010-07-15, Scotius wrote:
    > Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
    > square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!


    Apart from the fact that they are usually rectangular, not square,
    round photos would waste a lot of film and paper.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com/photos/>
    Author: ===============================
    Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Jul 15, 2010
    #3
  4. 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.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 15, 2010
    #4
  5. Scotius

    krishnananda Guest

    In article <i1loqb$36i$-september.org>,
    John McWilliams <> 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".
     
    krishnananda, Jul 15, 2010
    #5
  6. Scotius

    Rich Guest

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

    On Jul 14, 8:52 pm, Scotius <> wrote:
    >         Why is it that camera lenses are round, but pictures are
    > square? Hmmm? Tell me that ya' smarteys!



    It is a waste, but some rectangles are less sensible that other. Like
    how 3:2 is inferior to 4:3.
     
    Rich, Jul 15, 2010
    #6
  7. krishnananda wrote:
    > In article <i1loqb$36i$-september.org>,
    > John McWilliams <> 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".


    Roger that! There is one theory that the average klutzy BBQer will drop
    two in front of the guests, and have to dispose of them in the garbage
    instead of putting 'em back on the grill.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 15, 2010
    #7
  8. Scotius

    Twibil Guest

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

    On Jul 14, 7:48 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > 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".

    >
    > No longer true.
    > Now there is an 8 pack of dogs (Nathan's & Ball Park) to match the bun 8 pack.
    > ...but it is the same price as the old 10 pack.


    And this is known as "Marketing".
     
    Twibil, Jul 15, 2010
    #8
  9. Scotius

    Twibil Guest

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

    On Jul 14, 8:36 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > 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".

    >
    > Roger that! There is one theory that the average klutzy BBQer will drop
    > two in front of the guests, and have to dispose of them in the garbage
    > instead of putting 'em back on the grill.


    Another theory posits that many klutzy BBQers own large dogs.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3541701218/
     
    Twibil, Jul 15, 2010
    #9
  10. Re: I bet no one knows enough to answer THIS question... !

    Twibil wrote:
    > On Jul 14, 8:36 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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".

    >> Roger that! There is one theory that the average klutzy BBQer will drop
    >> two in front of the guests, and have to dispose of them in the garbage
    >> instead of putting 'em back on the grill.

    >
    > Another theory posits that many klutzy BBQers own large dogs.
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3541701218/


    And just the right number! Two.....

    --
    john mcwilliams

    "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like
    Norman Einstein." - Football commentator and former player Joe
    Theismann, 1996
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 15, 2010
    #10
  11. Scotius

    Nervous Nick Guest

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

    On Jul 14, 7:52 pm, Scotius <> 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.
     
    Nervous Nick, Jul 15, 2010
    #11
  12. Scotius

    Bowser Guest

    "krishnananda" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <i1loqb$36i$-september.org>,
    > John McWilliams <> 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.
     
    Bowser, Jul 15, 2010
    #12
  13. Scotius

    Bowser Guest

    "Scotius" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Bowser, Jul 15, 2010
    #13
  14. Scotius

    whisky-dave Guest

    "Scotius" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    whisky-dave, Jul 15, 2010
    #14
  15. Scotius

    Scott W Guest

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

    On Jul 15, 2:42 am, "whisky-dave" <> wrote:
    > "Scotius" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > 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
     
    Scott W, Jul 15, 2010
    #15
  16. Scotius

    ray Guest

    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.
     
    ray, Jul 15, 2010
    #16
  17. Scotius

    Peter Guest

    "Scotius" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Peter, Jul 15, 2010
    #17
  18. Scotius

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:20:16 -0400, Peter wrote:

    > "Scotius" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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?
     
    ray, Jul 15, 2010
    #18
  19. Scotius

    BF Guest

    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.
     
    BF, Jul 16, 2010
    #19
  20. Scotius

    krishnananda Guest

    In article <2010071517465243658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > On 2010-07-15 16:29:43 -0700, BF <> 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.
     
    krishnananda, Jul 16, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Neshat

    Nobody knows the Answer!!! :-(

    Neshat, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    511
    Aaron Leonard
    Aug 20, 2004
  2. buffy

    Surely somebody knows the answer to this?

    buffy, Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    739
    MrToad
    Jan 24, 2004
  3. Annette Kurten

    Re: I bet this one baffles you

    Annette Kurten, Feb 7, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    390
    Annette Kurten
    Feb 7, 2005
  4. Drew

    Re: No one knows the answer..........

    Drew, Sep 15, 2010, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    616
  5. BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com

    Re: No one knows the answer..........

    BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com, Sep 15, 2010, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    560
    BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com
    Sep 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page