1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Multi-Aspect Sensors

Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by Gregory, Jan 9, 2018.

  1. Gregory

    Gregory Mu-43 Regular

    144
    Mar 4, 2017
    In post, I'm cropping out massive portions of the tops and bottoms of my images. I'd love to be able to select a 3/2 or 16/9 or even wider on my Pen-F without losing pixels. I've just read about the multi-aspect sensor on the GH5s: Panasonic Lumix GH5S preview - Cameralabs. In addition to cutting out pixels on the top and bottom, the implementation also adds pixels wider than normal to preserve the number of pixels exposed - for many crops. This implementation doesn't impress me as being Rocket Science. It seems to me it's something that could be implemented in the camera firmware for any m4/3 camera. Where am I gone astray here?
     
  2. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 10, 2010
    Kiillarney, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Well I'm not sure how you can have 16:9 and not have less height in pixels...

    Just like the GH1 then.

    in my view ...: GH1 vs G1 formats and RAW pixels
    allMerged.

    :) 
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  3. longviewer

    longviewer Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    574
    Oct 22, 2015
    SW Washington (Longview area)
    Jim R
    The sensor is larger than the standard :mu43: dimensions to make this work, so firmware cannot make it happen. :(  Lumix has done this with a few GH models but no others that I know of.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Explain how to use firmware to add to the physical sensor width ??
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Gregory

    Gregory Mu-43 Regular

    144
    Mar 4, 2017
    I should have thought this through better. The sensor would have to be expanded. A firmware upgrade would not apply here. My bad.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. DanS

    DanS Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 8, 2016
    Central IL
    sensordiagram.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Here is where I state that a circular sensor would be cool and have some neat properties, i.e. no need to turn a camera from landscape to portrait.

    And here is where it is brought up that producing circular sensors is a production problem that manufacturers don't have the economic means to overcome.
     
  8. kwido

    kwido Mu-43 Regular

    59
    Mar 28, 2016
    Bratislava , Slovakia
    Circular sensor will be 3x more expensive at least because of much bigger sensor area and bigger amount of waste by cutting big plate to circular peaces instead of rectangular (almost without any waste).
     
  9. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 10, 2010
    Kiillarney, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    have a read of my post on the GH1 above ... it may help you. Its interesting that GH5 is now swinging back to what the GH1 had all along
     
  10. longviewer

    longviewer Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    574
    Oct 22, 2015
    SW Washington (Longview area)
    Jim R
    I'm a square fan myself for similar reasons, no flying elbow in portrait shots and max use of the image circle.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Last time I saw a documentary about producing silicon wafers, every single one on a big film was circular, actually oblongs printed inside circles.
    I think a circular sensor might be quite feasible and not too expensive,
    btu then ... I don't work in a wafer factory.
     
  12. exakta

    exakta Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    404
    Jun 2, 2015
    Those silicon wafers get cut up into lots of little rectangular chips.

    First is the idea of yield...many of the chips actually don't work and get tossed. Then there's binning, where some of the chips run at higher clock speeds than others, so they are separated out and priced accordingly. That stuff doesn't work with sensors...they either work or they don't.

    Mfrs are pretty secretive about actual yields, but it's not uncommon for early production runs to yield only about 50%. When I worked in the industry now and then there would be disasters where the yields would be in the single digits...ouch.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Does that result in those "golden sample" graphics cards I dimly remember?
     
  14. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    I'm not sure about that, but I know AMD at least uses it to create product tiers. They have 8 core processors that are based on 4 segments with 2 cores each. They are all the same chip, in essence. It's just that if they test a 8 core CPU and one of the segments is flaky, they disable that part of the chip and now it's a 6 core. If 2 segments are iffy, now it's a quad core. It's a very efficient way to deal with the fact that it's a bit of a dice roll on chip yields. (I actually remember that some people in the past had success in recovering disabled cores and then they could turn a 3 core into a mostly stable 4 core, etc)

    I'm pretty sure Intel does something similar, saving it's best chips for the K moniker because they can handle a high overclock, and the ones that can't, get locked at lower Ghz so they don't become unstable.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    Maybe rectangular lenses would easier?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  16. Even though wafers are grown with a circular cross section (it's a physical process), the circuit patterns and photosites are fundamentally rectangular. You could possibly make them regular hexagons arranged in a roughly circular arrangement but it would be incredibly wasteful of die area as multiple dies are cut from a single wafer.

    How they actually implement this is to use a bigger sensor than required and throw away the unneeded photosites. That's a lot cheaper than convincing somebody to fabricate circular dies.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. DanS

    DanS Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 8, 2016
    Central IL
    Hexagons wouldn't be wasteful, as a hexagon can be perfectly nested (think soccer ball) just like a square or rectangle.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. See my edit. It is incredibly wasteful if you need to cut multiple dies out of a single wafer.
     
  19. moonhawk

    moonhawk Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    360
    Feb 12, 2016
    Dave Cherry
    I think you have to look at the size of the image circle, as much or more than the size of the sensor. Does a 4/3 rectangle have more of less pixels (of the same size) than a square?

    What is the longest edge of a 4/3 rectangle compared to the side of a square that fits in tha same circle.

    I drew it out a while back, admittedly a crude experiment, but, there's no reason they couldn't make an oversized square sensor, that could use a rectangle oriented in either direction, that would fit in the image circle of the lens.
     
  20. While you could do this, trying to compose would kind of suck as EVFs and LCD panels are all made rectangular, resulting in a massive crop to go from portrait to landscape. You could make them oversized squares too I guess but any rectangular aspect ratio would then still result in a major crop.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.