What is the optimal size for a camera sensor?

Kguru · 05-26-2009, 07:08 AM

Could someone please explain why the 36mmx24mm format was called 35mm?
I have also seen 135 used as well, what has it got to do with 135?
Thanks.

**DAZ** · 05-26-2009, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Kguru

Could someone please explain why the 36mmx24mm format was called 35mm?
I have also seen 135 used as well, what has it got to do with 135?
Thanks.

35mm is the width of the film including the holes. In still photography the photo is sideways so the space between the holes is about 24mm. So in theory the photo could be as wide as the film but was set at 36mm giving a photo 36x24. As for the 135 think of it as an old Kodak part number that described all of this and the cartage that the film came in. The number isn’t related to size as 120 is bigger but 135 came after 120 so it has a bigger number. These numbers now have ISO (not sensitivity as ISO stands for International Standards Organization) that describe all of this. This is all history and as to why it was 35mm you need to blame Edison and Eastman.

DAZ

Kguru · 05-26-2009, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by DAZ

35mm is the width of the film including the holes. In still photography the photo is sideways so the space between the holes is about 24mm. So in theory the photo could be as wide as the film but was set at 36mm giving a photo 36x24.

Great, thanks DAZ.
If I had remembered the 35mm movie format I would not have had to ask

**DAZ** · 05-26-2009, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Kguru

Great, thanks DAZ.
If I had remembered the 35mm movie format I would not have had to ask

Just a reminder, 35mm film is sideways to still so it is 24mm wide to stills 36mm wide.

DAZ

simons-photography · 05-26-2009, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

In Game Theory and Linear Programming, this is called a MiniMax Solution - trying to reach a maximum gain with a minimum cost - but the gains and costs are always defined differently with each distinct problem (goal), and they can be manipulated with time. So we try to get the maximum gain NOW while delaying the costs until LATER, like using a credit card. When I software-engineered financial systems, a corporate paradigm was: Never Time To Do It Right, Always Time To Do It Again. Which meant, get the software system written fast so it can be announced and sold, then spend the next couple years fixing major bugs. How many of us play similar games with our lives, hobbies, careers?

Thats why no microsoft OS is any good until they are already anouncing a new one and making the now usable OS unsuported

simons-photography · 05-26-2009, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by DAZ

35mm is the width of the film including the holes. In still photography the photo is sideways so the space between the holes is about 24mm. So in theory the photo could be as wide as the film but was set at 36mm giving a photo 36x24. As for the 135 think of it as an old Kodak part number that described all of this and the cartage that the film came in. The number isn’t related to size as 120 is bigger but 135 came after 120 so it has a bigger number. These numbers now have ISO (not sensitivity as ISO stands for International Standards Organization) that describe all of this. This is all history and as to why it was 35mm you need to blame Edison and Eastman.

DAZ

thats right a number was asigned to each film type the fact that 135 happens to have 35 in alsomost coincidence with 36 wide frame is merely a coincidence

Blue · 05-26-2009, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Cosmo

8x10 inches.

I knew somebody would!

RioRico · 05-27-2009, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Cosmo

8x10 inches.

Originally posted by Blue

I knew somebody would!

Pshaw. 12x20 inches. I almost bought a cam that size once, but I couldn't fit it all into my car. (Not a small car, just a huge tripod et al.)

Let's see, what's that big Polaroid, 20x24 inches or something like that? Now we're getting up to a MANLY camera, a Paul Bunyan camera. A 20x24" CCD sensor would stare Zeus in the face and say, Back Off! Isn't that about the size of a Blue Whale's retina? So it's not unprecedented. Hmm, I'll have to research the visual systems of giant cephalapods. Maybe they'll be models for future generations of digicams. Large digicams. MANLY digicams. No wimpish Canon or Kodak sensors allowed here, no way.

[Watch out, he's raving. Where's the Thorazine?]

ytterbium · 05-27-2009, 03:37 AM

Im not sure if ideal sensor size can or should be defined.
Im leaning more towards ideal pixel size.. wich, if i'm correct, was infinitely small (to register color value of single point and not an area).
This leaves some ideal pixel pitch or resolution per unit for wich it is easy to design and USE* optics, i guess. Then the sensor size would be determined by the required resolution.

*Smaller lenses are better but needs to be very precise and are more sensitive to overall image quality reduction if they get a dust, fingerprint or scratch on them. Where bigger ones just render a small spot in some part of image and dosnt reduce contrast or introduce haze/fog.

Have there been tries to fabricate and position microlenses in such way that you dont need any more lenses?
So that each microlens has such amount of offset in required dirrection it projects required image part on the pixel. This could potentially allow for extreme aperture ultra wide distortionless imaging, because you need to project good image only on one pixel (per lens).

RioRico · 05-27-2009, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by ytterbium

Have there been tries to fabricate and position microlenses in such way that you dont need any more lenses?
So that each microlens has such amount of offset in required dirrection it projects required image part on the pixel. This could potentially allow for extreme aperture ultra wide distortionless imaging, because you need to project good image only on one pixel (per lens).

I brought up this idea in my early days on PFC, (mis)labeling it as "affective optics". The structure would be similiar to a planar affective antenna array, composed of numerous small elements that are electronically 'tuned' and 'aimed' by varying phase relationships of control voltages - thus the planar antenna can be of any effective wavelength and aimed in almost any direction without any physical movement or changes.

Optically, we'd have our pixel-site array, each site with a floating microlens that can be magnetically 'focused' and 'aimed' to sit at the desired angle and distance from the pixel site. The entire array would act as a 3D interferometer, effectively with any desired focal length, aperture, and aim. Such an affective 'lens' could, without itself moving, track and focus on any objects within its 180-degree field of view (although it's effective FOV would more likely be closer to 155-165 degrees).

That's the theory (or wild-eyed-fantasy, at least). I'd be surprised if NOBODY was trying to design and build such, but I have no idea who or where, or if they'd reveal anything about it. Talk about trade secrets! And commercial implications! Such would shut down the optical glass factories and design studios. And could lead to a total surveillance society.

Imagine: here's a chip that can 'be' a 1-100k mm zoom, f/0.1-100k, total AF and SR/IS, for any format from pinhead-PNS to 1x2KM, still or video, any spectral slice, etc. It wouldn't be necessary to fabricate huge chips for large formats, just tie together as many as you want in an array (it's an interferometer, remember) - and the linked array needn't even be flat, so you could have a cam-ball with total 360-degree vision. A rather small cam-ball, even. You think this might be handy for surveillance and spying? Ya, I suspect much development work is ongoing.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sensor Size	RHN12	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	09-29-2010 07:14 PM
Sensor size vs. DOF	future_retro	Photographic Technique	24	09-16-2010 04:30 PM
New Fujifilm F80EXR sensor size	Mystic	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	14	02-09-2010 09:27 AM
Sensor Size of 645D	RiceHigh	Pentax Medium Format	32	03-31-2009 11:32 AM
DOF and sensor size	simons-photography	Photographic Technique	60	04-23-2008 10:55 AM

05-26-2009, 07:08 AM	#16
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	Could someone please explain why the 36mmx24mm format was called 35mm? I have also seen 135 used as well, what has it got to do with 135? Thanks.

05-26-2009, 07:32 AM	#17
DAZ Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Everett, WA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 744	Originally posted by Kguru Could someone please explain why the 36mmx24mm format was called 35mm? I have also seen 135 used as well, what has it got to do with 135? Thanks. 35mm is the width of the film including the holes. In still photography the photo is sideways so the space between the holes is about 24mm. So in theory the photo could be as wide as the film but was set at 36mm giving a photo 36x24. As for the 135 think of it as an old Kodak part number that described all of this and the cartage that the film came in. The number isn’t related to size as 120 is bigger but 135 came after 120 so it has a bigger number. These numbers now have ISO (not sensitivity as ISO stands for International Standards Organization) that describe all of this. This is all history and as to why it was 35mm you need to blame Edison and Eastman. DAZ

05-26-2009, 07:46 AM	#18
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	Originally posted by DAZ 35mm is the width of the film including the holes. In still photography the photo is sideways so the space between the holes is about 24mm. So in theory the photo could be as wide as the film but was set at 36mm giving a photo 36x24. Great, thanks DAZ. If I had remembered the 35mm movie format I would not have had to ask

05-26-2009, 07:56 AM	#19
DAZ Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Everett, WA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 744	Originally posted by Kguru Great, thanks DAZ. If I had remembered the 35mm movie format I would not have had to ask Just a reminder, 35mm film is sideways to still so it is 24mm wide to stills 36mm wide. DAZ

05-26-2009, 09:21 AM	#20
simons-photography Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northamptonshire - England Photos: Gallery Posts: 496	Originally posted by RioRico In Game Theory and Linear Programming, this is called a MiniMax Solution - trying to reach a maximum gain with a minimum cost - but the gains and costs are always defined differently with each distinct problem (goal), and they can be manipulated with time. So we try to get the maximum gain NOW while delaying the costs until LATER, like using a credit card. When I software-engineered financial systems, a corporate paradigm was: Never Time To Do It Right, Always Time To Do It Again. Which meant, get the software system written fast so it can be announced and sold, then spend the next couple years fixing major bugs. How many of us play similar games with our lives, hobbies, careers? Thats why no microsoft OS is any good until they are already anouncing a new one and making the now usable OS unsuported

05-26-2009, 09:22 AM	#21
simons-photography Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northamptonshire - England Photos: Gallery Posts: 496	Originally posted by DAZ 35mm is the width of the film including the holes. In still photography the photo is sideways so the space between the holes is about 24mm. So in theory the photo could be as wide as the film but was set at 36mm giving a photo 36x24. As for the 135 think of it as an old Kodak part number that described all of this and the cartage that the film came in. The number isn’t related to size as 120 is bigger but 135 came after 120 so it has a bigger number. These numbers now have ISO (not sensitivity as ISO stands for International Standards Organization) that describe all of this. This is all history and as to why it was 35mm you need to blame Edison and Eastman. DAZ thats right a number was asigned to each film type the fact that 135 happens to have 35 in alsomost coincidence with 36 wide frame is merely a coincidence

05-26-2009, 11:26 AM	#22
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Cosmo 8x10 inches. I knew somebody would!

05-27-2009, 03:05 AM	#23
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Cosmo 8x10 inches. Originally posted by Blue I knew somebody would! Pshaw. 12x20 inches. I almost bought a cam that size once, but I couldn't fit it all into my car. (Not a small car, just a huge tripod et al.) Let's see, what's that big Polaroid, 20x24 inches or something like that? Now we're getting up to a MANLY camera, a Paul Bunyan camera. A 20x24" CCD sensor would stare Zeus in the face and say, Back Off! Isn't that about the size of a Blue Whale's retina? So it's not unprecedented. Hmm, I'll have to research the visual systems of giant cephalapods. Maybe they'll be models for future generations of digicams. Large digicams. MANLY digicams. No wimpish Canon or Kodak sensors allowed here, no way. [Watch out, he's raving. Where's the Thorazine?]

05-27-2009, 03:37 AM	#24
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Im not sure if ideal sensor size can or should be defined. Im leaning more towards ideal pixel size.. wich, if i'm correct, was infinitely small (to register color value of single point and not an area). This leaves some ideal pixel pitch or resolution per unit for wich it is easy to design and USE* optics, i guess. Then the sensor size would be determined by the required resolution. *Smaller lenses are better but needs to be very precise and are more sensitive to overall image quality reduction if they get a dust, fingerprint or scratch on them. Where bigger ones just render a small spot in some part of image and dosnt reduce contrast or introduce haze/fog. Have there been tries to fabricate and position microlenses in such way that you dont need any more lenses? So that each microlens has such amount of offset in required dirrection it projects required image part on the pixel. This could potentially allow for extreme aperture ultra wide distortionless imaging, because you need to project good image only on one pixel (per lens).

05-27-2009, 10:36 AM	#25
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by ytterbium Have there been tries to fabricate and position microlenses in such way that you dont need any more lenses? So that each microlens has such amount of offset in required dirrection it projects required image part on the pixel. This could potentially allow for extreme aperture ultra wide distortionless imaging, because you need to project good image only on one pixel (per lens). I brought up this idea in my early days on PFC, (mis)labeling it as "affective optics". The structure would be similiar to a planar affective antenna array, composed of numerous small elements that are electronically 'tuned' and 'aimed' by varying phase relationships of control voltages - thus the planar antenna can be of any effective wavelength and aimed in almost any direction without any physical movement or changes. Optically, we'd have our pixel-site array, each site with a floating microlens that can be magnetically 'focused' and 'aimed' to sit at the desired angle and distance from the pixel site. The entire array would act as a 3D interferometer, effectively with any desired focal length, aperture, and aim. Such an affective 'lens' could, without itself moving, track and focus on any objects within its 180-degree field of view (although it's effective FOV would more likely be closer to 155-165 degrees). That's the theory (or wild-eyed-fantasy, at least). I'd be surprised if NOBODY was trying to design and build such, but I have no idea who or where, or if they'd reveal anything about it. Talk about trade secrets! And commercial implications! Such would shut down the optical glass factories and design studios. And could lead to a total surveillance society. Imagine: here's a chip that can 'be' a 1-100k mm zoom, f/0.1-100k, total AF and SR/IS, for any format from pinhead-PNS to 1x2KM, still or video, any spectral slice, etc. It wouldn't be necessary to fabricate huge chips for large formats, just tie together as many as you want in an array (it's an interferometer, remember) - and the linked array needn't even be flat, so you could have a cam-ball with total 360-degree vision. A rather small cam-ball, even. You think this might be handy for surveillance and spying? Ya, I suspect much development work is ongoing.