Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"2/3 inch", etc. sensor???
- Thread starter cube
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
cube said:
Here's a nice article you can/should read about sensors and cropping:
http://hannemyr.com/photo/crop.html
cube said:
ok. you're not talking about the aspect ratio of the senors are you?
Normal(analog) camera's have a ratio of 2/3 (24*36mm). dSLR have the same
ratio. P&S camera's generally have a 3/4 ratio.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_System
It's not even that. The sensors are specified in different formats, 1/2-inch, 1/3, 1/5 etc. Nominally this is supposed to be the diagonal measurement of the active imaging area, but in real life the active areas are much smaller than that. The number is really to help manufacturers match up lenses with sensors. There is a little table at Micron with typical nominal and actual sizes.oblomow said:
The image ends where it ends 
The effect is what you are probably thinking: the lenses are designed to cover more area than the sensors will see, so some of the potential angle is wasted.
There are painful little formulas and calculators around the net to figure out what you will actually get.
The effect is what you are probably thinking: the lenses are designed to cover more area than the sensors will see, so some of the potential angle is wasted.There are painful little formulas and calculators around the net to figure out what you will actually get.
OK, now I understand the original question. And have learned something too!
( I could have asked somebody at work, it work at a company that makes the machines for Micron...)
( I could have asked somebody at work, it work at a company that makes the machines for Micron...)
Why are you CCD specs from a manufacturer. Maybe it is the sensor package, the part that needs to be soldered to a board.cube said:
But everything for 11mm diagonal always says (2/3 type) wich I would take to be the aspect ratio.
Does this help?
Or has the answer already been found? I got lost somewhere in the middle of the thread.
Or has the answer already been found? I got lost somewhere in the middle of the thread.
Arrr...I was diligently reading through the thread and I knew just where to find the answer, but you beat me to it.
Same linky:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm
Weird, eh?
Same linky:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm
Weird, eh?
That link just goes to a general area.
Here's the real explanation; it's more outdated crap bogging us down (like interlace and 29.97 FPS):
"Sensors are often referred to with a "type" designation using imperial fractions such as 1/1.8" or 2/3" which are larger than the actual sensor diameters. The type designation harks back to a set of standard sizes given to TV camera tubes in the 50's. These sizes were typically 1/2", 2/3" etc. The size designation does not define the diagonal of the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the tube. Engineers soon discovered that for various reasons the usable area of this imaging plane was approximately two thirds of the designated size. This designation has clearly stuck (although it should have been thrown out long ago). There appears to be no specific mathematical relationship between the diameter of the imaging circle and the sensor size, although it is always roughly two thirds."
Here's the real explanation; it's more outdated crap bogging us down (like interlace and 29.97 FPS):
"Sensors are often referred to with a "type" designation using imperial fractions such as 1/1.8" or 2/3" which are larger than the actual sensor diameters. The type designation harks back to a set of standard sizes given to TV camera tubes in the 50's. These sizes were typically 1/2", 2/3" etc. The size designation does not define the diagonal of the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the tube. Engineers soon discovered that for various reasons the usable area of this imaging plane was approximately two thirds of the designated size. This designation has clearly stuck (although it should have been thrown out long ago). There appears to be no specific mathematical relationship between the diameter of the imaging circle and the sensor size, although it is always roughly two thirds."