>>4483587
Rectangle sensors are much easier to make
Virtually all of our output mediums, be it screens or printing are rectangular anyways, so capturing in a circle means always cropping later

>>4483587
Because it makes sense that way and paintings.

>>4483587
to tidy shit, film would be more suitable for circular images

PD. film always wins

>>4483591
You can make circular images with film pretty easily. It's a waste of film area, but if you get the pics you want that's fine.

>>4483587
I wish someone would do a camera with a square sensor using the full lens resolution. Not just a crop.

Square images are landpscape/portrait agnostic, it doesn't matter if the smartphone rotates.

>>4483753
1:1 is also a very aesthetic aspect ratio. It seems like that kind of sensor would pair very well with that waist-level Hasselblad viewfinder body, which is mostly just a cube. Historically it even used 120 format film? I don’t use film but that’s what da google says. Also, Polaroid? Where’s the super-high-resolution digital Polaroid camera? It could be kino. Obviously it would be crazy expensive for a sensor to be the actual size of a Polaroid but it would be so easy to cut a sensor that’s 1:1 and create a digital Polaroid? I don’t know why they aren’t doing this or some big company isn’t paying them to do this since 1:1 images look kino on Instagram feeds and “retro”/“vintage” camera bodies are popular right now. It’s a “no-brainer,” as Chris Nichols would say.

Why do we have this discussion otb every two months I swear.
The corners of a rectangular frame are the softest due to how light bends and if you increase the amount of the lens area you're grabbing, you're getting more image that is abnormally soft and aberrated. Exceptions exist but that's pretty much it; lens design assumes a rectangular sensor/film plane.

Go shoot an APS-C lens on high res FF and crop it to a square (or circle) and notice that beyond the lower resolution from your normal shots, the outer edges are all going to look like shit and vingette super hard.

>>4483589
>Rectangle sensors are much easier to make
Only because that's what the vast majority of manufacturing equipment is designed for.

>>4483805
>it's all because of Big Rectangle and their monopoly on engineering design
Or it's easier to cut along a straight edge than a curved one

>>4483842
People figured out how to cut perfect circles hundreds of years ago.

File: Screenshot 2025-11-18 at (...).png (95 KB, 324x505)

95 KB PNG

circular sensors would mean you have to throw away at least 10% of the wafer

>>4483880
Very true, but a line is still easier in engineering

>>4483587
Most of my images are shot capturing the full image circle, on a Nikon Z7 with sensor output set to square in-camera. I originally did this on an underwater film camera I built (using 35mm lenses on 126 square film) so that I wouldn’t have to try to level horizontal while floating in the fricking sea, & could worry about cropping later in post. However, I got used to the luxury of capturing the entire image circle so that’s what I do now, except I don’t fucking rotate digital photos bc it fucks everything up & has to recalc & approximate the entire pixel map over again, it’s like a command that instantly reduces the quality of your digital output to a second generation lossy copy. So now I just do what I want which is shoot everything circular but without it making a lot of sense or giving a fuck, that’s what, mf’s.

>>4483892
There is no such thing as a straight line in the natural universe.

But yes continuous processes tend to favor lines. The economic benefit of continuous processes is that film is made cheap enough to produce to sell and use in this market, so cameras were built around film produced and distributed in that way. If film were produced by dropping a blob of it on to a griddle and waiting until it oozed out to fill the corners of a die, then almost certainly the dies would be circular to reduce the waiting for every bit of it to hit the worthless corners, and then distributed in stacks like pringles, and your camera would be designed to expose one and eject it like a frisbee into your awaiting dogs gnashing teeth

>>4483957
So sounds like straight lines are easier then, thank you for confirming