Why don't we have 16:9 sensors in our photo cameras?

>>4439418 (OP)
Because that's a video aspect ratio

so you can hide colour correction stuff in the little bit that won't be seen

Then there would not be any space for exif metadata

the human eye can't see that aspect ratio anyway

What we need is a digital 65:24 sensor

why are microsofts surface LITERALLY the only 3:2 devices??

>>4439418 (OP)
because we're trying to optimize for surface area at the center of the lens. Size of the sensor is the expensive bottleneck. So ideally 1:1 sensor. But on 1:1 sensors people crop more which is a waste. Therefore 3:2 on FF or 4:3 on medium format is optimal

>>4440291
So make 16:9 glass.

>>4439418 (OP)
lens image is circular

>>4440346
Or just use anamorphic

>>4439418 (OP)
The bigger problem is that photographers shut their brains off and let some long dead engineers of camera bodies in the 1950s set the aspect ratio of each of their compositions in 2025.
A more unthinking, low effort bunch of wannabe “artists” I cannot imagine.

Yes sensors should all be 1:1, because a fucking imagemaker is responsible for choosing whatever random ass aspect ratio best suits the contents of their composition. If you are trying to make every goddamn composition work not as a composition but as a rectangle that conforms to the default proportions of an old film standard from 1890 that you don’t even fucking use, then your work sucks and you are a putz.

>>4440291
I'd be interested to see a 1:1 digital camera, we can count on the zoomies to make it viral.

>>4440359
3:2 is allah’s aspect ratio alhamdulilah

>>4440362
>>4440359
3:2 wins

>>4440359
>because a fucking imagemaker is responsible for choosing whatever random ass aspect ratio best suits the contents of their composition
If you aren't intending a 1:1 output, a 1:1 sensor is just worse, unless you want like a equilateral triangle output or can't rotate the sensor at all.
If you are intending to crop to anything rectangular at all, you are better off starting with a rectangle. We don't yet live in a world of 1:1 TVs, phones, monitors, etc.

>>4440346
Make oval lens elements? Homie that ain't gonna work the way you want it to.

>>4440368
we can land rockets on their ass

>>4439418 (OP)
they should make the sensors round to maximize on the image circle

>>4439418 (OP)
Because 3:2 is the best aspect ratio for photographs.
To be fair I do wonder why nobody has made a new format optimized for 16:9. How the fuck did 4:3 become a thing?

>>4440502
pretty sure 35mm motion picture film is close to it, like 4.125:3 or something

>>4440502
I actually like 4:3 for video, but only if it goes to the corners of the image circle (as opposed to a cropped 3:2). It allows you to place things closer to the top of the frame and put more emphasis on the the lens's vertical characteristics in a part of the image circle that is normally just outside the upper boundary of a 3:2 sensor, and this has an interesting effect on human proportions and other vertical elements in the scene.

I'm pretty high, so tell me if I need to elaborate.

I am going to fucking kill myself because there are no cameras with native 4x5 aspect ratio.

I am literally going insane due to lack of 4x5. I NEED 4x5 RATIO FFS AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

>>4441576
to do what with
shoot facebook reels?

Real men use 16:10

>>4441579
4x5 and 8x10 are the classic large format evergreen photography aspect ratios. 4x5 is the best aspect ratio for a balancing the composition. 4x5 is the most aesthetic aspect ratio.

I want to bust a nut to 4x5 aspect ratio.

>>4441581
just crop down to 4x5 then bro

>>4441582
It's not the same. I need in camera 4x5 aspect ratio.

>>4440291
This is the correct answer OP. 3:2 is "closest to square at center where stupid consumers don’t crop"
>>4440346
Are you ducking stupid (this >>4440353 is your answer)

>>4440504
Short answer: no. 35mm was just exactly what fullframe is today

Long answer: what you mention is academy film. But there were a bazillion formats on 35mm film. On photography the modern fullframe format was widespread. But on movies all kinds of aspect ratios were common. Academy was taller, super35 was wider. Vistavision is close to what fullframe is today.

>>4441580
this

>>4440054
this

>>4440054
based. I almost considered getting a GFX to be able to crop to XPan without much quality loss.

>>4441581
4x5, XPan, and square are the only ratios that matter IMO. It's so dumb everything is 3:2 or 4:3

>>4439418 (OP)
You’d need huge fucking lenses and you’d waste even more light

>>4439418 (OP)
Because it's a cope format created to scam display buyers. It's not even panoramic proper, just some weird in-between lukewarm garbage.

>>4440359
dis nigga wants a sensor shaped like a triangle lmao

>>4439418 (OP)
Why? My screen is 3:2 and it's better. Holds more stuff vertically and you want more space vertically on your screen. 16:9 is too cramped

>>4448723
4:3 vertical is great for full body and portrait shots of one person.

What WE need is a 2:1 aspect sensor.

Why aren't sensors circular? I'm getting cucked out of the full image circle.

>>4439418 (OP)
Because when Edison bought film stock from Eastman, chose the aspect ratio of the film that allowed them to fit wide enough perfs needed for a steady shot in primitive movie cameras. And then created a crooked fucking monopoly as always, and by the time it was broken up had already so totally owned the entire fucking film industry, that there was no going back. And the camera industry just took Edisons movie films and produced still cameras to fit them. Now, the camera companies, knowing their unimaginative customer base this well, never fucking changed it for over a hundred years, long after every other technology in the camera has changed. So now you boring fuckers STILL just shoot images at whatever aspect ratio the manufacturer shoved in there, which big surprise is still the one set by Edison in the 1800s, and you frame all your compositions to conform to that century-plus year old decision bc you can't into art or you'd have to use your fucking imaginations, which you don't have or you'd be a fucking painter or illustrator or some such shit. No, you want to put as little work as humanly possible into your images and just let whatever the tools produce be your amazing creation. Fucking lame.

All sensor should be circular, capturing the entire image circle of the lens. Thus forcing the "artist" to actually give enough of a damn to compose your images and crop them with intention instead of mindless passive boringness. My GODS I swear I just hate you guys sometimes... like, right now. Sumbich

>>4451302
You are a pseud. The last part doesn’t even make sense.

3:2 persists because so many frames fit it and it’s easy to crop to 4x5 and 5x7. 4:3 turned out to be the cheapest to manufacture, digitally. 3:2 isnt expensive enough to die out.

Circular sensors would be very expensive and pointless pixel peeper shit
>i need even more pixels
Are the 40+ million pixels you can crop today not good enough?

>>4451305
You are an illiterate hayseed. 3:2 persists because you really are that insipid. End of story. Move on, get a life.