New curved Camera sensors

Well Sony canon and Nikon are planning on implementing it also tech doesn’t take long to implement its self not in the times we are in it wasn’t long ago we didn’t even have drones on the consumer market or 3axis gimbals tech moves along very fast if you took a new gen iPhone back 10 years they would be amazed they would be like what you mean it’s got wifi what you mean it does 4K video haha but no I’m not bent on these new sensors i think it easy to miss understand emotions behind words on a screen it more of a conversation I’m not that worried just saw a few articles

Spudnik510 wrote in post #19277261
Yep eyes evolved first from a flat light sensitive cell like the one lizards still have on their fore heads then the cell started to pit the advantage of this was better light gathering accuracy the creature was able to start pin pointing subjects and they had a better ability to gauge depth of field and also allot and I mean allot of engineering is directly inspired from biology we try to replicate biology in all manner of fields from electronics to medicine and the lenses would be easier to make and design if the sensor was curved the lens designs would be simpler and cheaper to make look it up on YouTube or google they talk about the advantages

I don't buy it but thanks for your thoughts. Also what's your source for the fact you feel Sony and Nikon are developing this and will offer it in future cameras?

I bet we don't see anything in consumers cameras in the next ten years at least. There are more revenue generators than that.

Wilt wrote in post #19277264
"So, unless a new interchangeable-lens system is developed, with all lenses possessing the same curvature as the sensor, using more than one lens with such a sensor is a non-starter. Moreover, such a system would be unusable with third-party and legacy lenses, so it’s unlikely that any manufacturer would make the R&D investment for a complete, stand-alone system."

I wonder if a flexible sensor would solve that problem? We're getting foldable glass in phones now.

Spudnik510 wrote in post #19277266
.
Well Sony canon and Nikon are planning on implementing it .....
.

.
Really? . Are you sure? . Just because a company files for a patent for something, that doesn't mean they have any intention of ever actually making it for their consumer products.


.

infrared guy wrote in post #19277391
I wonder if a flexible sensor would solve that problem? We're getting foldable glass in phones now.

The key issue is achieving the identical curvature every time, when put into the 'curved mode' vs. the 'flat mode' sensor configuration

Wilt wrote in post #19277488
The key issue is achieving the identical curvature every time, when put into the 'curved mode' vs. the 'flat mode' sensor configuration

Why do you think that's a problem?

Capn Jack wrote in post #19277498
Why do you think that's a problem?

If the lens optics are designed with the assumption that it is projecting light rays of different wavelengths at a certain radius of curvature sensor, if the curved lens fails to be reproducably at that specific radius of curvature, the different wavelengths will not converge properly, degrading focus.

Wilt wrote in post #19277488
The key issue is achieving the identical curvature every time, when put into the 'curved mode' vs. the 'flat mode' sensor configuration

Wilt wrote in post #19277509
If the lens optics are designed with the assumption that it is projecting light rays of different wavelengths at a certain radius of curvature sensor, if the curved lens fails to be reproducably at that specific radius of curvature, the different wavelengths will not converge properly, degrading focus.

That's still confusing. The first statement is talking about the sensor, but the second quote is discussing the lens.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19277463
.
Just because a company files for a patent for something, that doesn't mean they have any intention of ever actually making it for their consumer products.
.

Absolutely. Big companies explore many alternatives during product conceptualization and development, and they file for patents even if they have no intention of ever bringing them to products themselves.

Every time canonrumors.com reports on a new Canon patent filing, their forums are filled with people freaking out about all the worst aspects of it and assuming it will be front and center in the next EOS release. It's fun to watch.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19277520
That's still confusing. The first statement is talking about the sensor, but the second quote is discussing the lens.

The lens and the sensor work together as a single optical system. You can't talk about making a curved sensor without also talking about its effects on the design of the lens.

To my simplified understanding, with a flat sensor, points at the edge of the image are further from the optical center of the lens (the point where the optical axis intercepts the plane where the iris is located) than points near the middle of the image. That requires extra glass in order that the corners of the image appear in focus without introducing unacceptable distortions.

With a curved sensor, the curvature can be such that all points are equidistant (or nearly so) from the optical center of the lens, so there is less optical compensation needed in the lens.

One consequence of this--and I admit my understanding may be completely wrong--is that the curvature of the sensor and the location of the optical center of the lens are interdependent. That's why I and a few other folks have said in this thread that curved sensors would most likely be used first in fixed lens cameras, not ILC's. It's not impossible with an ILC, but the designers of the lenses for such a camera would have to know that they're projecting onto a curved surface, and what the properties of that curvature are, rather than a flat surface as they do today.

I'm obviously no optical engineer, but it seems to me that even if a curved sensor makes that part of the design easier, there's still physics of refraction (i.e., CA) to overcome. A lot of the element groups in a complex lens are there to help bring all wavelengths of light to focus at the same place, and that won't change. Don't expect a 15 element lens to suddenly only need four elements just because there's a curved sensor behind it.

mcoren wrote in post #19277573
The lens and the sensor work together as a single optical system. You can't talk about making a curved sensor without also talking about its effects on the design of the lens.

To my simplified understanding, with a flat sensor, points at the edge of the image are further from the optical center of the lens (the point where the optical axis intercepts the plane where the iris is located) than points near the middle of the image. That requires extra glass in order that the corners of the image appear in focus without introducing unacceptable distortions.

With a curved sensor, the curvature can be such that all points are equidistant (or nearly so) from the optical center of the lens, so there is less optical compensation needed in the lens.

One consequence of this--and I admit my understanding may be completely wrong--is that the curvature of the sensor and the location of the optical center of the lens are interdependent. That's why I and a few other folks have said in this thread that curved sensors would most likely be used first in fixed lens cameras, not ILC's. It's not impossible with an ILC, but the designers of the lenses for such a camera would have to know that they're projecting onto a curved surface, and what the properties of that curvature are, rather than a flat surface as they do today.

I'm obviously no optical engineer, but it seems to me that even if a curved sensor makes that part of the design easier, there's still physics of refraction (i.e., CA) to overcome. A lot of the element groups in a complex lens are there to help bring all wavelengths of light to focus at the same place, and that won't change. Don't expect a 15 element lens to suddenly only need four elements just because there's a curved sensor behind it.

I understand all of that, but that isn't what Wilt said. The conversation was in response to this quote:

infrared guy wrote in post #19277391
I wonder if a flexible sensor would solve that problem? We're getting foldable glass in phones now.

I suppose that would work with lens other than fixed focus. Whether there is demand or a need is another question altogether.

If the lens is designed to project its image on the a spherical surface assumed to be 10mm radius (for discussion purposes only), and the rigid sensor has a fixed curvature of 10mm radius, two optics and the sensor are matched to each other.

If, however, the sensor is designed to be flexible, and either lie on a flat plane for conventional/legacy optics (re-use FD mount and EF mount lenses which assume film/sensor are planar, or be flexed into a spheroid surface, there needs to be something that conforms that lens to the spheroid, or else it may bend more in some places and less in other places and form an imperfect approximation of the spheroid surface, so the light rays from the lenses will NOT all focus exactly at the spheroid that was assumed...itstead that image falls on parts of the sensor less than or more than the assumed radius of curvature.

All of the above and mcoren's post #40 are in full agreement with each other. The lens optics and the sensor optics need to match, and the inherent variablility of a flat/curved sensor needs to be minimal...repeateabili​ty of form, either flat or either perfectly curved spheroid of n mm radius, every time it is bent to be spheroid in form or flattened to a plane.

Wilt wrote in post #19277601
If the lens is designed to project its image on the a spherical surface assumed to be 10mm radius (for discussion purposes only), and the rigid sensor has a fixed curvature of 10mm radius, two optics and the sensor are matched to each other.

If, however, the sensor is designed to be flexible, and either lie on a flat plane for conventional/legacy optics (re-use FD mount and EF mount lenses which assume film/sensor are planar, or be flexed into a spheroid surface, there needs to be something that conforms that lens to the spheroid, or else it may bend more in some places and less in other places and form an imperfect approximation of the spheroid surface, so the light rays from the lenses will NOT all focus exactly at the spheroid that was assumed...itstead that image falls on parts of the sensor less than or more than the assumed radius of curvature.

All of the above and mcoren's post #40 are in full agreement with each other. The lens optics and the sensor optics need to match, and the inherent variablility of a flat/curved sensor needs to be minimal...repeateabili​ty of form, either flat or either perfectly curved spheroid of n mm radius, every time it is bent to be spheroid in form or flattened to a plane.

First, note the highlighted part- assuming a flexible sensor could be made, it would have to conform to the lens, the lens doesn't conform to the spheroid.

Wilt wrote in post #19277488
The key issue is achieving the identical curvature every time, when put into the 'curved mode' vs. the 'flat mode' sensor configuration

You still haven't explained the issues. The idea seems similar to adaptive optics that exist now.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19277618
You still haven't explained the issues. The idea seems similar to adaptive optics that exist now.

I made a picture. Assume the lens (yellowish object in drawing) is desiged to perfectly focus upon a sensor of n radius (the black curve). If the sensor was flexible, so that it could be suitably used with a legacy film lens or dSLR lens by being planar, but it could be made spherical once again to be used with the new curved sensor lenses, we could have the flexibility to use both kinds of lenses, to help reduce kit cost for photographers.
IF the restoration of curved surface were not super repeatable in form, when controlled back to close-to-spherical shape, it might instead assume the shape represented (in exaggerated form) to be the blue curve...and the light rays designed to be in focus on the black plane are NO LONGER in focus on the blue curve sensor.

IMAGE LINK: https://app.photobucke​t.com …47-411a-93f1-5c1cb2f4d620

Wilt wrote in post #19277488
The key issue is achieving the identical curvature every time, when put into the 'curved mode' vs. the 'flat mode' sensor configuration

Wilt wrote in post #19277623
I made a picture. Assume the lens (yellowish object in drawing) is desiged to perfectly focus upon a sensor of n raduis (the black curve). If the sensor was flexible, so that it could be suitably used with a legacy film lens or dSLR lens by being planar, but it could be made spherical once again to be used with the new curved sensor lenses, we could have the flexibility to use both kinds of lenses, to help reduce kit cost for photographers.
IF the restoration of curved surface were not super repeatable in form, when controlled back to close-to-spherical shape, it might instead assume the shape represented (in exaggerated form) to be the blue curve...an the light rays designed to be in focus on the black plane are NO LONGER in focus on the blue curve sensor.

IMAGE LINK: https://app.photobucke​t.com …47-411a-93f1-5c1cb2f4d620

(I know my illustration is imperfect...the light rays should all originate from the center of the lens, which the center ray does not. mea culpa)

Pretty picture. But it still doesn't explain your comment above. You only explained the obvious- the need for the curvature to be reproducible. Why don't you think it could be done?