Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related

Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(36 replies)
  Indespensible MaxScripts, Plugins and 3rd Party Tools
(37 replies)
  The allmighty FREE Resources Thread !
(17 replies)
  spam alert!!!
(4886 replies)
  Maxforums member photo gallery index
(114 replies)
  Maxforums Member Tutorials
(89 replies)
  three cheers to maxforums...
(240 replies)
  101 Things you didnt know in Max...
(198 replies)
  A Face tutorial from MDB101 :D
(95 replies) Members Gallery
(516 replies)
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

can't understand a sensor size.
show user profile  Boing
I'm doing a photomontage and the camera i'm setting up for is a canon powershot A650 IS.

It says the sensor is 1/1.7" (7.49 x 5.52 mm)

presumably that means one, one point seventh of an inch? ie 1 divided by 1.7 (0.588)

Problem is, 0.588 of an inch is 15mm wide not 7.49.

Where am I going wrong here?
read 372 times
11/10/2011 8:12:40 PM (last edit: 11/10/2011 8:12:40 PM)
show user profile  Bolteon
.588 of an inch is 15mm and not 7.49 but 7.49 is almost exactly half of 15.


-Marko Mandaric

read 370 times
11/10/2011 8:14:21 PM (last edit: 11/10/2011 8:14:21 PM)
show user profile  Boing
your explanation requires an explanation!
read 362 times
11/10/2011 9:07:41 PM (last edit: 11/10/2011 9:07:41 PM)
show user profile  mrgrotey
Quoted from the ? button on that site (which you should have read first ;)

Sensor Type Designation
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.

read 358 times
11/10/2011 9:26:00 PM (last edit: 11/10/2011 9:26:26 PM)
show user profile  Boing
Dammit, can they make this shit any less obvious?!!

Thanks Grotey, yet again you deliver the neccesary slap to the back of the head

read 349 times
11/10/2011 10:00:16 PM (last edit: 11/10/2011 10:00:16 PM)
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window