Sony DSC HX80 Sensor

On 25/12/2018 16:41, Savageduck wrote:


How does 1/2.3 figure in ?

Sensor sizes are expressed in inches notation because at the time of the
popularization of digital image sensors they were used to replace video
camera tubes. The common 1" circular video camera tubes have a rectangular
photo sensitive area about 16mm diagonal, so a digital sensor with a 16mm
diagonal size is a 1" video tube equivalent. The name of a 1" digital sensor
should more accurately be read as "one inch video camera tube equivalent"
sensor. Current digital image sensor size descriptors are the video camera
tube equivalency size, not the actual size of the sensor. For example, a 1"
sensor has a diagonal measurement of 16mm.

Sizes are often expressed as a fraction of an inch, with a one in the
numerator, and a decimal number in the denominator. For example, 1/2.5
converts to 2/5 as a simple fraction, or 0.4 as a decimal number. This "inch"
system brings a result approximately 1.5 times the length of the diagonal of
the sensor. This “optical format� measure goes back to the way image
sizes of video cameras used until the late 1980s were expressed, referring to
the outside diameter of the glass envelope of the video camera tube. The
actual sensor size is much smaller than the camera companies publish –
about one-third smaller." For example, a camera advertising a 1/2.7" sensor
does not have a sensor with a diagonal of 0.37"; instead, the diagonal is
closer to 0.26.

Your 1/ 2.3� sensor will have a diagonal measurement of approximately
7.66mm.

Fascinating. I had always guessed that might be the derivation, nice to
have it confirmed. Imperial tubes of course because that was in the days
when the USA was driving the technology.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 11:01:34 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Just where in the specs does it say anything about the aspect ratio of
the sensor ?! Surely if it was rectangular, and it might well be, it
would give the aspect ratio. All it says is 1/2.3 ", which is a bit
less tham 1/2 " . If it was rectangular, then one dimension wouldn't
be enough to completely specify, further sugesting a square.

i explained that already.

No you didn't. You most definitely didn't. You cited two wep pages
which the OP has clearly failed to read. You could, if you had been so
motivated, pointed out that the second web page said that the maximum
resolution is 4896 x 3672 and the sensor was sized 6.17 x 4.55mm. That
would have been extremely helpful and would have immediately answered
the OP's questions. But no, rather than pointing out that the specific
information was in the 2nd URL you kept on being difficult ....
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just where in the specs does it say anything about the aspect ratio of
the sensor ?! Surely if it was rectangular, and it might well be, it
would give the aspect ratio. All it says is 1/2.3 ", which is a bit
less tham 1/2 " . If it was rectangular, then one dimension wouldn't
be enough to completely specify, further sugesting a square.

i explained that already.

No you didn't. You most definitely didn't.

yes i very definitely did, and more than once.

You cited two wep pages
which the OP has clearly failed to read.

it's not my problem if someone else does not read the provided links,
or if they did ask questions if they don't fully understand it.

You could, if you had been so
motivated, pointed out that the second web page said that the maximum
resolution is 4896 x 3672 and the sensor was sized 6.17 x 4.55mm.

which is exactly what i did when it became apparent he was still
confused.

In article , nospam
wrote:
Someone else suggested it might be 4:3 but I don't know.

easy to tell from the specs:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dschx80

its resolution is 4896 x 3672 pixels, which is 1.33x wider than it is
tall, or an aspect ratio of 4:3.

contrary to your bull**** claim, i answered the question *more* than
once.

That
would have been extremely helpful and would have immediately answered
the OP's questions. But no, rather than pointing out that the specific
information was in the 2nd URL you kept on being difficult ....

as usual, you have nothing to contribute but fabricated attacks.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 19:01:45 -0500, nospam
wrote:

contrary to your bull**** claim, i answered the question *more* than
once.

But it took 5 interchanges of questions and answers. With a bit of
willingness on your part you could have made it in one.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

contrary to your bull**** claim, i answered the question *more* than
once.

But it took 5 interchanges of questions and answers.

nope. only one, with a second to clarify it.

With a bit of
willingness on your part you could have made it in one.

also wrong.

the problem was that the original poster didn't understand what aspect
ratio meant and cannot do basic math.

the problem was that the original poster didn't understand what aspect
ratio meant and cannot do basic math.

I knew what aspect ratio was before you were born.

As a license professional engineer, I'm confident that my math skills
well exceed yours.

In article ,
wrote:


the problem was that the original poster didn't understand what aspect
ratio meant and cannot do basic math.

I knew what aspect ratio was before you were born.

you don't know when i was born, therefore that statement is false on
its face.

if you knew what aspect ratio meant, then you would know what
calculation to do from the specs *and* would be able to determine its
shape (which is always rectangular).

As a license professional engineer, I'm confident that my math skills
well exceed yours.

given that you admitted to not understanding what aspect ratio is and
how to calculate it, that statement is clearly false.

In article ,
wrote:
Just where in the specs does it say anything about the aspect ratio of
the sensor ?! Surely if it was rectangular, and it might well be, it
would give the aspect ratio. All it says is 1/2.3 ", which is a bit
less tham 1/2 " . If it was rectangular, then one dimension wouldn't
be enough to completely specify, further sugesting a square.


On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:15:14 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 25, 2018, wrote
(in ):

Nowhere does it answer my questions ...

yes it does.

OK, very good info I somehow missed.


your license needs to be revoked, if it even exists.

I knew what aspect ratio was before you were born.

you don't know when i was born, therefore that statement is false on
its face.

OK, I'm 72 and first dealt with aspect ratios in regards to my hobby
astronomy, in the mid 1950s.

if you knew what aspect ratio meant, then you would know what
calculation to do from the specs *and* would be able to determine its
shape (which is always rectangular).

As I said, I hadn't seen the specs, when I posted my questions
regarding the sensor. Just thought someone would know some quick
answers.

As a license professional engineer, I'm confident that my math skills
well exceed yours.

given that you admitted to not understanding what aspect ratio is and
how to calculate it, that statement is clearly false.

Where did I say that I didn't know what aspest ratio was ?! I only
asked what the aspect ratio of the sensor was. Again, at that point I
hadn't seen the specs.

BTW, my math aspecialty is Differential Equations. What's yours ?

In article ,
wrote:


I knew what aspect ratio was before you were born.

you don't know when i was born, therefore that statement is false on
its face.

OK, I'm 72 and first dealt with aspect ratios in regards to my hobby
astronomy, in the mid 1950s.

then you should have been able to easily determine aspect ratio from
the information in the camera's specs.

if you knew what aspect ratio meant, then you would know what
calculation to do from the specs *and* would be able to determine its
shape (which is always rectangular).

As I said, I hadn't seen the specs, when I posted my questions
regarding the sensor. Just thought someone would know some quick
answers.

you certainly saw the specs when i posted links to them, yet you still
failed to determine the aspect ratio, which means you really *don't*
understand it.

As a license professional engineer, I'm confident that my math skills
well exceed yours.

given that you admitted to not understanding what aspect ratio is and
how to calculate it, that statement is clearly false.

Where did I say that I didn't know what aspest ratio was ?! I only
asked what the aspect ratio of the sensor was. Again, at that point I
hadn't seen the specs.

you did when the links were posted.

or you could have found the specs with a simple search.

BTW, my math aspecialty is Differential Equations. What's yours ?

diffeqs has nothing to do with aspect ratio, which is nothing more than
division, something a grade school kid can do.

I knew what aspect ratio was before you were born.

you don't know when i was born, therefore that statement is false on
its face.

OK, I'm 72 and first dealt with aspect ratios in regards to my hobby
astronomy, in the mid 1950s.

then you should have been able to easily determine aspect ratio from
the information in the camera's specs.

Yes of course BUT, as I've stated several times, I hadn't seen those
specs at the time I posed my questions. If I had, then it would all be
a non-issue.

AND, I thanked you for giving me the site with the info, which I had
not had previously.

you certainly saw the specs when i posted links to them, yet you still
failed to determine the aspect ratio, which means you really *don't*
understand it.

NO, once I saw the dimensions, I obviously had the answers to my
questions, but not before.

diffeqs has nothing to do with aspect ratio, which is nothing more than
division, something a grade school kid can do.

No indeed, not much to do with aspect ratios, but I was challenging
your assertion that I lacked math capabilities. Rest assured that I
well knew that aspect ratio is the height divided by the width of the
sensor.

When I see a fat person, I always tell my wife, that they have a low
aspect ratio.