You've just proved my point with that actually. The edges of the 16:9 rectangle you've superimposed are not actually on the sensor. You couldn't get a wider shot without making the sensor bigger.
Bigger? if you insist on making it 4:3 i suppose.
it's not the size of the sensor that is at issue, that is not the hard bit. in a phone it's getting the optics to project that image. and you waste it if you insist on making your sensor 4:3 when you know all those images, and video will be displayed @ 16:9. it's not just width it's light too.
exactly. so the image is a circle and you put a sensor behind it in the spaces where you want to extract the image.
there is no sense in which a 4:3 image is more natural and 16:9 is necessarily a crop. unless you insist on building a 4:3 sensor. obviously the squarer the image you want the shittier your optics can be.
I would suggest that a portrait 4:3 is far more natural than a 16:9 image.
Comments
Bigger? if you insist on making it 4:3 i suppose.
it's not the size of the sensor that is at issue, that is not the hard bit. in a phone it's getting the optics to project that image. and you waste it if you insist on making your sensor 4:3 when you know all those images, and video will be displayed @ 16:9. it's not just width it's light too.
I would suggest that a portrait 4:3 is far more natural than a 16:9 image.
i don't mean aesthetically pleasing. i mean a fundamental property of nature.
I assume its cropping off part of what the lens would be capturing beyond the 16:9 it shows you.
Unless some are using a non standard lens, as others have mentioned.