Look up the word on Websters. The only reference to the word in regards to size is this.
You seem to have forgotten the very first thing I linked in this thread:
Apology accepted
Note the print on your illustration says much of the information is valid even if the camera is digital?You seem to have forgotten the very first thing I linked in this thread:
Note the part that says this stuff is valid for both film and digital cameras. Note that small format here includes 35mm and APS cameras (you know, digital).
A better more detailed entry is on Wikipedia. And there the definition refers only to the physical dimensions. For example,
"Formats
The most common large format is 4×5 inches, which was the size common cameras used in the 1930s-1950s, like the Graflex Speed Graphic and Crown Graphic, among others. Less common formats include quarter-plate, 5×7 inches, and 8×10 inches (20×25 cm); the size of many old 1920s Kodak cameras (various versions of Kodak 1, 2, and 3 and Master View cameras, to much later Sinar monorail studio cameras) are 11×14 inches, 16×20 inches, 20×24 inches, various panoramic or "banquet" formats (such as 4×10 and 8×20 inches), and metric formats, including 9×12 cm, 10×13 cm, and 13×18 cm and assorted old and current aerial image formats of 9×9 inches, 9×18 inches (K17, K18, K19, K22 etc.), using roll film of 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 10 inches width or digital sensors, view cameras (including pinhole cameras), reproduction/process cameras, and x-ray film and digital cameras.
Above 8×10 inches, the formats are often referred to as Ultra Large Format (ULF) and may be 11×14, 16×20, or 20×24 inches or as large as film, plates, sensors, or cameras are available. Many large formats (e.g., 24×24, 36x36, and 48x48 inches) are horizontal cameras designed to make big negatives for contact printing onto press-printing plates.
The Polaroid 20×24 camera is one of the largest format instant cameras currently in common usage and can be hired from Polaroid agents in various countries. Many well-known photographers have used the 235 pounds (107 kg), wheeled-chassis Polaroid."
All of the difference in formats is defined according to size. The use of film is coincidental.
You claimed you "never heard" of "Full Frame" before the digital era, when you were selling cameras. But you heard "full frame" then? Maybe you have magic ears that tell you when a customer is capitalizing a word and when they're not?
You are just embarrassing yourself, contradicting your earlier versions of your story which are all plain for everyone to see in this thread.The ability to hear the difference between capital and small letters is really special, don't you think?You claimed you "never heard" of "Full Frame" before the digital era, when you were selling cameras. But you heard "full frame" then? Maybe you have magic ears that tell you when a customer is capitalizing a word and when they're not?
Wow, vandalizing wikipedia pages to win an argument. How mature. You can edit the pages, it's true, but they will be reversed if you are just making stuff up.Note the print on your illustration says much of the information is valid even if the camera is digital?You seem to have forgotten the very first thing I linked in this thread:
Note the part that says this stuff is valid for both film and digital cameras. Note that small format here includes 35mm and APS cameras (you know, digital).
A better more detailed entry is on Wikipedia. And there the definition refers only to the physical dimensions. For example,
"Formats
The most common large format is 4×5 inches, which was the size common cameras used in the 1930s-1950s, like the Graflex Speed Graphic and Crown Graphic, among others. Less common formats include quarter-plate, 5×7 inches, and 8×10 inches (20×25 cm); the size of many old 1920s Kodak cameras (various versions of Kodak 1, 2, and 3 and Master View cameras, to much later Sinar monorail studio cameras) are 11×14 inches, 16×20 inches, 20×24 inches, various panoramic or "banquet" formats (such as 4×10 and 8×20 inches), and metric formats, including 9×12 cm, 10×13 cm, and 13×18 cm and assorted old and current aerial image formats of 9×9 inches, 9×18 inches (K17, K18, K19, K22 etc.), using roll film of 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, or 10 inches width or digital sensors, view cameras (including pinhole cameras), reproduction/process cameras, and x-ray film and digital cameras.
Above 8×10 inches, the formats are often referred to as Ultra Large Format (ULF) and may be 11×14, 16×20, or 20×24 inches or as large as film, plates, sensors, or cameras are available. Many large formats (e.g., 24×24, 36x36, and 48x48 inches) are horizontal cameras designed to make big negatives for contact printing onto press-printing plates.
The Polaroid 20×24 camera is one of the largest format instant cameras currently in common usage and can be hired from Polaroid agents in various countries. Many well-known photographers have used the 235 pounds (107 kg), wheeled-chassis Polaroid."
All of the difference in formats is defined according to size. The use of film is coincidental.
Also notice the parts of your text that refer to large format sensors?
Can you show me a link to a large of even "ultra large" (lol) sensor that this publication refers to?
Wikipedia..... LMAO. I can edit that article if I feel like it. You do know that right?
In reference to "only physical dimentions" read it again. It mentions print sizes specifically.
You aren't very good at arguing..
EDIT: Go back and read the wikipedia article. I removed reference to large format digital sensors since there aren't any available.
Nowhere near as bad as your frantic shifting of goal posts and desperate splitting of hairs
It has been shown repeatedly, both by people who were there and textual in documents from that time, that full frame did refer to 24x36 mm film. To win this argument you are now bringing 'exclusively' into it. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
And? That in no way contradicts the claim that full frame was I use to mean 24x36.
Cute examples, but no banana. These are - very - constructed examples of homonyms. We are not talking about homonyms here.A Bessa Full Frame is 60x60mm (well 58.5x58.5) yet that Konica was 24x36 mm.
Evil is a new term
Evil has always existed
Both are correct but describing two different things.
Mind you the newer EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) did not last
This is an ibis :
go ahead and tell me that IBIS (InBodyImageStabilisation) has been around for centuries...
The article refers the reader to something that doesn't exist. Removing reference to this mythical, fictional sensor is vandalism? You are a very "special" person.
A sensor is not a physical component of the final image, How is it you cannot seem to understand this? Film was physically manipulated to create an image, so it's size and quality was proportional to the final output.
Read again friend. The article specifically refers to attaching a MF back to a LF camera via an adapter plate.
You still don't get it. There is a reason that there is no useful application of such a sensor. The only reason for LF film and cameras was large print applications. A digital MF camera easily provides that quality.
True, but so what? Nor is a film, unless it's a slide transparency. The sensor has a format regardless of whether it forms part of anything else later in the process.
It's not failing to understand the fact; it's seeing that the fact has nothing to do with the broader discussion.
Format is as much to do with shape as size. The final format of the output print need have no relation to the format of the film it is made from (ditto prints from sensors).
May I just point out that what Nikon refer to as DX is NOT full frame . DX is what everyone else calls APSC and 24x36mm sensor size ( full frame ) is called FX by Nikon .
No the link I posted showed one did exist. Its dimensions are 8x10, not 6x6 or any sort of medium format size.
Look at the Image Sensor FORMAT article. The FORMAT refers to the different dimensions of sensor size, both in terms of proportions and physical size. The sensor itself is incidental, if you wanted to stick film in there, it would still be the same format. There are numerous experiments that have stuck APS and FF sensors into 35mm film camera bodies and they work perfectly fine. But while APS crops the image, FF retains the format.
Wrong, the dimensions are 8x10. It is not simply slotting a MF digital back into a LF body. But the bottom line you duck is the fact that everyone accepts "medium format" refers to both digital and film cameras. Which contradicts your basic argument that "format" refers only to film.
I didn't state "not useful", but "not commercially viable" - totally different things. The gigapixel setups you get with a range of DSLRs stuck together should tell you there is interest in a large format digital sensor, but it would be a risky undertaking, and none of the main brand makers have an interest, including the medium format makers, since the system would compete with their existing lines (while market size is very uncertain).
Good one - hairsplitting depends to a large degree on the details; getting them right is some kind of prerequisite
Well, this question has nothing to do with anything that's gone before but the answer is simple: whether books, cameras, paintings or anything else, people like different sizes and shapes for different circumstances.
