Why 35mm?
Jan 26, 2020 21:36:49 #
I know 35mm was the standard in film days for the smaller format and then there was a jump to medium format which came in several options 61/4x63/4, 6x6, 6x7, etc. Lost in the equation is the format of sprocketless 35mm. This film gave more of a 5x7 look than the 4x6 and would have given a larger sensor with little adjustment to the size of a DSLR. When the whole world is turned upside down as in the transition from film to digital, why not make things over in a better way rather than stick with the known?
Jan 26, 2020 21:45:02 #
Bridges wrote:
I know 35mm was the standard in film days for the ... (show quote)
The cost of sensors may have played a role.
Jan 26, 2020 22:05:25 #
Mac wrote:
The cost of sensors may have played a role.
Yes, cost of sensors played a role
which is why some early sensors
were H-format. But waaaay more
significant was simply acceptance
of the new regime. A larger than
35mm format would've obsoleted
all users' existing lenses, most of
which were electronically already
suitable for the switch-over, due
to all existing film cameras of the
time having been AF for decades.
A similar question nagging at me
for long time is why the H-format
flopped, and even why it failed to
return as the demand in sensors
bigger than-than-APCS collided
with the originally high prices of
FF sensors. 'H' made great sense.
Existing FF wide lenses were not
overly compromised, tele lenses
got a bit of a boost, and a minor
loss of format size vs film meant
that the edges of lens coverage,
where optical demons live, were
quite literally out of the picture.
Jan 26, 2020 22:08:09 #
User ID wrote:
Yes cost of sensors played a roll
which is why some early sensors
were H-format. But waaay more
significant is simply acceptance
of a new regime. A bigger than
35mm format would obsolete all
users' existing lenses, most of
which were electronically ready
for the switch-over already due
to all the existing film cameras
having AF for decades already.
which is why some early sensors
were H-format. But waaay more
significant is simply acceptance
of a new regime. A bigger than
35mm format would obsolete all
users' existing lenses, most of
which were electronically ready
for the switch-over already due
to all the existing film cameras
having AF for decades already.
Jan 26, 2020 22:10:19 #
The cost of existing lenses, the kind we call full-frame now, may have played a roll.
Jan 26, 2020 22:10:24 #
User ID wrote:
Yes, cost of sensors played a role
which is why some early sensors
were H-format. But waaaay more
significant is simply acceptance
of the new regime. A larger than
35mm format would've obsoleted
all users' existing lenses, most of
which were electronically already
suitable for the switch-over, due
to all existing film cameras of the
time having been AF for decades.
which is why some early sensors
were H-format. But waaaay more
significant is simply acceptance
of the new regime. A larger than
35mm format would've obsoleted
all users' existing lenses, most of
which were electronically already
suitable for the switch-over, due
to all existing film cameras of the
time having been AF for decades.
Guess User ID beat me too it ...
Jan 26, 2020 22:11:40 #
User ID wrote:
Yes cost of sensors played a roll
which is why some early sensors
were H-format. But waaay more
significant is simply acceptance
of a new regime. A bigger than
35mm format would obsolete all
users' existing lenses, most of
which were electronically ready
for the switch-over already due
to all the existing film cameras
having AF for decades already.
which is why some early sensors
were H-format. But waaay more
significant is simply acceptance
of a new regime. A bigger than
35mm format would obsolete all
users' existing lenses, most of
which were electronically ready
for the switch-over already due
to all the existing film cameras
having AF for decades already.
The images projected by lenses are round. That means the height of the image could be as high as the length of the 35mm film. It should not have effected the usability of the lenses at all.
Jan 26, 2020 22:14:09 #
Bridges wrote:
The images projected by lenses are round. That means the height of the image could be as high as the length of the 35mm film. It should not have effected the usability of the lenses at all.
Go back in time and patent this idea, you'll be rich now.
Jan 26, 2020 22:20:30 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Go back in time and patent this idea, you'll be rich now.
Unfortunately someone else invented sprocketless 35mm format, but I do wish I had been in the steering committee when digital was being developed!
Jan 26, 2020 22:32:55 #
Bridges wrote:
The images projected by lenses are round. That
means the height of the image could be as high
as the length of the 35mm film. It should not
have effected the usability of the lenses at all.
The images projected by lenses are round. That
means the height of the image could be as high
as the length of the 35mm film. It should not
have effected the usability of the lenses at all.
Your trig is outa wack, as well as your
$$ sense. Lenses for a 43mm format
diagonal have only a 43mm circle of
sharp coverage. So unless the maker
thinks that unnecessarily heavier and
costlier lenses would be some sort of
Marketing Miracle , your 35x51mm
"unsprocketed" dream winds up DOA.
OTOH, given the fresh start that you
alluded to, a newer application of an
existing approach might have been
viable for SOME existing film lenses.
But many of those lenses had a 2x3
ratio mask at the rear, and all those
would have been compromised if a
43x43mm square format had been
adopted for digital cameras. Acoarst
43x43 would've spoiled the market
for all those "vertical grips" !
Consumers have long been oblivious
to format shapes. There have been a
number of successful square format
consumer lines. Square is excellent
for editorial work as well. Works well
for online commerce, cuz you gotta
leave room on that 9x13 screen for
all those adverts that occupy the far
right side of the screen.
The two very most important things
in favor of square are ...
1. That I perznally loooooove it.
2. It's ideal for selfies etc, as is born
out by the Instagram phenominon.
-------------------------------------
FWIW, unsprocketed 35mm film was
in use, for long roll portrait cameras
and also for consumer use as 8-shot
rollfilm [#828, aka "Bantam"]. Long
roll use was a success but the 8-shot
rolls were never a major piece of the
pie even tho it included Kodachrome !
Jan 26, 2020 22:48:59 #
User ID wrote:
Your trig is outa wack, as well as your br econom... (show quote)
I didn't think of that mask on the back end of the lenses. It would have effected that format after all. Since the mask was just a piece of metal, it seems like a retrofit would not have been too expensive and since a whole new series of lenses were being created for digital anyway, it could have worked. Also the format I was looking at wasn't square but just a little more in height which I think would have worked with your trig calculations. I envisioned a format that would fit 5x7 rather than 4x6.
Of course -- it's always about how much extras could be sold! I've heard it said that the extras you demand in your auto -- the moon roof, the super lighting package, the extra cup holder etc. makes more money for the car industry than the sell of the basic stripped down car!
Jan 26, 2020 23:10:33 #
And how often do we see the UHH community claiming they'll have to pull their DSLRs from their cold dead hands, even as mirrorless takes over the entire industry? Many of these same photographers were probably just as 'open' to a new image format in the last '90s dawn of digital... Heck, at least weekly now even 30+ years later, we again read someone's crying about Canon's brilliant move of their entire line of cameras and lenses to electronic autofocus and to the leadership of the industry. Too bad you're not using your time machine to go back and propose this change in direction.
Jan 26, 2020 23:17:25 #
Bridges wrote:
I didn't think of that mask on the back end of
the lenses. It would have effected that format
after all. ... the format I was looking at wasn't
square but just a little more in height which I
think would have worked with your trig calcula
tions. I envisioned a format that would fit 5x7
rather than 4x6.
I didn't think of that mask on the back end of
the lenses. It would have effected that format
after all. ... the format I was looking at wasn't
square but just a little more in height which I
think would have worked with your trig calcula
tions. I envisioned a format that would fit 5x7
rather than 4x6.
Yes, use of a 43mm circle of coverage is NOT
limited to just 24x36mm vs a 43mm square.
Clearly there are various other rectangle that
will also have a 43mm diagonal. So if you did
remove the 2x3 mask from the lenses, those
would work.
The reason I felt your trig was off is that you
mentioned unsprocketed 35mm as precedent.
A long roll 35mm unsprocketed camera that
shoots a 4:5 rather than a 2:3 aspect has a
35x45mm format ... minus a bit for the film
gate [32x40, +/-], which acoarst is too big
for legacy Nikon lenses etc. Bantam format
[8-shot consumer rolls] was about 30x40.
Jan 27, 2020 05:50:27 #
Bridges wrote:
The images projected by lenses are round. That means the height of the image could be as high as the length of the 35mm film. It should not have effected the usability of the lenses at all.
For the same image circle of about 43mm in diameter. If you increase the height you must decrease the width in order to fit in this image circle.
Jan 27, 2020 06:09:48 #
I recall some trends early to have digital backs for 35mm film cameras. The 35mm film format was so universal that it became the holy-grail of sensor size. Probably making a square sensor would have been about the same price as 35mm format once the company was geared up to make them at the start of the digital camera era.
The 35mm film size has nothing in reality to be a standard for sensor size.
according to info re Canon in 2009, the yield on "good" sensors was low.** But like many tech things, the manufacturing is refined and the percent of good sensors has increased. Sony, as I recall, is the lead manufacturer of sensors and with their electronics background, the yield has probably increased from Canons 5% to well above 70% [I picked that # out of the air]. Canon claimed making smaller sensors was much easier to have a higher yield. Well, reasonable considering more real estate and the probability of bad pixels/unit-area is the same and more real estate more bad pixels in the larger sensor.
The estimate of sensor cost in a $1000+ camera is perhaps $100. So, if larger, then perhaps $200. And with our Ai software is larger really necessary except to satisfy the intuitive but wrong at times desire of the customer. The small 1inch by 1inch pocket zooms take excellent photos... as good as an expensive 40 pounds of multi-lensed DSLR of course not, but the photo that is taken is better than the photo that is not taken by a DSLR Full Frame camera at home in the closet.
** https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/how-much-does-the-sensor-cost.308822/
The 35mm film size has nothing in reality to be a standard for sensor size.
according to info re Canon in 2009, the yield on "good" sensors was low.** But like many tech things, the manufacturing is refined and the percent of good sensors has increased. Sony, as I recall, is the lead manufacturer of sensors and with their electronics background, the yield has probably increased from Canons 5% to well above 70% [I picked that # out of the air]. Canon claimed making smaller sensors was much easier to have a higher yield. Well, reasonable considering more real estate and the probability of bad pixels/unit-area is the same and more real estate more bad pixels in the larger sensor.
The estimate of sensor cost in a $1000+ camera is perhaps $100. So, if larger, then perhaps $200. And with our Ai software is larger really necessary except to satisfy the intuitive but wrong at times desire of the customer. The small 1inch by 1inch pocket zooms take excellent photos... as good as an expensive 40 pounds of multi-lensed DSLR of course not, but the photo that is taken is better than the photo that is not taken by a DSLR Full Frame camera at home in the closet.
** https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/how-much-does-the-sensor-cost.308822/
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.