Why is 35mm format called Full Frame?
Aug 21, 2019 08:29:03 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
Excuse my bluntness but the obtuse nature of the original question did not merit 5 pages dialog to explain a very obvious source of nomenclature.
Stan
Stan
Aug 21, 2019 08:43:47 #
speters wrote:
I believed the "frames" were clearly delineated, by light area with '35mm' film, by dark area with 'Instamatic' film.I have no idea what you're talking about, there were never any frames in any cameras, film or digital!
Aug 21, 2019 08:58:44 #
JohnR wrote:
The only reason I can come up with is that in 1959... (show quote)
I am a 2 year Beginner (Amature) in Digital Photography, having purchased a Used Nikon D3300, and thus far have a 35mm 1.8g, a 50mm 1.8g, a 18-140mm 3.5-5.6 all used Nikon lens. As a Beginner, I was encouraged to keep it simple, which I feel that I have done thus far. I am very comfortable with my DX crop-sensor D3300, easy to learn and easy to operate. I have investigated the Full Frame, FX cameras, but currently to me seem to have complicated menus, more expensive for both camera and Lens. I have enjoyed my new DSLR experience thus far, maybe one day I may make the jump to a Full Frame FX camera, but probably NOT. As I will soon be 69 years old, and am content with what I have presently.
Aug 21, 2019 09:10:51 #
stogieboy
Loc: Marlboro, NY
Stick with what you like. Personally, I "graduated" from the D3200 to the D750, and have not looked back. Sure, its heavier, but the photos I get (mostly landscape) make me happier having the full frame camera and lens combos. I still use the D3200 from time to time, mostly to get shots of my kid playing baseball, the crop factor allows me to get closer to the action with a zoom lens.
Really, with the technology these days, you don't need the full frame experience to get GREAT shots.
Really, with the technology these days, you don't need the full frame experience to get GREAT shots.
Aug 21, 2019 09:12:11 #
When digital first became good enough to be popular, I was curious as to the sensor size, but it was not mentioned in the specs for my first digital camera, and I wondered just how big it was. When I found out how tiny it was, and that even DSLRs had APS-C size sensors, I had disdain for the whole digital industry, as I figured they were cutting corners on image quality. I fumed, "Why is is so difficult for them to make a sensor the right size!?" and determined I would not buy a DSLR until they made one FULL FRAME! It was only after I saw some incredibly detailed and beautiful blow-ups from the "toy" APS-C cameras that I finally admitted that "OK, maybe they are worth something". I found the site of a very interesting and opinionated EE become photographer named, (get ready for it!), Ken Rockwell, extolling the virtues of the Nikon D40, along with some very detailed, beautiful photos done with it, and his explanation that pixel size and technique had a lot to do with quality images. I bought the D40 in 2008, and have hardly ever shot film since. Because I still longed for the "look" of FULL FRAME, and wanted to be using my vintage film-era lenses, I bought the D750 last year, and am finally satisfied that I can have both a decent pixel-size and be using the corner to corner reach of my lenses. Partial-frame just doesn't cut it, sorry!
Aug 21, 2019 09:58:00 #
For the same reason we call facial tissue "kleenex" and cellophane tape "scotch".
What really gets confusing is when we refer to a [1"] sensor, when it is nowhere near one inch in any dimension.
(I just scanned the first five pages, noticing that a poster referred to 35mm film being called "miniature" at one time. True, but the first production 35s were also called "double frame" because they were using motion picture film, which used the 35mm width run vertically, resulting in a frame size of approximately 20mm by 25mm. Pretty close to what we now frequently refer to as a "crop" sensor size!)
What really gets confusing is when we refer to a [1"] sensor, when it is nowhere near one inch in any dimension.
(I just scanned the first five pages, noticing that a poster referred to 35mm film being called "miniature" at one time. True, but the first production 35s were also called "double frame" because they were using motion picture film, which used the 35mm width run vertically, resulting in a frame size of approximately 20mm by 25mm. Pretty close to what we now frequently refer to as a "crop" sensor size!)
Aug 21, 2019 10:10:09 #
To each their own opinion, choice, etc.
I myself having my used Nikon APS-C D3300 Crop Sensor Camera, using all 3 of my Used Nikon DX Lens, am very satisfied with the limited number of 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 Prints I have had made at my local "Walgreens" store. They have been quite acceptable to this 69 year old Amature DSLR Photographer.
Granted there are Bigger & Better Cameras & Lens, but just not for me. I enjoy what I have now.
I myself having my used Nikon APS-C D3300 Crop Sensor Camera, using all 3 of my Used Nikon DX Lens, am very satisfied with the limited number of 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 Prints I have had made at my local "Walgreens" store. They have been quite acceptable to this 69 year old Amature DSLR Photographer.
Granted there are Bigger & Better Cameras & Lens, but just not for me. I enjoy what I have now.
Aug 21, 2019 10:45:06 #
JohnR wrote:
Cold wet & windy - Melbourne Australia 
So THAT’S the reason! You’re house bound because of the weather and just bored.
Aug 21, 2019 10:46:41 #
hassighedgehog wrote:
Historical references are common. Why do we call the size of an engine in a car "Horse power"? It is to give a common reference of comparison between 35 mm film cameras and digital. Not that big a deal.
Anyone " CRANK " their car lately with a hand crank... ?
Aug 21, 2019 10:49:40 #
Vincejr
Loc: Northern Kentucky
The the logic is the sensor and what they call a full frame is the same size as a 35 mm frame
Aug 21, 2019 10:51:08 #
JohnR wrote:
The only reason I can come up with is that in 1959... (show quote)
I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid question, now I'm not so sure.
Aug 21, 2019 11:00:52 #
Aug 21, 2019 11:05:33 #
Aug 21, 2019 11:06:14 #
When we started to use digital the "full frame" camera was a camera that had a sensor with the same dimensions of a 35mm negative. Much prior to it we were using APS sensors, much smaller than the so called full frame but also full frame IF used with lenses designed for those cameras. In fact, using a digital Hasselblad we are using full frame and for those who use Olympus M43 system, if using the default ratio of 4:3 are also using full frame.
Now, like you I also would like to know why only cameras with a sensor similar to a 35mm negative are referred to as full frame while the others do not.
Now, like you I also would like to know why only cameras with a sensor similar to a 35mm negative are referred to as full frame while the others do not.
Aug 21, 2019 11:09:16 #
Longshadow wrote:
What size was a movie frame in Hollywood for film? And I don't mean 8 or Super 8.
Yes, for this discussion, medium and large formats are not included.
Yes, for this discussion, medium and large formats are not included.
There are at least six different 35mm film formats for motion pictures. One of them is called "Lazy 8" because the film frame is similar to the 8-sprocket hole wide, "full frame" 35mm still camera format, and the film runs horizontally instead of vertically. But most are based on a 4-sprocket hole high frame "pull down" in the projector gate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_movie_film#Common_formats
You can look up 16mm and 70mm movie film formats on WikiPedia, too.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.