`
Chris T wrote:
User - I don't think square area of the format is
mentioned in any camera ads I've ever seen.
.........
Ads don't quote actual area measure. They DO use
area measure, same as you did, when they claim
that
"our 645 gives you a format 2.5X bigger than
35mm" ... example in film terms there, and that
is acoarst 2.5X by area.
By linear measure, the 645 format is 1.6X bigger
than 35mm. Given the ratio of prices, for similar
features on both cameras, you couldn't buy a 645
for only 1.6X the price of that similar 35mm, so a
larger claimed difference in size helps, somewhat,
to justify the disproportionate increase in price to
drive a 645 rather than a 35.
=============================
I'm not gonna repeat here the rationale for using
linear measure as more realistic than area ;-) I'd
just wanted to clarify that I hadn't meant that the
ads ever quoted area by actual dimensions. They
just based their "degree of biggerness of format"
on area measure. As in the example above where
645 is a "2.5X bigger" format than 35. As I wrote
in that earlier post, this whole thing began way
before digital came along. The "area mentality"
seed was planted back then, well watered, and
is now the default "think mode" size-wise. But in
practice, it's bogus. Again, I won't regurgitate my
prior post. Don't wanna be a cut-and-paste troll !
.