What Does "Full Frame" Mean?
This comes from the Phase One website:
Notice that Phase One refer to a digital 645 format equivalent sensor as "full frame". That is probably correct given that the largest format used in standard civilian photography is a 645 format sensor. In addition to the 645 (53.7 × 40.2mm; similar to the 56 × 42mm imaging frame size of 645 format film) and 4433 (43.8 × 32.9mm) format medium format sensor, some video cameras use sensors larger than 35mm (36 × 24mm) format e.g. 54.12 × 25.59mm Arri sensor. There is also the Leica S system with its 45 × 30mm format sensor. That means there are several sensor size formats larger than 35mm format making it increasingly difficult to hail something running in fifth place the leader in the size stakes.
It is probably only a matter of time before even larger digital photography 670 format sensors go into production though that may not happen for another 6-12 years. There is a definite trend towards fabricating ever larger sensor formats as advances in manufacturing makes it increasingly cost-effective to do so. Even more oversized digital sensors exist though these aren't used in "normal" everyday civilian photography. Soon the LSST astronomy telescope will go into action with a 64cm diameter 3.2 gigapixel digital sensor (10 μm pixels) taking images from a 6.4m effective maximum aperture lens. It will make the idea of a 35mm format sensor being "full frame" look totally laughable.
If we set the relative crop factor of the LSST 64cm diameter digital sensor at a value of 1.0× ("full frame"), then the crop factor of a 35mm format digital sensor relative to this becomes 14.78× (diagonal dimension of 35mm format sensor = 43.3mm; 640/43.4 = 14.78×). Since crop factor is a comparative variable (as opposed to being a mathematical constant like π = 3.14159...), there is nothing from an optical engineering perspective to say that it is wrong to state that 35mm format is a crop format with a comparative 14.78× crop factor versus the full frame LSST sensor.
Today, the use of the term "full frame" to denote a 35mm small format digital sensor has been rendered totally outdated and entirely historical by the relentless onslaught of progress. The term dates back to a time in ancient digital history when a 35mm format digital sensor camera used to be a novelty and was still fairly expensive. The first 35mm format digital camera was the Pentax MZ-D announced in 2000 by Pentax though it never went into production. Next came the 6.1MP Contax N Digital which appeared in 2002 costing $7399 USD, but was withdrawn from production within a year. The first 35mm format digital camera to be successful was the Canon EOS-1Ds released in 2002. It had an 11.1MP sensor and cost $10 000 USD. Back then the largest digital sensor used in civilian photography was 35mm format and this justified it being hailed as a monster-sized aspirational format called "full frame".
Now that the price of entry for a 35mm format digital camera has dropped to around $1000 USD, and falling rapidly, the use of the term "full frame" to denote what is just another small format sensor represents the continuation of a historical advertising moniker not too dissimilar to calling tissues by the trade name of "Kleenex". The price of 35mm format sensors will only continue to collapse over time and everybody will once again own a 35mm format camera. Today, 35mm format is well on its way to once again becoming a commonplace mass-market commodity format, just as it was in the film era:
You could argue that 35mm is the largest a small format sensor can get before being technically medium format, but then you should call it "full frame small format" to distinguish it from "full frame medium format". Using the unqualified term "full frame" suggests that it is big enough to be deployed on a space telescope with a 6 metre aperture diameter, but it is just a 35mm small format sensor. Unless a company like Phase One sues other companies for using the term "full frame" to denote what is a subframe and crop sensor relative to a medium format sensor, this hangover from the birth of digital photography might cling to us like a bad smell for some time. It is grossly misleading advertising and consumers should cry foul at being misled in this way. The emptiness of this overblown advertising hype will only increase as 35mm format cameras fall in price in the face of increasing competition in this market segment to become a mundane commodity amongst amateurs just as they were in the film era. Then every beginner will proudly boast a "full frame" camera, just as consumers in the film era widely used disposable 35mm cameras.
Another argument is that the term "full frame" is correct because it is in common usage and that "if many believe so, it is so". Websites like Digital Photo Review use the term after all. The trouble about the claim to the "obviousness" of the correctness of this use is that in years to come some child is going to ask you "why do they call it full frame when there are lots of sensor formats bigger than that?" You will be lost for an answer as it dawns on you that you are the victim of massive generational group-think.
Another argument is that "full frame" is a catchy advertising moniker. In the past, advertisers managed to get 670 format called "ideal format" for instance:
But if reviewers want to be considered independent rather than shills of manufacturers who sponsor them, they need to seriously reconsider the ethics of using an advertising moniker as pet name for a format instead of the more neutral term "35mm format" or "135 format".
Critical consumers also need to wary of attempts to hype formats as being some sort of super-duper format and instead opt for terms that are more objective in preference to the fanboyish adoption of advertising hype.
Lastly, some might assert that the term "full frame" refers to the way the crop factor of 35mm-format is usually considered to have a 1× crop factor, with APS-C having a 1.52× crop factor, M4/3 a 2× crop factor, 4433 medium format a 0.79× crop factor etc. The trouble with this is that there is no optical or mathematical reason to set the crop factor of 35mm format at a value of 1.0. The only reason for using 35mm format as the point of reference is that it is a habitual habit, forming the basis of customary convention based on it being accepted to do so. But 35mm format isn't the centre of the universe and the stars in the firmament do not rotate around it. You could make M4/3 the standard point of reference instead and say that M4/3 has a crop factor of 1×. Then 35mm-format would have a crop factor of 0.5×, APS-C a 0.76× crop factor, 4433 format a 0.395× crop factor etc.
The time has arrived to get rid of this 35mm format-centric bias we currently have. It is just another format amongst many other, and there is nothing magical or special about let alone anything "full" about it (that the camera adverts are "full" of hyperbole is another story altogether). It is a format with its unique set of pros and cons like all others. If you shoot a format smaller than 35mm format, there is no reason to consider it a crop sensor relative to 35mm format—at least no more than 35mm format should itself be considered a subframe/crop sensor relative to the ever-growing plethora of formats above it. So stop making a fetish of 35mm format by calling it "full frame". Anyone who does so is simply "full of it".
Notice that Phase One refer to a digital 645 format equivalent sensor as "full frame". That is probably correct given that the largest format used in standard civilian photography is a 645 format sensor. In addition to the 645 (53.7 × 40.2mm; similar to the 56 × 42mm imaging frame size of 645 format film) and 4433 (43.8 × 32.9mm) format medium format sensor, some video cameras use sensors larger than 35mm (36 × 24mm) format e.g. 54.12 × 25.59mm Arri sensor. There is also the Leica S system with its 45 × 30mm format sensor. That means there are several sensor size formats larger than 35mm format making it increasingly difficult to hail something running in fifth place the leader in the size stakes.
 |
| Newer video camera sensor formats are now growing larger than 35mm format |
It is probably only a matter of time before even larger digital photography 670 format sensors go into production though that may not happen for another 6-12 years. There is a definite trend towards fabricating ever larger sensor formats as advances in manufacturing makes it increasingly cost-effective to do so. Even more oversized digital sensors exist though these aren't used in "normal" everyday civilian photography. Soon the LSST astronomy telescope will go into action with a 64cm diameter 3.2 gigapixel digital sensor (10 μm pixels) taking images from a 6.4m effective maximum aperture lens. It will make the idea of a 35mm format sensor being "full frame" look totally laughable.
 |
| Grey circle: the "full frame" 64cm diameter LSST digital sensor Centre: comparison by Sony of small format digital sensor sizes Two medium format sensor sizes also added All shown to scale 35mm format is clearly a subframe, crop format |
If we set the relative crop factor of the LSST 64cm diameter digital sensor at a value of 1.0× ("full frame"), then the crop factor of a 35mm format digital sensor relative to this becomes 14.78× (diagonal dimension of 35mm format sensor = 43.3mm; 640/43.4 = 14.78×). Since crop factor is a comparative variable (as opposed to being a mathematical constant like π = 3.14159...), there is nothing from an optical engineering perspective to say that it is wrong to state that 35mm format is a crop format with a comparative 14.78× crop factor versus the full frame LSST sensor.
Today, the use of the term "full frame" to denote a 35mm small format digital sensor has been rendered totally outdated and entirely historical by the relentless onslaught of progress. The term dates back to a time in ancient digital history when a 35mm format digital sensor camera used to be a novelty and was still fairly expensive. The first 35mm format digital camera was the Pentax MZ-D announced in 2000 by Pentax though it never went into production. Next came the 6.1MP Contax N Digital which appeared in 2002 costing $7399 USD, but was withdrawn from production within a year. The first 35mm format digital camera to be successful was the Canon EOS-1Ds released in 2002. It had an 11.1MP sensor and cost $10 000 USD. Back then the largest digital sensor used in civilian photography was 35mm format and this justified it being hailed as a monster-sized aspirational format called "full frame".
Now that the price of entry for a 35mm format digital camera has dropped to around $1000 USD, and falling rapidly, the use of the term "full frame" to denote what is just another small format sensor represents the continuation of a historical advertising moniker not too dissimilar to calling tissues by the trade name of "Kleenex". The price of 35mm format sensors will only continue to collapse over time and everybody will once again own a 35mm format camera. Today, 35mm format is well on its way to once again becoming a commonplace mass-market commodity format, just as it was in the film era:
 |
| A disposable 35mm format camera. Note it is not touted as being "full frame" |
You could argue that 35mm is the largest a small format sensor can get before being technically medium format, but then you should call it "full frame small format" to distinguish it from "full frame medium format". Using the unqualified term "full frame" suggests that it is big enough to be deployed on a space telescope with a 6 metre aperture diameter, but it is just a 35mm small format sensor. Unless a company like Phase One sues other companies for using the term "full frame" to denote what is a subframe and crop sensor relative to a medium format sensor, this hangover from the birth of digital photography might cling to us like a bad smell for some time. It is grossly misleading advertising and consumers should cry foul at being misled in this way. The emptiness of this overblown advertising hype will only increase as 35mm format cameras fall in price in the face of increasing competition in this market segment to become a mundane commodity amongst amateurs just as they were in the film era. Then every beginner will proudly boast a "full frame" camera, just as consumers in the film era widely used disposable 35mm cameras.
Another argument is that the term "full frame" is correct because it is in common usage and that "if many believe so, it is so". Websites like Digital Photo Review use the term after all. The trouble about the claim to the "obviousness" of the correctness of this use is that in years to come some child is going to ask you "why do they call it full frame when there are lots of sensor formats bigger than that?" You will be lost for an answer as it dawns on you that you are the victim of massive generational group-think.
Another argument is that "full frame" is a catchy advertising moniker. In the past, advertisers managed to get 670 format called "ideal format" for instance:
But if reviewers want to be considered independent rather than shills of manufacturers who sponsor them, they need to seriously reconsider the ethics of using an advertising moniker as pet name for a format instead of the more neutral term "35mm format" or "135 format".
 |
| An alternative term for "35mm format" is "135 format" You can see the numbers "135" at the bottom left corner |
 |
| 135 フィルム使用 135 film used |
Critical consumers also need to wary of attempts to hype formats as being some sort of super-duper format and instead opt for terms that are more objective in preference to the fanboyish adoption of advertising hype.
Lastly, some might assert that the term "full frame" refers to the way the crop factor of 35mm-format is usually considered to have a 1× crop factor, with APS-C having a 1.52× crop factor, M4/3 a 2× crop factor, 4433 medium format a 0.79× crop factor etc. The trouble with this is that there is no optical or mathematical reason to set the crop factor of 35mm format at a value of 1.0. The only reason for using 35mm format as the point of reference is that it is a habitual habit, forming the basis of customary convention based on it being accepted to do so. But 35mm format isn't the centre of the universe and the stars in the firmament do not rotate around it. You could make M4/3 the standard point of reference instead and say that M4/3 has a crop factor of 1×. Then 35mm-format would have a crop factor of 0.5×, APS-C a 0.76× crop factor, 4433 format a 0.395× crop factor etc.
The time has arrived to get rid of this 35mm format-centric bias we currently have. It is just another format amongst many other, and there is nothing magical or special about let alone anything "full" about it (that the camera adverts are "full" of hyperbole is another story altogether). It is a format with its unique set of pros and cons like all others. If you shoot a format smaller than 35mm format, there is no reason to consider it a crop sensor relative to 35mm format—at least no more than 35mm format should itself be considered a subframe/crop sensor relative to the ever-growing plethora of formats above it. So stop making a fetish of 35mm format by calling it "full frame". Anyone who does so is simply "full of it".
Comments
Post a Comment