big sensors

In a (non photo.net) forum that I read, someone was asking about 35mm film scanners that scan to the edge, including perforations and edge markings.

 

That would seem a waste of sensor pixels to do that. (I suppose unless one has 828 film.)

 

It then occurred to me, that there is no reason you can't put a larger than 24x36mm sensor in a body modeled after a 35mm film camera.

 

There is no forum for generic 35mm digital cameras, so I post here.

 

Many mirrorless cameras can use lenses from 35mm camera lines, and also could have larger sensors.

 

That would depend on their being lenses with a larger image circle than for 35mm frames, though, but some might do that.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of film scanners here. Scanners have a moving array that is much different than a camera sensor.

 

Given that a larger image circle is needed, all new lenses or medium format lenses would be required. That would seem to be a pointless exercise. Also, as sensors get larger, prices go up. Would it be worth it?

As Jeff pointed out, there is no sense in building larger sensors if you don't also build lenses which can cover the larger area. For examples of a digital camera with sensors larger than 36x24mm, and lenses designed for them (and larger) look at the Hasselblad X1D-50c, the Fujifilm GFX 50s and the Pentax 645Z.

There is no law of nature that obliges you to copy/sdan film at 1:1 magnification. A slight reduction in magnification is all that's necessary with a full frame sensor. For that matter, you can make a perfectly good copy using an APS-C or 4/3 sensor to copy film, at lower magnification of course.

Is the OP not aware of the Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX 50S?

 

They'll only cost you a few hundred dollars per extra square millimetre of sensor area.

 

Personally, I see 'full-frame' MLCs as having a chance to break away from Oskar Barnack's expedient but awkward choice of 3:2 aspect ratio. For me a 4:3 ratio with 27 x 36mm or 26.25 x 35mm dimensions would make a much more comfortable and useable frame, while keeping much the same image circle and sensor area.

 

However, I suspect the majority of people have got used to viewing the world through the stupid and unnatural 16:9 letterbox that's been foisted upon us.

Is the OP not aware of the Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX 50S?

 

They'll only cost you a few hundred dollars per extra square millimetre of sensor area.

 

Personally, I see 'full-frame' MLCs as having a chance to break away from Oskar Barnack's expedient but awkward choice of 3:2 aspect ratio. For me a 4:3 ratio with 27 x 36mm or 26.25 x 35mm dimensions would make a much more comfortable and useable frame, while keeping much the same image circle and sensor area.

 

However, I suspect the majority of people have got used to viewing the world through the stupid and unnatural 16:9 letterbox that's been foisted upon us.

I do think the 4:3 format is much nicer than the 3:2 format. I think Oscar chose it because he double the movie frame size to run the film horizontally. The 35mm movie frame was actually 4:3.

The 16:9 aspect ratio is fine for TV because it's an OK compromise among various motion picture aspect ratio. For using it as a still format is lousy and it's not a good aspect ratio for the computer screen either.

In fact the first Nikon has a 4:3 aspect ratio but Kodak didn't like it so they had to change.

Big sensors.

 

Big thought about how to take a interesting photograph.

 

PS....what the monkeys does a big sensor have to do with it or aspect ratio.

 

Anoraks and train spotters...hey, not even the steam engine kind.

In my opinion, fueled by my senses as an artist, among other things, I think that traditionally the best ratio is the golden mean, which translates into an irrational number, rounded off to three digits: 1.61:1. What approximates this in terms of enlargement sizes is 4.8:3 (1.6:1). 5:3 is close at 1.667:1. So enlargement wise, going with a 5:3 ratio, you'd be looking at 10x6 or 20x12, etc. This ratio stretches things even farther than the 35mm still camera ratio of 1.5:1, but it is the most aesthetically pleasing. So that's what I'd go with.

 

Even though I own a Pentax 67 (and I love it), I'm not a big fan of the 6:7 ratio. At 1.167:1 It's too close to square. I like 6x9 much more, but then that's the same as the 35mm format, 1.5:1. But I personally think it would be cool to have something just a bit wider, at 1.61:1. In medium format, with 1 being the side of the image, or 6cm, then the length would be 9.66cm. Cool.

Sorry, but the 'golden mean' or golden ratio was never meant to be applied as an aspect ratio. It was proposed by the ancient Greeks as a divisor for the diagonal of a(ny) frame, to arrive at a point, or points, within the frame where the subject would have the most visually pleasing or harmonious position. It's commonly approximated these days as the 'rule' of thirds.

 

Using the golden ratio as an aspect ratio results in the golden mean used within the frame describing a square cut out of the rectangular frame. The square being seen as an ugly shape in Greek aesthetic theory.

 

Just look at the aspect ratios used by master painters throughout the ages. They could have chosen any size or shape of canvas they wished, and yet the majority of them chose an aspect ratio close to 4:3. Hardly any painted masterpiece has an aspect ratio of 1.618:1. (Even 'panorama' painters like Canaletto didn't use a letterbox shaped canvas.)

 

"PS....what the monkeys does a big sensor have to do with it or aspect ratio."

 

- Surely aspect ratio has a lot to do with making an aesthetically appealing picture? An 'interesting' picture may not necessarily be the same thing however.

You only have to look at how popular crappily shot pictures of cats and dogs are on the internet.

The old 35mm half frame cameras took 24X18 (4X3) photos which I always liked better than 24X36 photos.

"Surely aspect ratio has a lot to do with making an aesthetically appealing picture?"Rodoe.

 

Why would that be? Perhaps aspect ratio might have a degree of input aesthetically but little more than any other post process.

 

An interesting photograph stands alone .

Like I said, there's a big difference between an 'interesting' picture and one that has aesthetic merit. I'm sure that millions of ball-game fans find the thousands of daily published badly shot pictures of their favourite team or player 'interesting', but works of art they surely ain't.

 

How is aspect ratio in any way comparable to a post-processing action? You can't add extra bits of image detail to the height or width of a picture after capture.

 

Sure, you can step back or use a wider lens and crop in post, but that's not the same as using the given camera aspect ratio for composing.

Edited November 26, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

In a (non photo.net) forum that I read, someone was asking about 35mm film scanners that scan to the edge, including perforations and edge markings.

The magnification in most film scanners is fixed at 1:1. If you scan a wider area, to capture sprocket holes for example, you use more pixels without reducing the resolution per inch.

 

There are several 35 mm style cameras with larger sensors. They're called "medium format, " and include the Leica SL, Hasselblad X1D, and to a large extent (considering eye-level handling) Hasselblad H cameras and the Mamiya 645.

 

The so-called "ideal format", 2-1/4" x 2-3/4", was so named because there was little cropping in an 8"x10" print, not some Pythagorean concept. The modern version is 6 cm x 4.5 cm.

 

You can crop aggressively with modern digital cameras. For example,, a 24 MP camera (6000x4000 pixels) can be cropped square, yet produce a 13"x13" print at 300 dpi. If you need to crop under-square, you forgot to turn the camera vertically.

There are several 35 mm style cameras with larger sensors. They're called "medium format, " and include the Leica SL, Hasselblad X1D, and to a large extent (considering eye-level handling) Hasselblad H cameras and the Mamiya 645.

 

I find this reference of yours confusing. The Leica SL is a full frame 35mm mirrorless digital, whereas the Hassy X1D is an undersized medium format camera, I guess is the way I'd describe it, with its 43.8x32.9mm sensor -- approximately 4:3, whereas the Leica's is 3:2, same as 35mm film. The Hassy H series are a mixed bunch, the lower numbered cameras (H1, H2) take both film and digital backs, whereas the higher numbered ones (H5, H6) are digital, but with sensors that are still smaller than true medium format. Same goes for the Mamiya 645 with digital back. It has a 44x33mm sensor (4:3 more or less), and it too is undersized to really be called medium format. It seems to me that these cameras are the MF equivalents to the APS-C format digitals, when compared to their full-frame siblings. But there are really no true full-frame medium format cameras yet, are there? Whether 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 or whatever.

 

Of all the above cameras, however, only the Leica SL and Hassy X1D "look" something like a "35 mm style camera." The others look very medium format to me, despite being a bit too small in sensor size to be true medium format cameras.

 

The so-called "ideal format", 2-1/4" x 2-3/4", was so named because there was little cropping in an 8"x10" print, not some Pythagorean concept. The modern version is 6 cm x 4.5 cm.

 

Maybe true with 2-1/4x2-3/4, which is a 9:11 ratio, and which is very close to 8:10 (or 4:5). But 6x4.5 is 4:3, which is wider than 8x10. 4:3 when enlarged is 8x10-2/3 . . . so okay I'll agree it's close enough to be the modern equivalent. Lots of folks are still shooting with 2-1/4x3-1/4 backs, though. Maybe film, and maybe not "modern," but still relatively popular.

Leica S, not SL as I originally wrote.The MF cameras I mentioned are used at eye level, and handle like 35 mm cameras except for bulk. Edited November 28, 2017 by Ed_Ingold