The Meaninglessness of "Full Frame"

**RobA_Oz** · 10-02-2011, 08:33 PM

My original post was as much intended to be a discussion-starter on finding an alternative, non-prejudicial term to describe the 35mm film format sensors, as it was an expression of dismay at the way the term "Full Frame" was used in that way. Maybe I should have said so.

Nonetheless, from the ensuing responses (including the off-topic ones), it seems that habit and simplicity rules our thinking on the subject. As a (hopefully) final word on the issue, can I suggest we consider just using "135 format" or "135 sensor" instead of "Full Frame", which pays homage to the film origins of our current thinking on photographic gear, and which doesn't imply one format is the Gold Standard we should all aspire to (although it could be a Silver or a Bronze

)? It has the advantage of also being readily shortened (for those whose thinking on such matters is centred on their typing skills) to "135", which isn't much more difficult to type than "FF".

adr1an · 10-02-2011, 08:45 PM

Whilst I agree with your sentiments entirely RobA... has the horse not only bolted on this one, but the barn has also burnt to the ground and they've since built a block of flats where it once stood?

I just fear that suggesting this change is like suggesting that the English language starts correctly referring to Oranges as Noranges....

**Digitalis** · 10-02-2011, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

My original post was as much intended to be a discussion-starter on finding an alternative, non-prejudicial term to describe the 35mm film format sensors, as it was an expression of dismay at the way the term "Full Frame" was used in that way.

people have always had different naming conventions for different formats e.g 5X7 is still in some circles referred to as half plate format, 6X6 format is sometimes referred to as 2"1/4 square format. Full frame is a bit of a misleading because technically full frame can refer to any image that hasn't been cropped and there for it is the "full frame" - irrespective of the format. I prefer to refer to 24X36mm sensor/film cameras as 35mm

RioRico · 10-02-2011, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

Let's just call it "135 format", then...

It doesn't work like that. 135 is a film size, not a format. Consider 120, another film size. 120 (and 220, and 620 with some force-fitting) films can be used in MF cameras of various formats: 6x4, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 612, 617, 624 are some that I know of. I have 6x4, 6x6 and 6x9 cams staring down at me right now. There are probably some 6x3 and 6x2 format pano cameras out there also. All that's needed for a format is the right mask.

So with 135: there's 135/FF (36x24mm) that we're familiar with; 135/HF (18x24mm) like my old Olympus Pen-FT SLR, Canon Dial35 and Demi-EE17 P&S's, and a Universal Mercury II CX interchangeable-lens RF on my shelf; 135/SQ (24x24mm) used in the Robot camera; and a couple panorama formats, 135/P1 (58x24mm) and 135/P2 (65x24mm). And I can fit a 135 cart into my MF cams for sprocket-hole panos (not really panos, but close enough.)

The format is the frame size, not the film size. (The APS formats are a real mess!) In fact, 135 is a specific package of 35mm-wide film. 126 is another package of 35mm film. Confused yet? Good.

EDIT:

Originally posted by Digitalis

I prefer to refer to 24X36mm sensor/film cameras as 35mm

But that format is just one of many for 35mm. Besides what I just mentioned, there are various 35mm cine formats, too many to mention here. That's why I prefer 135/FF -- it specifies a 36x24mm frame using a 135 cartridge. Just one of many 35mm variants...

Last edited by RioRico; 10-02-2011 at 10:31 PM.

jsherman999 · 10-02-2011, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

... As a (hopefully) final word on the issue, can I suggest we consider just using "135 format" or "135 sensor" instead of "Full Frame", which pays homage to the film origins of our current thinking on photographic gear, and which doesn't imply one format is the Gold Standard we should all aspire to (although it could be a Silver or a Bronze

)?

Nah.

.

Frogfish · 10-02-2011, 10:16 PM

Afraid you are just going to have to suck this one up mate. Once a term becomes popularised (as FF has become) then it becomes the de-facto moniker. That is now Fait Accompli as far as FF is concerned.

**Digitalis** · 10-03-2011, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

But that format is just one of many for 35mm. Besides what I just mentioned, there are various 35mm cine formats, too many to mention here.

In case you haven't noticed there aren't many people here who solely do video with pentax DSLRs - and I would wager only less than a handful that have every used 35mm cine film.so it is very safe to refer as 35mm film as 24X36mm film unless the topic explicitly mentions using alternate formats that happen to also use 135mm film

Stone G. · 10-03-2011, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

I'm getting more than a little irked by the constant use of the term "Full Frame" or "FF" when referring to the conventional 35mm film format. After all, the word "full" means "able to contain no more", "as much as possible" or something similar. If that is so, what, then, do we make of the so-called Medium Format (MF) sizes? Should they be referred to as "Over-Full Frame"?

-------

The term "Full Frame" could have some sense(?????) to it if one considers the image circle provided for by lenses designed for the good old SLR cameras using 135 mm film. These lenses will provide images without vignetting on sensors up to about 24 x 36 mm sizes and no more. So, here we have the "...ability to contain no more".

But whoever coined that term originally presumably had something different (like FOV) in mind. I remember that when digital compacts started to become common in the late 1990'ies, sales persons spent a good deal of time explaining what those small focal lengths meant: I.e. that a 28.5 mm lens was "the same as" a 135 mm lens on the old analogue cameras....

So, I fully endorse RioRico's concern about casual and unexplained use of equivalences:

Originally posted by RioRico

Problem there is that digital cameras have used various of sensors of many sizes, and the official names of those sizes are less than illuminating. .......

........ What's distracting IMHO isn't the terms, but the casual and unexplained use of equivalences.

Without an explanation of frame cropping, we get so many new users asking if a lens changes focal length on a different camera. Oh bother.

Macario · 10-03-2011, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Of course there are many formats larger than what we often refer to as FF.

However, it is justified to use "full frame" for the 36mmx24mm format in the context of the K-mount because this format fully utilizes the K-mount. Any smaller sensor used in combination with the K-mount image circle is a crop sensor, i.e., not "full frame".

The term is not as daft as one might think.

This is not the complete truth of the K-mount. The size of the mount is because it was needed to support the bayonet. The M42 (also the P-thread mount) mount is smaller in diameter, but still is able to fill the 135 format. Same goes to the M40 and M39.

RioRico · 10-03-2011, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

In case you haven't noticed there aren't many people here who solely do video with pentax DSLRs - and I would wager only less than a handful that have every used 35mm cine film.so it is very safe to refer as 35mm film as 24X36mm film unless the topic explicitly mentions using alternate formats that happen to also use 135mm film

I'm probably not the only one here who has shot stills with 35mm formats other than 36x24mm -- mostly half-frame (24x18mm) which was also a common cine format, and damn close to APS-C size. Half-frame 35mm cameras were quite popular; some are classics. Others here have undoubtedly used 135 'pano' P&S's; I recall cheap old Lomo and Vivitar models. The Robots and other 24mm square-frame cameras (including TLR's?) were a rather more rare, true. But these varied 35mm formats were significant and the cameras are still available.

35mm is the film size. 135 is the package. 135/FF is just one 35mm format among many.

Cambo · 10-03-2011, 09:20 AM

It is at least in part paying respect to the 100,000,000 lenses out there optimized for that size. Full-frame pays homage to the century of photography and photographic equipment that revolved around it. It's a convenient moniker for those of us old enough to have used 'film', which is also not really relevant anymore, but WAS around for quite some time. Do you want to do away with that term, as well?

It's a standard. Come to grips with it.

Still thinking of selling my full-frame FA*'s...maybe.

Cheers,
Cameron

jsherman999 · 10-03-2011, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Cambo

..

Still thinking of selling my full-frame FA*'s...maybe.

Cheers,
Cameron

I wouldn't sell them just yet.

.

sjwaldron · 10-03-2011, 10:21 AM

Why do some people say "bathroom" or "restroom" when they need to tell their friend they are going to use a toilet in a mall or whatever? The term full-frame is just a name and we all understand what it is referring to...

cali92rs · 10-03-2011, 11:33 AM

From now on, I am going to call it a "Digital Single-lens Reflex camera with a 36 by 24 millimeter sensor"...
"FF DSLR" is just too unweildy for me

RioRico · 10-03-2011, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by cali92rs

From now on, I am going to call it a "Digital Single-lens Reflex camera with a 36 by 24 millimeter sensor"...
"FF DSLR" is just too unweildy for me

Sorry, you need to take steps to increase your AI (acronym index). Every sentence posted requires at least one acronym, or your AI falls below 1 and your technical credibility (TC) drops to insignificance. Every posted paragraph requires at least one reference to FF or APS-C or 135/SQ or m4/3 or IQ or APO or LD or ISO. (Hay, my AI for that last sentence was 8!! Crown me!) Get with the program, eh?

10-02-2011, 08:33 PM	#16
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197 Original Poster	Let's just call it "135 format", then... My original post was as much intended to be a discussion-starter on finding an alternative, non-prejudicial term to describe the 35mm film format sensors, as it was an expression of dismay at the way the term "Full Frame" was used in that way. Maybe I should have said so. Nonetheless, from the ensuing responses (including the off-topic ones), it seems that habit and simplicity rules our thinking on the subject. As a (hopefully) final word on the issue, can I suggest we consider just using "135 format" or "135 sensor" instead of "Full Frame", which pays homage to the film origins of our current thinking on photographic gear, and which doesn't imply one format is the Gold Standard we should all aspire to (although it could be a Silver or a Bronze )? It has the advantage of also being readily shortened (for those whose thinking on such matters is centred on their typing skills) to "135", which isn't much more difficult to type than "FF".

10-03-2011, 09:20 AM	#26
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016	Lenses... It is at least in part paying respect to the 100,000,000 lenses out there optimized for that size. Full-frame pays homage to the century of photography and photographic equipment that revolved around it. It's a convenient moniker for those of us old enough to have used 'film', which is also not really relevant anymore, but WAS around for quite some time. Do you want to do away with that term, as well? It's a standard. Come to grips with it. Still thinking of selling my full-frame FA*'s...maybe. Cheers, Cameron

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why I don't like the "if you want a full-frame camera, switch to Canikon" argument.	fuent104	Pentax DSLR Discussion	362	07-18-2011 03:23 PM
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes?	crossover37	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	166	05-16-2011 07:24 PM
Full frame or improved AF. What do you want in the "K-8"?	johnmflores	Pentax DSLR Discussion	73	06-04-2010 11:35 AM
Nikon's 1998 vintage "full frame" DSLR	pingflood	General Talk	5	07-25-2009 05:44 PM
German c't calls K-7 "full frame"	falconeye	Pentax News and Rumors	3	05-24-2009 11:18 PM

10-02-2011, 08:45 PM	#17
adr1an Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 739	Whilst I agree with your sentiments entirely RobA... has the horse not only bolted on this one, but the barn has also burnt to the ground and they've since built a block of flats where it once stood? I just fear that suggesting this change is like suggesting that the English language starts correctly referring to Oranges as Noranges....

10-02-2011, 09:02 PM	#18
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by RobA_Oz My original post was as much intended to be a discussion-starter on finding an alternative, non-prejudicial term to describe the 35mm film format sensors, as it was an expression of dismay at the way the term "Full Frame" was used in that way. people have always had different naming conventions for different formats e.g 5X7 is still in some circles referred to as half plate format, 6X6 format is sometimes referred to as 2"1/4 square format. Full frame is a bit of a misleading because technically full frame can refer to any image that hasn't been cropped and there for it is the "full frame" - irrespective of the format. I prefer to refer to 24X36mm sensor/film cameras as 35mm

10-02-2011, 09:26 PM	#19
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by RobA_Oz Let's just call it "135 format", then... It doesn't work like that. 135 is a film size, not a format. Consider 120, another film size. 120 (and 220, and 620 with some force-fitting) films can be used in MF cameras of various formats: 6x4, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 612, 617, 624 are some that I know of. I have 6x4, 6x6 and 6x9 cams staring down at me right now. There are probably some 6x3 and 6x2 format pano cameras out there also. All that's needed for a format is the right mask. So with 135: there's 135/FF (36x24mm) that we're familiar with; 135/HF (18x24mm) like my old Olympus Pen-FT SLR, Canon Dial35 and Demi-EE17 P&S's, and a Universal Mercury II CX interchangeable-lens RF on my shelf; 135/SQ (24x24mm) used in the Robot camera; and a couple panorama formats, 135/P1 (58x24mm) and 135/P2 (65x24mm). And I can fit a 135 cart into my MF cams for sprocket-hole panos (not really panos, but close enough.) The format is the frame size, not the film size. (The APS formats are a real mess!) In fact, 135 is a specific package of 35mm-wide film. 126 is another package of 35mm film. Confused yet? Good. EDIT: Originally posted by Digitalis I prefer to refer to 24X36mm sensor/film cameras as 35mm But that format is just one of many for 35mm. Besides what I just mentioned, there are various 35mm cine formats, too many to mention here. That's why I prefer 135/FF -- it specifies a 36x24mm frame using a 135 cartridge. Just one of many 35mm variants... Last edited by RioRico; 10-02-2011 at 10:31 PM.

10-02-2011, 09:44 PM	#20
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by RobA_Oz ... As a (hopefully) final word on the issue, can I suggest we consider just using "135 format" or "135 sensor" instead of "Full Frame", which pays homage to the film origins of our current thinking on photographic gear, and which doesn't imply one format is the Gold Standard we should all aspire to (although it could be a Silver or a Bronze )? Nah. .

10-02-2011, 10:16 PM	#21
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Afraid you are just going to have to suck this one up mate. Once a term becomes popularised (as FF has become) then it becomes the de-facto moniker. That is now Fait Accompli as far as FF is concerned.

10-03-2011, 01:22 AM	#22
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by RioRico But that format is just one of many for 35mm. Besides what I just mentioned, there are various 35mm cine formats, too many to mention here. In case you haven't noticed there aren't many people here who solely do video with pentax DSLRs - and I would wager only less than a handful that have every used 35mm cine film.so it is very safe to refer as 35mm film as 24X36mm film unless the topic explicitly mentions using alternate formats that happen to also use 135mm film

10-03-2011, 01:35 AM	#23
Stone G. Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Zealand, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,516	Originally posted by RobA_Oz I'm getting more than a little irked by the constant use of the term "Full Frame" or "FF" when referring to the conventional 35mm film format. After all, the word "full" means "able to contain no more", "as much as possible" or something similar. If that is so, what, then, do we make of the so-called Medium Format (MF) sizes? Should they be referred to as "Over-Full Frame"? ------- The term "Full Frame" could have some sense(?????) to it if one considers the image circle provided for by lenses designed for the good old SLR cameras using 135 mm film. These lenses will provide images without vignetting on sensors up to about 24 x 36 mm sizes and no more. So, here we have the "...ability to contain no more". But whoever coined that term originally presumably had something different (like FOV) in mind. I remember that when digital compacts started to become common in the late 1990'ies, sales persons spent a good deal of time explaining what those small focal lengths meant: I.e. that a 28.5 mm lens was "the same as" a 135 mm lens on the old analogue cameras.... So, I fully endorse RioRico's concern about *casual and unexplained* use of equivalences: Originally posted by RioRico Problem there is that digital cameras have used various of sensors of many sizes, and the official names of those sizes are less than illuminating. ....... ........ What's distracting IMHO isn't the terms, but the casual and unexplained use of equivalences. Without an explanation of frame cropping, we get so many new users asking if a lens changes focal length on a different camera. Oh bother.

10-03-2011, 02:10 AM	#24
Macario Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Hoek van Holland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,393	Originally posted by Class A Of course there are many formats larger than what we often refer to as FF. However, it is justified to use "full frame" for the 36mmx24mm format in the context of the K-mount because this format fully utilizes the K-mount. Any smaller sensor used in combination with the K-mount image circle is a crop sensor, i.e., not "full frame". The term is not as daft as one might think. This is not the complete truth of the K-mount. The size of the mount is because it was needed to support the bayonet. The M42 (also the P-thread mount) mount is smaller in diameter, but still is able to fill the 135 format. Same goes to the M40 and M39.

10-03-2011, 05:12 AM	#25
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Digitalis In case you haven't noticed there aren't many people here who solely do video with pentax DSLRs - and I would wager only less than a handful that have every used 35mm cine film.so it is very safe to refer as 35mm film as 24X36mm film unless the topic explicitly mentions using alternate formats that happen to also use 135mm film I'm probably not the only one here who has shot stills with 35mm formats other than 36x24mm -- mostly half-frame (24x18mm) which was also a common cine format, and damn close to APS-C size. Half-frame 35mm cameras were quite popular; some are classics. Others here have undoubtedly used 135 'pano' P&S's; I recall cheap old Lomo and Vivitar models. The Robots and other 24mm square-frame cameras (including TLR's?) were a rather more rare, true. But these varied 35mm formats were significant and the cameras are still available. 35mm is the film size. 135 is the package. 135/FF is just one 35mm format among many.

10-03-2011, 10:12 AM	#27
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Cambo .. Still thinking of selling my full-frame FA*'s...maybe. Cheers, Cameron I wouldn't sell them just yet. .

10-03-2011, 10:21 AM	#28
sjwaldron Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,235	Why do some people say "bathroom" or "restroom" when they need to tell their friend they are going to use a toilet in a mall or whatever? The term full-frame is just a name and we all understand what it is referring to...

10-03-2011, 11:33 AM	#29
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	From now on, I am going to call it a "Digital Single-lens Reflex camera with a 36 by 24 millimeter sensor"... "FF DSLR" is just too unweildy for me

10-03-2011, 12:00 PM	#30
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by cali92rs From now on, I am going to call it a "Digital Single-lens Reflex camera with a 36 by 24 millimeter sensor"... "FF DSLR" is just too unweildy for me Sorry, you need to take steps to increase your AI (acronym index). Every sentence posted requires at least one acronym, or your AI falls below 1 and your technical credibility (TC) drops to insignificance. Every posted paragraph requires at least one reference to FF or APS-C or 135/SQ or m4/3 or IQ or APO or LD or ISO. (Hay, my AI for that last sentence was 8!! Crown me!) Get with the program, eh?