The New 5:4 Format!

[John_Igel]

I was reading Michael Reichmann’s report from PMA the other day

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...ma-30000.shtml

in which he speculates on the future of digital photography and it struck me that we should not be held to format sizes from the past. Why not take the current 24x36 full frame size, which is 3:2 aspect ratio, and make it more square? 3:2 has never fit any standard enlargement sizes and is a vestige from the very early days of the 20th century if not even the 19th Century

sthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_filmandards

So where do we go from here? I say let’s go up, increase the size of the sensor in the vertical direction. If, for instance Canon decided to increase the size of the sensor currently used on the 5D from 36x24 (3:2) to say 36x29 (5:4), it would be a 21% increase in sensor area (more pixels = more better). I know there are manufacturing challenges to convert the mirror/penta-prism area to a larger format, but a 5/4 ratio is well worth considering. I for one would put up with a somewhat bulkier camera for some increased sensor area. The best part is that the 5:4 format is what we already use, ie: 20x16 is dead on and 14x11 is only a slight crop. I would not throw as many pixels away when I crop if the native format was closer to reality.

Eventually we may get used to 36x36, but until then, I will settle for the 5/4 format, something we all print anyhow. My 2¢ - John

[DierkHaasis]

The big discussion in earlier times was about the "correct" medium format size. 6x6 was a preferred format simply because it was easy to use - you wouldn't have to tilt the camera for portrait work. 6x4.5 was considered too small, 6x7 was not square.

Which reminds me: 35 mm format was never really considered a serious format, too small, too 'towely' (it's ratio is a bit like a towel's).

[Ken_Bennett]

[ QUOTE ]
The best part is that the 5:4 format is what we already use, ie: 20x16 is dead on and 14x11 is only a slight crop.

[/ QUOTE ]


Speak for yourself. Me, I like seeing my work spread across two pages in a magazine -- 11x17 inches, or almost exactly 3:2.

I'm not trying to be snide, only to point out that the supposedly 'ideal' 3:4 or 4:5 ratio is only ideal for some people and some purposes. There are common print sizes that are 3:2 -- I give you the ubiquitous 4x6, or the slightly less common 5x7, or any of the 20x30-inch prints on my wall. And I really do like those double-page spreads.

Cheers,

Ken

[KenRexach]

Are the current 35mm lenses producing a large enough image circle for those formats?

[KenKahn]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the current 35mm lenses producing a large enough image circle for those formats?

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently not. According to DALSA, "Lenses that are used with popular 35mm cameras will have an image circle on the order of approximately 42.4mm in diameter." This is actually a little too small to completely cover a 36mm x 24mm frame, which has an diagonal distance of 43.266mm. An image circle which exactly covers a 36mm x 24mm frame could cover a square frame 30.6mm x 30.6mm. At the same pixel pitch as 1Ds2, a square sensor of this size would have 4250 x 4250 pixels; about 18 million pixels.

[Duane_Bolland]

I, too, have thought about using more of the vertical image area. The problem is that mirror box and lenses are designed for a vertical image size of 24mm. Increasing the image height would require a larger mirror and that would require pushing the lenses farther from the film plane, which means designing a whole new set of lenses. Canon might be able to squeeze in a mm or two, but not 6+.

Building a whole new line of cameras and lenses around a 30mm square image would be very cool, but I suspect they would be significantly more expensive (like medium format). And a lot of folks would whine about the pixels lost when cropping the image to rectangular formats.

Personally, I'd be delighted with a 26x34mm image, which might be technically feasible without redesigning the lenses.

[Jules_Boag]

How about 1:1.618034... On a digital I think it would work phine.
sorry couldn't resist.