Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

# Beginner quesion - How do we measure 35m

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?

and in digital cameras what is a 1/2.7" CCD is it one by
2.7 or 1 divided by 2.7, and if so what does it refer to -
the diagonal?

tia
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For a graphic comparison see:
http://www.photoprojects.net/sensor.jpg
Gene

news wrote:

> With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
> longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>
> and in digital cameras what is a 1/2.7" CCD is it one by
> 2.7 or 1 divided by 2.7, and if so what does it refer to -
> the diagonal?
>
> tia
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> John Bean wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:20:08 +0100, <news> wrote:
>>
>>>With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
>>>longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>> Neither - it's the width of he film.
>>
>>>and in digital cameras what is a 1/2.7" CCD is it one by
>>>2.7 or 1 divided by 2.7, and if so what does it refer to -
>>>the diagonal?
>> More complicated. See:
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.a...
>>
> No wonder no one understands it. The figure doesn't bear any direct
> relationship to the actuall sensor at all, but rather the size of a
> putative glass tube which doesn't surround it. Now all that makes NO
> SENSE AT ALL. What a wonderful opportunity for marketing hype!

Those things were developed to replace glass tubes, in video cameras,
and the terminology commonly used evolved in that marketplace.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Related resources
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<news> writes:

>> > With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
>> > longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>>
>> It's the width of the original film strip. The image area is 24mm
>
> Do you mean that the height of the film strip is 24mm?

Have you ever seen a piece of developed 35mm film? There are big runs
of sprocket holes down each side (from its movie heritage). In the
middle, between those sprocket holes, are the actual images. Those
images are 24mm high, and 36mm long.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:20:08 +0100, <news> wrote:

>With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
>longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?

Neither - it's the width of he film.

>and in digital cameras what is a 1/2.7" CCD is it one by
>2.7 or 1 divided by 2.7, and if so what does it refer to -
>the diagonal?

More complicated. See:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.a...

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John Bean wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:20:08 +0100, <news> wrote:
>
>
>>With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
>>longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>
>
> Neither - it's the width of he film.
>
>
>>and in digital cameras what is a 1/2.7" CCD is it one by
>>2.7 or 1 divided by 2.7, and if so what does it refer to -
>>the diagonal?
>
>
>
> More complicated. See:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.a...
>
No wonder no one understands it. The figure doesn't bear any direct
relationship to the actuall sensor at all, but rather the size of a
putative glass tube which doesn't surround it. Now all that makes NO
SENSE AT ALL. What a wonderful opportunity for marketing hype!

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<news> wrote in message
news:428f44a0\$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
> longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?

It's the width of the original film strip. The image area is 24mm
(between the edges and sprocket holes) and is 36mm long, images are
roughly separated by a 2mm space.

Thus, when in digital imaging one refers to 35mm full frame, 24x36mm
image area is implied (the actual sensor array can be a bit larger
because some masked pixels at the edges can be used for various
purposes, like black point determination).

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<news> wrote in message news:428f5577\$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> > With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
>> > longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>>
>> It's the width of the original film strip. The image area is 24mm
>
> Do you mean that the height of the film strip is 24mm?
>

No the film strip is 35mm, the picture height is 24mm.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<news> wrote:

> Do you mean that the height of the film strip is 24mm?

No, the space between your eyebrow and hairline.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>John Bean wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:20:08 +0100, <news> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
>>>>longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>>>
>>>Neither - it's the width of he film.
>>>
>>>
>>>>and in digital cameras what is a 1/2.7" CCD is it one by
>>>>2.7 or 1 divided by 2.7, and if so what does it refer to -
>>>>the diagonal?
>>>
>>>More complicated. See:
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.a...
>>>
>>
>>No wonder no one understands it. The figure doesn't bear any direct
>>relationship to the actuall sensor at all, but rather the size of a
>>putative glass tube which doesn't surround it. Now all that makes NO
>>SENSE AT ALL. What a wonderful opportunity for marketing hype!
>
>
> Those things were developed to replace glass tubes, in video cameras,
> and the terminology commonly used evolved in that marketplace.
Yes, and the 'yard' was the distance from a particular king's nose to
the end of his fingers. Now we have a standard, and it is a much more
rational value, NOT depending on a king, or his nose. The intention of
this type of 'measurment' is to confuse, and obfuscate the true size of
the sensor. It makes no sense in the current environment, except to
obscure the facts.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<news> wrote in message
news:428f5577\$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> > With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
>> > longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>>
>> It's the width of the original film strip. The image area is 24mm
>
> Do you mean that the height of the film strip is 24mm?

Height or width depends on rotation, but the film comes on a roll, and
is physically 35mm wide edge-to-edge with a variable length (depending
on the number of images one wants to accomodate).

There is a number of different image formats that can be projected on
that 35mm wide film, the most common for still photography (as opposed
to movies) is 24x36mm images, which could only fit in one orientation.

For more details, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film .

Bart
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:11:38 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>
>>>No wonder no one understands it. The figure doesn't bear any direct
>>>relationship to the actuall sensor at all, but rather the size of a
>>>putative glass tube which doesn't surround it. Now all that makes NO
>>>SENSE AT ALL. What a wonderful opportunity for marketing hype!
>>
>>
>> Those things were developed to replace glass tubes, in video cameras,
>> and the terminology commonly used evolved in that marketplace.

>Yes, and the 'yard' was the distance from a particular king's nose to
>the end of his fingers. Now we have a standard, and it is a much more
>rational value, NOT depending on a king, or his nose. The intention of
>this type of 'measurment' is to confuse, and obfuscate the true size of
>the sensor. It makes no sense in the current environment, except to
>obscure the facts.

I agree entirely. The same is true of monitor sizes - a pathetic attempt
to make them sound bigger than they really are. (My so-called 17-inch
screen is actually 32 cm wide, which would probably register less than
13 inches if one could still get rulers marked in medieval units in this
part of the world).

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> I agree entirely. The same is true of monitor sizes - a pathetic attempt
> to make them sound bigger than they really are. (My so-called 17-inch
> screen is actually 32 cm wide, which would probably register less than
> 13 inches if one could still get rulers marked in medieval units in this
> part of the world).
>

CRT and LCD sizes are measured diagonally. US manufacturers were allowed to
measure the distance between a CRT's mounting screws rather than the edges
of the phosphors. This usually gave them another fake inch or two for
advertising. All other countries used the more honest measurement of the
diagonal of the visible phosphor area. For some reason the US didn't get
away with the same scam for LCD's, probably because almost none of them (or
anything else of value) is made in the US any more.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The picture is 24x36mm, the film itself, including sprocket holes is 35mm

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

<news> wrote in message news:428f44a0\$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> With 35mm fim camera, what is actually the 35mm, is it the
> longer side of the film rectangle or the shorter one?
>
> and in digital cameras what is a 1/2.7" CCD is it one by
> 2.7 or 1 divided by 2.7, and if so what does it refer to -
> the diagonal?
>
> tia
>
>
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:

>Those things were developed to replace glass tubes, in video cameras,
>and the terminology commonly used evolved in that marketplace.

And it makes sense to use this measurement system in the context of
professional video cameras, where someone might actually (a) be familiar
with the measurement units and (b) want to know if a lens designed for a
1/2 inch tube camera will also work with a particular CCD camera head.

But it makes little sense to carry the measurement system into consumer
video cameras, and even less into digital still cameras.

Why not give the image diagonal in mm? That would make more sense to
virtually everyone.

Dave
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>>Those things were developed to replace glass tubes, in video cameras,
>>and the terminology commonly used evolved in that marketplace.
>
> And it makes sense to use this measurement system in the context of
> professional video cameras, where someone might actually (a) be familiar
> with the measurement units and (b) want to know if a lens designed for a
> 1/2 inch tube camera will also work with a particular CCD camera head.
>
> But it makes little sense to carry the measurement system into consumer
> video cameras, and even less into digital still cameras.
>
> Why not give the image diagonal in mm? That would make more sense to
> virtually everyone.

I certainly think they should. But all the engineers familiar with
the tech would have come out of video originally, and been used to the
other, so I can see how it got established here.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>
>>Those things were developed to replace glass tubes, in video cameras,
>>and the terminology commonly used evolved in that marketplace.
>
>
> And it makes sense to use this measurement system in the context of
> professional video cameras, where someone might actually (a) be familiar
> with the measurement units and (b) want to know if a lens designed for a
> 1/2 inch tube camera will also work with a particular CCD camera head.
>
> But it makes little sense to carry the measurement system into consumer
> video cameras, and even less into digital still cameras.
>
> Why not give the image diagonal in mm? That would make more sense to
> virtually everyone.
>
> Dave
Better, give the length and width in mm! There would be NO confusion then.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
[]
> Why not give the image diagonal in mm? That would make more sense to
> virtually everyone.
>
> Dave

Unfortunately, aspect ratio comes into it. I would be happy with the
sensor sensitive area in millimetres width and height (which is what I
always quote when asked).

David
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:58:19 +0200, Stephen Poley
<sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:11:38 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>No wonder no one understands it. The figure doesn't bear any direct
>>>>relationship to the actuall sensor at all, but rather the size of a
>>>>putative glass tube which doesn't surround it. Now all that makes NO
>>>>SENSE AT ALL. What a wonderful opportunity for marketing hype!
>>>
>>>
>>> Those things were developed to replace glass tubes, in video cameras,
>>> and the terminology commonly used evolved in that marketplace.
>
>>Yes, and the 'yard' was the distance from a particular king's nose to
>>the end of his fingers. Now we have a standard, and it is a much more
>>rational value, NOT depending on a king, or his nose. The intention of
>>this type of 'measurment' is to confuse, and obfuscate the true size of
>>the sensor. It makes no sense in the current environment, except to
>>obscure the facts.
>
>I agree entirely. The same is true of monitor sizes - a pathetic attempt
>to make them sound bigger than they really are. (My so-called 17-inch
>screen is actually 32 cm wide, which would probably register less than
>13 inches if one could still get rulers marked in medieval units in this
>part of the world).

Ignoring the snide (and useless) attempt to cavil about
others' use of their preferred measures, you would do well to remember
the source of the measurement.

It's not just a pathetic attempt to make them sound bigger
than they really are. There is good historical reason for the
convention. The original CRTs were round. They were later masked to
show a rectangular picture. However, the size of the underlying round
tube was still the measurement the tube was built to and the diagonal
of the superposed mask gave the diameter of the constructed round
tube. It was only later that it became posible to make recr=tangular
tubes.

Ergo, a roughly 13 inch wide sreen would give you roughly a 17
inch diagonal screen. I'll let you convert to your soulless,
ignorant-of-the-rich-history measurement units.

Keep in mind the dimensions may vary depending on the size of
the actual tube versus the viewable area masked off by the bezel.

My couple of shillings worth. A far better deal than tuppence
worth.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:12:04 -0000, Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> I agree entirely. The same is true of monitor sizes - a pathetic attempt
>> to make them sound bigger than they really are. (My so-called 17-inch
>> screen is actually 32 cm wide, which would probably register less than
>> 13 inches if one could still get rulers marked in medieval units in this
>> part of the world).
>>
>
>CRT and LCD sizes are measured diagonally. US manufacturers were allowed to
>measure the distance between a CRT's mounting screws rather than the edges
>of the phosphors. This usually gave them another fake inch or two for
>advertising. All other countries used the more honest measurement of the
>diagonal of the visible phosphor area. For some reason the US didn't get
>away with the same scam for LCD's, probably because almost none of them (or
>anything else of value) is made in the US any more.

Thanks for the meaningless input, snot.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>>CRT and LCD sizes are measured diagonally. US manufacturers were
>>allowed to measure the distance between a CRT's mounting screws rather
>>than the edges of the phosphors. This usually gave them another fake
>>inch or two for advertising. All other countries used the more honest
>>measurement of the diagonal of the visible phosphor area. For some
>>reason the US didn't get away with the same scam for LCD's, probably
>>because almost none of them (or anything else of value) is made in the
>>US any more.
>
> Thanks for the meaningless input, snot.
>
>
You're quite welcome, bitch.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>
> It's not just a pathetic attempt to make them sound bigger
> than they really are. There is good historical reason for the
> convention. The original CRTs were round. They were later masked to
> show a rectangular picture. However, the size of the underlying round
> tube was still the measurement the tube was built to and the diagonal
> of the superposed mask gave the diameter of the constructed round
> tube.

Wrong. They measured to the edge of the glass envelope, far past the
corners of the phosphors (not the shadow mask, which, if you knew what
you were talking about, you would have realized hadn't been invented
yet). Later, they measured to the mounting hardware to gain another
pathetic inch.

Nice try, no cigar.
Related resources:
!