From: J. Clarke on
On 5/24/2010 3:51 PM, Bob G wrote:
> On May 24, 2:45 pm, nospam<nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
>>
>>
>> 4/3rs can never be full frame. it's maximum size is what it is. it can
>> never be any bigger.
>
> 4/3 is an artihmetic ratio - unless it's been registered as a
> proprietary name (which I doubt), it can be applied to any rectangular-
> shaped object that satisfies it.

So what rock have you been living under for the past ten years that you
are unaware of the multiple-vendor 4/3 standard that allows bodies and
lenses from Panasonic, Leica, and Olympus to be interchanged freely?


From: Bob G on
On May 24, 3:22 pm, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <5201c112-e9bc-4f35-9aac-06d7f2662...(a)c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Bob G <mrbobja...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 4/3rs can never be full frame. it's maximum size is what it is. it can
> > > never be any bigger.
>
> > 4/3 is an artihmetic ratio - unless it's been registered as a
> > proprietary name (which I doubt), it can be applied to any rectangular-
> > shaped object that satisfies it.
>
> 4/3rds has been registered and it's based on the *size* of the sensor,
> not (just) it's aspect ratio.
>
> full frame means a 24x36mm frame, the standard 35mm film frame, and
> it's a term that began 50 years ago when olympus came out with a
> half-frame 35mm film camera.

I can't see "4/3" being registered by anyone, "Four Thirds" maybe. And
4/3 is not a size, merely a ratio.
The size of the "4/3" sensor is approx. 18mm x 13.5mm, not 1.333...

And why not call it the "Three Fourths" (3/4) sensor, anyway? It's the
same thing, isn't it?

But I think we're fighting over names and not concepts. By a "full-
frame" 4/3 sensor I meant a larger sensor 24x32mm2, its sides in the
proportion 3:4, that's all.



From: nospam on
In article
<e27b5562-e1b8-42e0-89cc-cb866e73d608(a)v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Bob G <mrbobjames(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> I can't see "4/3" being registered by anyone, "Four Thirds" maybe.

4/3 is shorthand or an abbreviation for four thirds, just as m43 or mft
is shorthand for micro four thirds.

> And 4/3 is not a size, merely a ratio.

it's a size.

> The size of the "4/3" sensor is approx. 18mm x 13.5mm, not 1.333...

the entire sensor is 4/3 of an inch, although the actual light
sensitive area is smaller.

<http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7045.htm>

Four Thirds is a reference to the size of the image sensor. The image
sensor for Four Thirds cameras is what is commonly referred to as a
4/3 type or 4/3 type sensor.

> And why not call it the "Three Fourths" (3/4) sensor, anyway? It's the
> same thing, isn't it?

no. 3/4 is less than 4/3.

> But I think we're fighting over names and not concepts. By a "full-
> frame" 4/3 sensor I meant a larger sensor 24x32mm2, its sides in the
> proportion 3:4, that's all.

full frame means 24 x 36 mm. 4/3 can never be that big.
From: Fred McKenzie on
In article <240520101322401249%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:

> full frame means a 24x36mm frame, the standard 35mm film frame, and
> it's a term that began 50 years ago when olympus came out with a
> half-frame 35mm film camera.

You mean SINGLE frame, don't you? (Based on 35mm motion picture film.)

Fred
From: nospam on
In article <fmmck-0D78E4.20010724052010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Fred
McKenzie <fmmck(a)aol.com> wrote:

> > full frame means a 24x36mm frame, the standard 35mm film frame, and
> > it's a term that began 50 years ago when olympus came out with a
> > half-frame 35mm film camera.
>
> You mean SINGLE frame, don't you? (Based on 35mm motion picture film.)

initially it was single and double frame, 18x24 and 24x36, but few
cameras used 18x24mm. 24x36 was pretty much the standard size.

then olympus came out with the pen camera and called it half-frame, so
24x36mm became known as full frame. that was 50 years ago and the term
has stuck since then.