> Eventually, digital camera will evolve into an optimal design, like > film sizes in traditional film camera. In the traditional film, 35mm format > is the most balanced design. If one want to go for better quality, you can > have 645 or 67, while for more compactness we have the APS format. But 35mm > format is still the most popular. Digital evolution will be the same. > There is nothing to do with the pixel count.
You may well be correct about digital evolution, Henry, but film was never optimized. An individual inventor working for an obscure German microscope manufacturer doubled the frame size of 35mm movie film, and we've been stuck with that size--and the movie film's closely-spaced double row of sprocket holes, which were _always_ redundant for single-exposure cameras--to this very day. The open spool and paper backing of 120 film was designed for indoor use and for substrates that have long since become obsolete. In fact, virtually the only film size that could be said to be either "designed" or "evolved" is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers. I fear that I do not have the trust in "intelligent evolution" that you do. It's just as likely that convention, inertia, compatibility, ignorant prejudice, and the vested interests of those who wield the most power will determine the eventual standardization of the technology. --Mike
