I'm curious how others feel about this. I know LF in film is determined by sq inches of film area but in the digital world I don't think this applies. Let me give an example, 8x10 film is obviously LF but is a digital back with a native file size of 18x22 inches with the back mounted on a view camera LF? I see a digital file uninterpolated at it's native size as being the equivalent of a piece of film that size. Is a file of 120 Megs at 18x22" ULF? What about a betterlight scanning back on 4x5? The sensor is only a small array of pixels on a bar that traverses the width of the back but the file sixe is very large. It may be 30x40 inches or so. Is it sensor size or native file size. Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?