|
"Jimmy Pop" wrote in
: I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11). The reason is ... ehem ... that 35 mm film cameras have that aspect ratio. And I agree ... that is no good reason at all. But ... it is very easy to define the cropping ration (to 35 mm film :). /Roland |
"Jimmy Pop" wrote in message ... I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? None. It all started when Leitz decided to make a camera for testing 35mm movie film. They decided on a camera which exposed 2 frames of the movie film at once. As the movie frames were (and still may be for all I know or care) 18x24, the resulting sixe for the still camera was 24x36. This image size is not convenient to use for producing any of the common prints sizes except 4x6, However, most of us don't use all of the frame anyway. So, regardless of the image size some cropping usually needed, and the 3:2 format has been with us ever since the 1920s. Jim |
Jimmy Pop wrote:
I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11). Thanks for the help! Tom Cameras with 3:2 aspect ratio settings are intended for 4x6 prints, which is the most common print in the US. Some cameras offer more than one aspect ratio. |
Jimmy Pop wrote:
So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or 8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the exposure? Or use borders, of course. "That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor here I am not considering? 4:3 was invented by Satan to make pictures ugly. Besides, it doesn't fit on a 4x6 print very well. :) -- Jeremy | |
Your question as been answered and I agree that just because 35mm is doesn't
make it a good reason. I would however like to point out something. With the high resolution of the 20D you should have next to no problems with any moderate cropping you may need to do to get the images the right aspect ratio for printing at the larger sizes. This was one of the things I really fell in love with with the 20D and that is you have a lot of room from useful and creative cropping and still having enough image left for large sized high quality prints. My 20D died after I updated the firmware and so I am back to using my only 2.3MP Sony CD Mavica and I have to say I really miss the 20D and that resolution. While I can get nice 8x10 prints with the Sony there is nothing extra for any type of cropping which as I said I really miss. I am praying my 20D gets back from the shop in the next week or so. John "Jimmy Pop" wrote in message ... I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11). Thanks for the help! Tom |
Ron Hunter wrote in news:10mlhf7evvlkn63
@corp.supernews.com: Cameras with 3:2 aspect ratio settings are intended for 4x6 prints, which is the most common print in the US. This is also the most common ratio for small prints here in Sweden. But ... that is really no motivation at all, as this format is 4x6 because 35 mm film cameras are 24x36. Larger formats in Sweden are 13x18, 18x24, 24x30, 30x40 and those are not 2:3 ratio. So ... the motivations for a 2:3 ratio for digital cameras are rather weak. /Roland |
Jim wrote:
"Jimmy Pop" wrote in message ... Hmmm, seems like the digital era would have been a good time to switch to the 4:3 format (and it seems some did - my Minolta Dimage 7i uses 4:3). So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or 8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the exposure? "That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor here I am not considering? I don't "target" any particular size. However, when cropping to 8x10 or 11x14, the extra space can be helpful, especially if I need to move the subject away from dead center. However, I do agree that now would have been a good time to abandon the 3:2 format that we have been stuck with for 80 years... Jim Why? |
I agree that there is no good reason why we use 3:2 seonsors, in the same
way that we don't use 5:4, 4:3, 1.414:1 etc... The standard print sizes are all different ratios (6x4 = 3:2, 7x5 = 1.4:1, 10x8 = 1.2:1, A4 = 1.414:1) Personally, I "see" in 3:2 format when photographing, so I like it, and am glad that my DSLR has kept it. I find that I tend to crop all images that come out of my P&S because they are just the wrong aspect. |
3:2 Aspect Ratio
Jim wrote:
I don't "target" any particular size. However, when cropping to 8x10 or 11x14, the extra space can be helpful, especially if I need to move the subject away from dead center. When you crop the picture, you fundamentally change it. I composed it in the camera, so I'm not interested in doing that. However, I do agree that now would have been a good time to abandon the 3:2 format that we have been stuck with for 80 years... Why? What's wrong with it? All of the silly "standard" print sizes are different shapes, so there is no shape that would fit them all any better than that one. And I'm not even remotely interested in using 4:3. I'd be willing to use 1.414:1, 1.681:1, maybe even 16:9 (though that would suck for verticals), but not 4:3. But even then, switching to any of the above would have the same problem with the "standard" print sizes. Why not just abandon 8x10 paper? It makes no sense anyway. -- Jeremy | |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com