The sensor aspect ratio debate...

Matt Ion wrote:
...is retarded. The optimal shape for a sensor is round. Why aren't we
ALL just insisting that the manufacturers follow this rather than
fighting over whether 4:3 or 3:2 is better? When you get the FULL
coverage of the lens, you can just crop it to whatever aspect you damn
well please.

It's just that round paper doesn't go well through most printers.....

Your solution won't work in general because not enough people would be
willing to crop each and every snapshot, or know how.

--
john mcwilliams

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
On Aug 5, 12:40 pm, John McWilliams wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:
...is retarded. The optimal shape for a sensor is round. Why aren't we
ALL just insisting that the manufacturers follow this rather than
fighting over whether 4:3 or 3:2 is better? When you get the FULL
coverage of the lens, you can just crop it to whatever aspect you damn
well please.
It's just that round paper doesn't go well through most printers.....

Your solution won't work in general because not enough people would be
willing to crop each and every snapshot, or know how.

Yet, they USED to crop. In the film days there were several different
aspect ratios in use. And printing paper came in a variety of
aspects, few of which matched 35mm. So not matter which format you
used, you needed to crop or trim paper on at least some size prints.
It was your choice whether to crop with print frame, or trim paper, or
frequently, both. Most photographers had a paper cutter, but a ruler
and X-acto knife also worked fine.

Yabbut! Yes, but you're talking about real photographers, not the masses
needed to make a go of a 'new' format, a round one, where all but a few
hundred thousand would be at sea.

But it makes me almost nostalgic for drying presses and stop baths....

--
john mcwilliams