The 3:2 ratio needs to go, it's a throwback and a stupid waste

This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is
more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other
forum you wish to consider. The fact is a more square ratio is used
far more often than a longer rectangle. The other thing is the sheer
waste of the 3:2. Draw a circle representing your lens's image circle.
Now, draw a rectangle in it at 3:2. Now draw a taller rectangle of 4:3
or thereabouts. Notice the total image loss with the 3:2. Now, ask
yourself, how many medium format CCDs use a 3:2 rectangle? Answer:
NONE. Even though it is for the same stupid reason as 35mm FF (that
there were established medium format sizes) medium format users have
not seen any need to adopt a shorter and only marginally wider format.
The switch to a 4:3 or similar sensor would allow more pixels to be
available for the image and a minimal loss of the horizontal angle of
the image. Lenses have been producing round image circles sense they
were invented and yet they are using a format that does not make as
much use of it as possible.
For traditionalist 35mm users, the camera companies can easily put a
framing rectangle in the viewscreen to simulate the old 3:2 format and
allow those who want it to compose using it.
Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for
practical, cost and evolutionary reasons.

"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is
more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other
forum you wish to consider. The fact is a more square ratio is used
far more often than a longer rectangle. The other thing is the sheer
waste of the 3:2. Draw a circle representing your lens's image circle.
Now, draw a rectangle in it at 3:2.

Why would not to switch directly to the round format in utilize the lens in
the most efficient way ? :-)

"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
: This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is
: more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other
: forum you wish to consider. The fact is a more square ratio is used
: far more often than a longer rectangle. The other thing is the sheer
: waste of the 3:2. Draw a circle representing your lens's image circle.
: Now, draw a rectangle in it at 3:2. Now draw a taller rectangle of 4:3
: or thereabouts. Notice the total image loss with the 3:2. Now, ask
: yourself, how many medium format CCDs use a 3:2 rectangle? Answer:
: NONE. Even though it is for the same stupid reason as 35mm FF (that
: there were established medium format sizes) medium format users have
: not seen any need to adopt a shorter and only marginally wider format.
: The switch to a 4:3 or similar sensor would allow more pixels to be
: available for the image and a minimal loss of the horizontal angle of
: the image. Lenses have been producing round image circles sense they
: were invented and yet they are using a format that does not make as
: much use of it as possible.
: For traditionalist 35mm users, the camera companies can easily put a
: framing rectangle in the viewscreen to simulate the old 3:2 format and
: allow those who want it to compose using it.
: Just like the CF card, the 3:2's days should be numbered solely for
: practical, cost and evolutionary reasons.
:
----------------------

3:2 is an important aspect ration for landscape Photography although I tend
to mentally crop the top of all portrait orientation images taken with
cameras using this ratio so I can comfortably make traditional (4:3) aspect
prints. ( Now lets not go down the road of exact size with the purists, eh?)

--
Wedding Photography anywhere between Coffs Harbour NSW and Rainbow Beach
Qld.
http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Your digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas
http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com

RichA wrote:
This ratio is just about worthless.

Then why are TV and film going to wider formats?

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Slightly more than none.


Horseman SW-612 Medium Format Camera Kit with Normal 90mm f/6.8
Grandagon Lens, Viewfinder and 6 x 9cm (120) Film Magazine

Vintage
MOSKVA-3
6 x 9 cm Russian camera
***********************
Very Rare !

In article om, RichA
writes
This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is
more representative of professional prints in magazines or any other
forum you wish to consider. The fact is a more square ratio is used
far more often than a longer rectangle. The other thing is the sheer
waste of the 3:2. Draw a circle representing your lens's image circle.
Now, draw a rectangle in it at 3:2. Now draw a taller rectangle of 4:3
or thereabouts. Notice the total image loss with the 3:2. Now, ask
yourself, how many medium format CCDs use a 3:2 rectangle? Answer:
NONE.

Almost every word you write displays your ignorance of virtually every
aspect of photography.

6x9: Fuji GW690; Fuji GSW690 (and various other earlier Fuji varieties);
Plaubel 69W; several varieties of Mamiya Press; Various Zeiss Ikontas;
several varieties of 6x9 roll film back for larger format cameras.

6x12 and yet wider formats: Linhof Technorama 6x12, ditto 6x17; Fuji
G617; Widelux 1500.

No doubt I have missed a few.

Perhaps you could give us a break and STFU.

David
--
David Littlewood

Charles wrote:
Slightly more than none.


Horseman SW-612 Medium Format Camera Kit with Normal 90mm f/6.8
Grandagon Lens, Viewfinder and 6 x 9cm (120) Film Magazine

Vintage
MOSKVA-3
6 x 9 cm Russian camera
***********************
Very Rare !

Charles,

Everything is going to wide format now. All computers, films, tv,mags,
etc.

I just wish my Digital Rebel XT would do the widescreen format. It
does do nice expanded desktop images. I can give it that.

Harry Flaxman Appplications Engineer (retired)

RichA wrote:
This ratio is just about worthless. In the first place, 4:3 ratio is ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

In article ,
"G.T." wrote:

RichA wrote:
This ratio is just about worthless.

Then why are TV and film going to wider formats?

Greg

I once read a fascinating explanation of why movies tend to be in wide
formats. When TV settled on 4:3, the movie houses wanted to be able to
differentiate themselves from TV, and make it difficult for TV networks to
broadcast their products. So, they deliberately went to a format which
didn't fit well onto a 4:3 TV screen, to drive people into the theaters.

It may or may not be true, but it's an interesting theory.

50+ years later, things have now come full circle. TVs (and computers) are
going wide format to go after the movies, and the movie houses are looking
at home viewing as a primary distribution market.

"Douglas" wrote:

3:2 is an important aspect ration for landscape Photography

I can't argue with the word "important" here - I'm sure it is to some,
and that some great photographs have been taken in this format. But I
can observe that it isn't particularly common in the grand scheme of
things. People have been painting landscapes for *centuries*, and most
artists have a fiar amount of choice in their canvas size (many stretch
their own). Yet I'd wager the vast majority of landscapes are more
square than 3:2. A good number are even more more elongated than 3:2,
of course. But 3:2 itself isn't especially common - a sort of awkward
no man's land. So I wouldn't say that the evidence suggests 3:2 is a
ratio that many people would actually choose very often, given a decent
range of options.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/