If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:00:56 -0800, ultred ragnusen wrote:
Do you know of Windows freeware that has the option to easily lock in a 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping? [...] I generally crop in Irfanview because it's so very fast & super easy (click, click, crop), but there is no way to lock the aspect ratio for that crop to 4:3 in Irfanview, nor in Pinta, MS Paint, or Paint 3D freeware. In Irfanview: # Create a pre-selection for your crop by Click&Drag with your mouse. (Be sure, the upper left corner starts on the correct position.) # Press Shift+c to get the CustomCrop dialog. # Adjust the Crop to 3:2 ratio (or whatever ratio you like) and click the button SaveAndDrawOnImage # Fine-tune the extent of your crop by dragging the borders of the crop with your mouse while *keeping the Alt key pressed*. # If need be: Re-position the crop area by dragging it with the *right* mouse button. HTH. BeAr F'Up set to acf. -- ================================================== ========================= = What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? = ================================================== =============--(Oops!)=== |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In message , JJ
writes: On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:50:48 -0500, nospam wrote: This is designed to be simple, quick cropping and resizing, while retaining the best possible image quality when desired. (Crop a JPG and you'll lose some quality, not when it's a lossless or non-destructive crop. That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive. Other than that cropping obviously removes information, what do you mean: I thought the non-destructive crop was just that (in the part of the image you keep, obviously). Being as it (as implemented in IrfanView, anyway) crops to the nearest 16 (I think it's 16) pixel boundary. I assumed the reason it does that is t avoid loss. but you can minimize the loss, or avoid it by saving as BMP.) and drastically increase its size. IMO, BMP should only be used when a software doesn't support a better image format. How it stores 24bpp image pixels is unacceptably wasteful. In what way - does it use two 16-bit words, or something? Or do you just mean it doesn't do any (even lossless) data-compression? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In message , Mayayana
writes: [] a format for storing photos. Similarly with GIF: It's handy for creating small files and it's cross-platform, but it's lossy insofar as it reduces an image to 8-bit color. [] Not quite: it reduces it to 8-bit _storage_, but it does that by using a palette. I think the palette entries are at least 16-bit. Basically, it reduce an image to 256 _colours_, but they're not the _same_ 256 for any given image: a picture of a sunset, for example, will have a lot of oranges and reds. And once the reduction has been done, there's no _further_ compression (though some image editors - like, unfortunately, IrfanView, which I think is great in most respects - tend to operate in maximum-colours mode, so edit actions in them _do_ cause degradation when resaved in GIF. But that's not the format's "fault"; if the editors could be constrained to work in 256-colour mode, there'd be no loss). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| a format for storing photos. Similarly with GIF: It's | handy for creating small files and it's cross-platform, | but it's lossy insofar as it reduces an image to 8-bit | color. | [] | Not quite: it reduces it to 8-bit _storage_, but it does that by using a | palette. I think the palette entries are at least 16-bit. Basically, it | reduce an image to 256 _colours_, but they're not the _same_ 256 for any | given image: a picture of a sunset, for example, will have a lot of | oranges and reds. I wouldn't argue with that. But it's still reduced to a max of 256 colors. It's best for logos, cartoons, simple images. A sunset will dither. (Remember the old days on Windows monitors? If you used a sunset desktop photo you would have had stripes.) | And once the reduction has been done, there's no | _further_ compression As I understand it there is, but it's not lossy. It's a formulaic system that will record things like "43 pixels of color #18" as a data record, rather than using 43 * 3 bytes to record 43 pixels. It's very efficient in that context because repeating pixels are the norm. (though some image editors - like, unfortunately, | IrfanView, which I think is great in most respects - tend to operate in | maximum-colours mode, so edit actions in them _do_ cause degradation | when resaved in GIF. But that's not the format's "fault"; if the editors | could be constrained to work in 256-colour mode, there'd be no loss). That's just not true. Few 24-bit images use only 256 colors. Try this one: https://www.jsware.net/Files2/sunsetMV.jpg IrfanView says there are 100,627 unique colors there. If I reduce to 256 colors in PSP I get something like a comic book image, where Superman is in 3 colors. There are 3 reduction routines down to 256 colors and the effect varies with each, but all drop out a tremendous amount of data. If I save as GIF from PSP I get a pointilistic image. PSP16 does a slightly smoother job of it than PSP5, but both end up looking like a print from an old printer. And that image started as a low quality JPG that had already been resaved at least twice, so it wasn't a great picture to begin with. It had already dumped a lot of the richness. The degradation from the original would have been heartbreaking to see. To me that's a great example of the role of JPG and GIF: Great for onscreen images that need to be small and that need to be accessible across platforms. I use GIFs a lot for diagrams. But they're not good for much else. It would be crazy to store photos as GIF in order to save space. I find it kind of ironic when this topic comes up. I don't think I've ever heard you say this, but whenever I talk about conserving space on disk, many people will respond with, "Ah, that's not worth the trouble. Disks are so cheap these days!" Yet when it comes to saving large images for a good reason, those same people think it's crazy: "Takes up WAY too much space!" I suspect most people who feel that way are taking loads of pictures with their phone. They just want 2,000 vacation photos to fit on disk. They have no intention of doing any involved editing or printing of those images, or even going through to dump the bad ones, so they're happy with downgraded JPGs. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | a format for storing photos. Similarly with GIF: It's | handy for creating small files and it's cross-platform, | but it's lossy insofar as it reduces an image to 8-bit | color. | [] | Not quite: it reduces it to 8-bit _storage_, but it does that by using a | palette. I think the palette entries are at least 16-bit. Basically, it | reduce an image to 256 _colours_, but they're not the _same_ 256 for any | given image: a picture of a sunset, for example, will have a lot of | oranges and reds. I wouldn't argue with that. But it's still reduced to a max of 256 colors. It's best for logos, cartoons, simple images. A sunset will dither. (Remember the old days on Windows monitors? If you used a sunset desktop photo you would have had stripes.) Yes, I had such a monitor (well, laptop). | And once the reduction has been done, there's no | _further_ compression As I understand it there is, but it's not lossy. It's a formulaic system that will record things like "43 pixels of color #18" as a data record, rather than using 43 * 3 bytes to record 43 pixels. It's very efficient in that context because repeating pixels are the norm. My bad - I meant loss, not compression. (though some image editors - like, unfortunately, | IrfanView, which I think is great in most respects - tend to operate in | maximum-colours mode, so edit actions in them _do_ cause degradation | when resaved in GIF. But that's not the format's "fault"; if the editors | could be constrained to work in 256-colour mode, there'd be no loss). That's just not true. Few 24-bit images use only 256 colors. Try this one: https://www.jsware.net/Files2/sunsetMV.jpg What I meant was: once an image has been reduced to 256 colours, then any editing _that did not change the number of colours_ (such as brightness or _possibly_ contrast tweaking) would not result in further corruption if saved as GIF; once it's been reduced to 256 colours, then anything further you do to it, _provided it doesn't result in an increase in the number of colours_, can still be saves as GIF without further degradation. The sort of things that _do_ result in number-of-colours increase include blurring, including resizing (especially down). IrfanView says there are 100,627 unique colors there. If I reduce to 256 colors in PSP I get something like a comic book image, where Superman is in 3 colors. Agreed. (Though it's subtle: I didn't notice it at first.) There are 3 reduction routines down to 256 colors and the effect varies with each, but all drop out a tremendous amount of data. If I save as GIF from PSP I get a pointilistic image. PSP16 does a slightly smoother job of it than PSP5, but both end up looking like a print from an old printer. And that image started as a low quality JPG that had already been resaved at least twice, so it wasn't a great picture to begin with. It had already dumped a lot of the richness. The degradation from the original would have been heartbreaking to see. To me that's a great example of the role of JPG and GIF: Great for onscreen images that need to be small and that need to be accessible across platforms. I use GIFs a lot for diagrams. But they're not good for much else. It would be crazy to store photos as GIF in order to save space. Agreed (though there are _some_ images that _don't_ lose a lot: mainly ones without gradual shading). I find it kind of ironic when this topic comes up. I don't think I've ever heard you say this, but whenever I talk about conserving space on disk, many people will respond with, "Ah, that's not worth the trouble. Disks are so cheap these days!" Yet when it comes No, you'll rarely hear me say that, as I come from the bygone era (my first computer had 1K of memory; before that, the first one I worked on had 16 memory locations). I will _sometimes_ concede that view when discussion of time versus resources comes up, but given the choice and time, I'll go for saving space where practicable. (Actually, more in MP3 files than images; my eyesight, touch wood, has not deteriorated with age other than the ability to close-focus, but my hearing _has_ lost top, and/or I haven't had speakers capable of great top for some time.) to saving large images for a good reason, those same people think it's crazy: "Takes up WAY too much space!" I suspect most people who feel that way are taking loads of pictures with their phone. They just want 2,000 vacation photos to fit on disk. They have no intention of doing any involved editing or printing of those images, or even going through to dump the bad ones, so they're happy with downgraded JPGs. My 'phone - a cheap one (a DooGee) - has, IIRR, a 6M camera. It takes pictures I consider considerably inferior to those I take with my 3M Fuji with a reasonable lens - which I usually have set to 1M size (JPEG that is). When you say they want "vacation photos to fit on disk", do you mean "to fit on _a_ disc", i. e. to make a CD (or, I guess these days, a DVD), to give to friends/relatives? (I remember using a Sony camera at work, that had a floppy drive built in - and you could get several pictures on, of acceptable quality! [That camera also had something I've never seen before or since: the ability to use ambient light to backlight the display.]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If it's not on fire, it's a software problem. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive. | | Other than that cropping obviously removes information, what do you | mean: I thought the non-destructive crop was just that (in the part of | the image you keep, obviously). Being as it (as implemented in | IrfanView, anyway) crops to the nearest 16 (I think it's 16) pixel | boundary. I assumed the reason it does that is t avoid loss. | It's a clever method, but in general editing JPG is lossy. How often will one need to crop to the nearest 16 pixels but have no reason to do other editing? If one will do other editing then the image should be taken out of JPG format. So it's a kind of silk purse from a sow's ear thing. Nospam was just arguing, splitting hairs. It's really all he does. | IMO, BMP should only be used when a software doesn't support a better image | format. How it stores 24bpp image pixels is unacceptably wasteful. | | In what way - does it use two 16-bit words, or something? Or do you just | mean it doesn't do any (even lossless) data-compression? It has no compression. It's very straightforward. In general a BMP will be a 24-bit, uncompressed image. (There are other options, but they're no longer used as far as I know.) The header looks like so: ----------------------------------------- BITMAPFILEHEADER '14 bytes bfType As Integer (file "magic": "BM") bfSize As Long bfReserved1 As Integer bfReserved2 As Integer bfOffBits As Long (offset to start of image) BITMAPINFOHEADER '40 bytes biSize As Long biWidth As Long biHeight As Long biPlanes As Integer biBitCount As Integer biCompression As Long biSizeImage As Long biXPelsPerMeter As Long biYPelsPerMeter As Long biClrUsed As Long biClrImportant As Long ---------------------------------------- So, 54 bytes for the header. Following that are the bytes that represent pixels. The header is just enough to interpret the image data. So bytes 55-58 will be the first pixel, and so on: 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 (byte numbers) 00 00 FF 00 00 FF 00 00 FF (3 red pixels, using big endian notation. Blue is in the high byte. Green is in the middle.) That's what all raster images are. Pixel grids. Bitmaps. No raster image format stores anything different. They just store it in different ways, with varying degrees of damage to the image. JPG degrades the image to make it compress better, with less color variety. GIF reduces to 256 colors and compresses that. (256 colors requires an embedded color table, which takes up extra space, but then each pixel can be stored as a single byte.) I don't know how PNG works but I'm guessing it's basically a BMP in a ZIP, with the addition of alpha channel data (transparency) requiring 4 bytes per pixel. (GIF, by contrast, stores transparency data by indentifying one specific color that's not to be painted onscreen.) TIF, likewise, is basically a BMP in a ZIP. (Though a ZIP can often shrink a BMP by 90%, while a TIF seems to only manage about 50%. I don't know why.) They're all just ways to store a BMP. None of those image formats means anything until the BMP is extracted. One can't render a JPG onscreen any more than the words of a ZIPped Word DOC can be read from the ZIP bytes. It has to be decompressed to get the BMP. Similarly, when one applies filters in an editing program it's just a math formula applied to the bitmap bytes. Sharpening increases the difference between the numeric values. Interpolation for resizing calculates a new pixel grid by examining the values of neighboring pixels. Lightening increases the byte values of the pixel bytes. It's all just math operations on 3-byte RGB pixels stored as grids in a BMP. In other words, the idea that BMP is outdated is a misunderstanding of what raster images are. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , Mayayana
wrote: That's what all raster images are. Pixel grids. Bitmaps. No raster image format stores anything different. They just store it in different ways, with varying degrees of damage to the image. there is no damage. JPG degrades the image to make it compress better, with less color variety. it's entirely up to the user what the jpeg quality/compression level is, and at its highest quality, a jpeg is indistinguishable from the original. this is very easy to demonstrate, should you not believe it. GIF reduces to 256 colors and compresses that. (256 colors requires an embedded color table, which takes up extra space, but then each pixel can be stored as a single byte.) a colour table takes up very little space. I don't know how PNG works clearly. but I'm guessing it's basically a BMP in a ZIP, with the addition of alpha channel data (transparency) requiring 4 bytes per pixel. nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics (GIF, by contrast, stores transparency data by indentifying one specific color that's not to be painted onscreen.) true, and primitive. TIF, likewise, is basically a BMP in a ZIP. nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF (Though a ZIP can often shrink a BMP by 90%, bull****. simple logos with large areas of solid colours might shrink that much, but certainly not with photos. logos would be better served with a gif or png, not a zipped bmp. while a TIF seems to only manage about 50%. I don't know why.) yep. you sure don't. They're all just ways to store a BMP. None of those image formats means anything until the BMP is extracted. wrong. One can't render a JPG onscreen any more than the words of a ZIPped Word DOC can be read from the ZIP bytes. It has to be decompressed to get the BMP. decompressed, yes, but no bmp. Similarly, when one applies filters in an editing program it's just a math formula applied to the bitmap bytes. Sharpening increases the difference between the numeric values. Interpolation for resizing calculates a new pixel grid by examining the values of neighboring pixels. Lightening increases the byte values of the pixel bytes. that part is mostly true. it's more complex than that, but i'll spare you the details. It's all just math operations on 3-byte RGB pixels stored as grids in a BMP. what you *refuse* to understand is that it doesn't have to be (and normally is *not*) a bmp. also, 3 bytes is horribly outdated. these days, it's two bytes per component or it's a floating point value, with each pixel often having more than 3 components (rgba, cmyk, hexachrome, etc.) In other words, the idea that BMP is outdated is a misunderstanding of what raster images are. any misunderstanding is entirely with you. bmp is obsolete. period. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | That's true for lossless. But the cropping itself is always destructive. | | Other than that cropping obviously removes information, what do you | mean: I thought the non-destructive crop was just that (in the part of | the image you keep, obviously). Being as it (as implemented in | IrfanView, anyway) crops to the nearest 16 (I think it's 16) pixel | boundary. I assumed the reason it does that is t avoid loss. | It's a clever method, but in general editing JPG is lossy. How often will one need to crop to the nearest 16 pixels but have no reason to do other editing? If one will do other editing then the image should be taken out of JPG format. So it's a kind of silk purse from a sow's ear thing. Often, an image is only available as a .JPG: it might have been received in an email as such, or downloaded from a website; or, the majority of cameras other than those sold for the serious professional (with appropriate pricetags) do _not_ offer raw bitmap formats. (They sometimes offer three _quality_ levels.) Nospam was just arguing, splitting hairs. It's really all he does. Well, we all - including you and I, definitely - dislike imprecision, especially if it actually results in an untruth being stated (even if unintentionally). What level of simplification versus imprecision is acceptable, varies from person to person and between situations: in other words, one man's desire for precision is another man's hair-splitting. I can't say I've registered nospam as _particularly_ irritating in that respect, but that's mainly because I tend not to remember people's levels unless they're _particularly_ irritating (in which case I'm likely to killfile them, and haven't with him yet), so you _may_ be right. | IMO, BMP should only be used when a software doesn't support a better image | format. How it stores 24bpp image pixels is unacceptably wasteful. Re-reading that, I do agree it's oversimplifying - there _is_ no better format _in terms of accuracy_. | | In what way - does it use two 16-bit words, or something? Or do you just | mean it doesn't do any (even lossless) data-compression? It has no compression. It's very straightforward. In general a BMP will be a 24-bit, uncompressed I was giving the benefit of the doubt: I thought he might have meant he'd found a case where it used 4 bytes to store the 3 byte information, or something. If he just means it does no lossy compression, I'd agree with you; if he means it does no loss_less_ compression, then he should have made it clearer that that' what he was referring to. image. (There are other options, but they're no longer used as far as I know.) The header looks [] I _think_ the two-level (one _bit_ per pixel) form is still supported (e. g. by IrfanView), though I'm not sure if it includes a palette for the two colours. (I _think_ GIF does have such [and 2- and 4-bit - 4 and 16 colour - modes.) That's what all raster images are. Pixel grids. Bitmaps. [Long section snipped - I presume written for readers other than me.] They're all just ways to store a BMP. None of those image formats means anything until the BMP is extracted. One can't render a JPG onscreen any more than the words of a ZIPped Word DOC can be read from the ZIP bytes. Good analogy! (Though I'd have probably said text file.) It has to be decompressed to get the BMP. Similarly, when one applies filters in an editing program it's just a math formula applied to the bitmap bytes. Sharpening increases the difference between the numeric values. Interpolation for resizing calculates a new pixel grid by examining the values of neighboring pixels. Lightening increases the byte values of the pixel bytes. It's all just math operations on 3-byte RGB pixels stored as grids in a BMP. In other words, the idea that BMP is outdated is a misunderstanding of what raster images are. Well, I'm not sure if PNG can be lossless. (Actually, I'm not sure if JP[E]G can; I know the quality slider in IrfanView can be pushed up to 100%, but I think that still involves some loss.) Then, of course, there are vector images (like good old HPGL, as well as more modern ones) - let alone fractals! But for actual pictures taken with a camera, they're all going to be bitmap rasters in the first place anyway. [Actually, use of the word raster reminds me: true rendering of *archive* _video_ material (i. e. shot with a CRT camera) ought to involve a _slightly_ slanted raster - which, I think, no modern rendering does.] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf And every day in Britain, 33 properties are sold for around that price [a million pounds or so]. - Jane Rackham, RT 2015/4/11-17 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: Well, I'm not sure if PNG can be lossless. of course it can. (Actually, I'm not sure if JP[E]G can; I know the quality slider in IrfanView can be pushed up to 100%, but I think that still involves some loss.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| What I meant was: once an image has been reduced to 256 colours, then | any editing _that did not change the number of colours_ (such as | brightness or _possibly_ contrast tweaking) would not result in further | corruption if saved as GIF; once it's been reduced to 256 colours, then | anything further you do to it, _provided it doesn't result in an | increase in the number of colours_, can still be saves as GIF without | further degradation. I guess that's true. It works when doing things like diagrams. But I find that anything more complex, even a screenshot, really needs to be kicked back up to 24-bit color if I want to work on it. For instance, brightening a screenshot. That will need more than 256 colors to do. So I have to revert back to 24-bit and then resave it later. | I find it kind of ironic when this topic comes up. | I don't think I've ever heard you say this, but whenever | I talk about conserving space on disk, many people | will respond with, "Ah, that's not worth the trouble. | Disks are so cheap these days!" Yet when it comes | | No, you'll rarely hear me say that, as I come from the bygone era (my | first computer had 1K of memory; before that, the first one I worked on | had 16 memory locations). I will _sometimes_ concede that view when | discussion of time versus resources comes up, but given the choice and | time, I'll go for saving space where practicable. (Actually, more in MP3 | files than images; my eyesight, touch wood, has not deteriorated with | age other than the ability to close-focus, but my hearing _has_ lost | top, and/or I haven't had speakers capable of great top for some time.) | I wish I could switch with you. I don't listen to music in general and usually keep the audio turned off on my computer, but my eyesight is getting worse. I recently mounted my monitor on a drawer slide because I was leaning forward so much it was hurting my neck. now I just sit down and pull the monitor toward me... So I can't lean forward. Though I'm not sure what the radiation from that close display might be doing to my eyes. | When you say they want "vacation photos to fit on disk", do you mean "to | fit on _a_ disc", i. e. to make a CD (or, I guess these days, a DVD), to | give to friends/relatives? No I just meant that a lot of people are constantly taking 10MB phone shots and then want to save them on their computer. The people who complain that they need to buy a 4 TB hard disk because the 2 TB is full. They don't edit. They don't cull their collection. They also don't resize the images for better storage. They don't really get the system. They just think of it as "photos" that came from their phone and went onto their hard disk. It's like the people who invite you for dinner and have a 7' high bookcase full of photo albums. ("These 3 albums are little Ricky's christening. Wait'll you see! And it was so cheap at the drugstore to get all the shots printed!") For someone like that, who's not familar with file formats and doesn't edit photos, a BMP would just be a JPG that's very big. They wouldn't see the point. | (I remember using a Sony camera at work, that had a floppy drive built | in - and you could get several pictures on, of acceptable quality! [That | camera also had something I've never seen before or since: the ability | to use ambient light to backlight the display.]) Wow. 1.44 MB? They must have been small images. But I suppose they were also 256 colors? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rotation & aspect ratio | Jeff Layman | Digital Photography | 25 | August 13th 07 07:54 AM |
Nikon Capture 4: Aspect Ratio Cropping? | anonymous1 | Digital Photography | 1 | April 15th 05 02:47 AM |
Which Aspect Ratio | Mike Fox | Digital Photography | 6 | December 28th 04 01:53 PM |
Which Aspect Ratio | Mike Fox | Digital Photography | 0 | December 27th 04 10:42 PM |
3:2 Aspect Ratio | Roland Karlsson | Digital Photography | 12 | October 13th 04 04:42 PM |