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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio
instead of 4:3. Anyone know why? I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping. -- (Do not e-mail) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
Spam Catcher wrote:
I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why? I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping. You are assuming that all digital cameras have the same aspect ratio. That is simply not so. I personally wish for a frame with a ratio of 1.5 to match my dSLR. However, you are right that the general trend is towards a wide screen ration of 1.8. This has been discussed before without any conclusion. One theory was that wide screen format originated in movies moved on to TVs and as computers were used to display them computer monitors followed that trend and now photo frames follow computer monitors. Another theory suggests that wide screen computer monitors developed independantly of tv formats just because people liked to see two documents side by side on their monitor. jue |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
Maybe because they play video clips too?
To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether it's for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format. "Spam Catcher" wrote in message . 1... I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why? I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
Spam Catcher wrote:
I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why? I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping. Sure. The bottom line is that they mostly use CHEAP, low resolution, displays made for DVD players, and THEY are 16:9 which is the most common aspect ratio for movies these days. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
Ali wrote:
Maybe because they play video clips too? To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether it's for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format. "Spam Catcher" wrote in message . 1... I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why? I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping. I agree. It is unesthetic, and very difficult to make use of. There is inadequate vertical space for good composition, and excessive width for good balance, and one must move his eyes to take in all the frame. BAD, BAD, BAD! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
Ron Hunter wrote:
Ali wrote: Maybe because they play video clips too? To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether it's for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format. "Spam Catcher" wrote in message . 1... I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why? I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping. I agree. It is unesthetic, and very difficult to make use of. There is inadequate vertical space for good composition, and excessive width for good balance, and one must move his eyes to take in all the frame. BAD, BAD, BAD! I'm a TV cameraman. Here in the days of transition between 4:3 and 16:9, sometimes we'll have 16:9 in our viewfinders, but it will also have a 4:3 reticule marked electronically, and we'll have to compose for 4:3 but make sure our 16:9 isn't shooting off the set or picking up a crewmember standing a little too close to the action. Kind of a pain in the butt. And, of course, if and when they use the wide format, the action will be limited to the middle of the screen, because we had to keep it there so it was 4:3 safe. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Ron Hunter ], who wrote in article : Sure. The bottom line is that they mostly use CHEAP, low resolution, displays made for DVD players, and THEY are 16:9 which is the most common aspect ratio for movies these days. Except that it is not. (Unless you count TV shows as movies...) [Gimme 70x48mm!] Ilya |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
Blinky the Shark wrote:
[] I'm a TV cameraman. Here in the days of transition between 4:3 and 16:9, sometimes we'll have 16:9 in our viewfinders, but it will also have a 4:3 reticule marked electronically, and we'll have to compose for 4:3 but make sure our 16:9 isn't shooting off the set or picking up a crewmember standing a little too close to the action. Kind of a pain in the butt. And, of course, if and when they use the wide format, the action will be limited to the middle of the screen, because we had to keep it there so it was 4:3 safe. FYI: in the UK most of the current broadcast output is now 16:9 format. Yes, there are sometimes stray folk just on the edges of shots, as you mentioned, and I also see images with poorer resolution which look like 4:3 images cropped at top and bottom to produce 16:9 (or perhaps 14:9) and then resampled to full height. Cheers, David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
Blinky the Shark wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: Ali wrote: Maybe because they play video clips too? To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether it's for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format. "Spam Catcher" wrote in message . 1... I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why? I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping. I agree. It is unesthetic, and very difficult to make use of. There is inadequate vertical space for good composition, and excessive width for good balance, and one must move his eyes to take in all the frame. BAD, BAD, BAD! I'm a TV cameraman. Here in the days of transition between 4:3 and 16:9, sometimes we'll have 16:9 in our viewfinders, but it will also have a 4:3 reticule marked electronically, and we'll have to compose for 4:3 but make sure our 16:9 isn't shooting off the set or picking up a crewmember standing a little too close to the action. Kind of a pain in the butt. And, of course, if and when they use the wide format, the action will be limited to the middle of the screen, because we had to keep it there so it was 4:3 safe. Not to mention the difficulty of keeping heads from being cut off in the 16:9 format when you try to get close. SUCKS! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?
On Feb 27, 3:56*pm, "Ali" wrote:
Maybe because they play video clips too? To be honest, I don't like 16:9. *Never have and never will, whether it's for films/movies or anything else. *What a stupid format. *For stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format. Well, I'd disagree. I've been shooting with a Panasonic LX-1 for a while, which uses a 16:9 aspect ratio. I love it. It gives you much more interesting composition options: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/253807553 http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/236082723 http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/236081085 http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/254499642 http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/284095731 http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/183900378 All those pictures wouldn't be as interesting in the usual 4:3 format. Gniewko |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digital photo frames....any good? | ~^ beancounter ~^ | Digital Photography | 13 | November 7th 07 04:28 PM |
Digital Photo Frames? | Girish Kulkarni | Digital Photography | 32 | October 14th 07 08:57 AM |
networkable digital photo frames | GS[_2_] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 28th 07 09:36 PM |
Digital Photo Frames? | Dibley Fanshaw | Digital Photography | 5 | March 14th 06 09:29 PM |
digital photo frames, help please....... | waxwabbit | Digital Photography | 4 | November 21st 05 02:32 AM |