A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 27th 08, 05:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Spam Catcher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 27th 08, 05:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default 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  
Old February 27th 08, 09:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ali
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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  
Old February 28th 08, 01:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default 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  
Old February 28th 08, 01:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default 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  
Old February 28th 08, 02:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Blinky the Shark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 827
Default 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  
Old February 28th 08, 08:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ilya Zakharevich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 523
Default 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  
Old February 28th 08, 09:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 923
Default 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  
Old February 28th 08, 10:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default 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  
Old February 29th 08, 12:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
digital photo frames....any good? ~^ beancounter ~^ Digital Photography 13 November 7th 07 05:28 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 10:29 PM
digital photo frames, help please....... waxwabbit Digital Photography 4 November 21st 05 03:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.