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
|
|||
|
|||
"Jimmy Pop" wrote in
: I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11). The reason is ... ehem ... that 35 mm film cameras have that aspect ratio. And I agree ... that is no good reason at all. But ... it is very easy to define the cropping ration (to 35 mm film . /Roland |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Jimmy Pop" wrote in message ... I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? None. It all started when Leitz decided to make a camera for testing 35mm movie film. They decided on a camera which exposed 2 frames of the movie film at once. As the movie frames were (and still may be for all I know or care) 18x24, the resulting sixe for the still camera was 24x36. This image size is not convenient to use for producing any of the common prints sizes except 4x6, However, most of us don't use all of the frame anyway. So, regardless of the image size some cropping usually needed, and the 3:2 format has been with us ever since the 1920s. Jim |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jimmy Pop wrote:
I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11). Thanks for the help! Tom Cameras with 3:2 aspect ratio settings are intended for 4x6 prints, which is the most common print in the US. Some cameras offer more than one aspect ratio. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jimmy Pop wrote:
I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? It is the same as 35mm film, and it is a shape many of us rather like. I hate 4:3 with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns. I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11). There is no "target print size" for any format, because all of those sizes you think of as standard for printing are different shapes. What fits a 4x6 won't fit a 5x7 or an 8x10; those paper sizes are arbitrary and have become standard photo print sizes for no good reason at all. Especially in this day and age, there is very little reason to stick to them. The 3:2 ratio prints full-bleed on 8x12, for example, and any decent printing company will offer that size. 5x7 paper is very close to a 1.414:1 ratio; 8x10 is of course 4x5. Both of those shapes, while common aspect ratios for both photography and other art forms (the former is used in graphic arts, the latter in large format photography), are not the shape of virtually any digital camera sensor. If you use 8x10 paper in particular, you will need to leave large borders on two sides of the print (larger than the other two sides), or you'll have to crop, neither of which you probably want to do. Or, change your paper size either by trimming or by using a more appropriate size in the first place. For my own prints, I rarely print full-bleed (borderless) since I prefer a small border; I stay away from 8x10 paper because it's not useful; I live with the slight border size differences on 5x7; and I often actually compose in camera with a 1.414 ratio in mind for vertical compositions anyway, which fits nicely on 5x7, which is the size I usually get most everyday prints in. -- Jeremy | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jimmy Pop wrote:
So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or 8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the exposure? Or use borders, of course. "That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor here I am not considering? 4:3 was invented by Satan to make pictures ugly. Besides, it doesn't fit on a 4x6 print very well. -- Jeremy | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Your question as been answered and I agree that just because 35mm is doesn't
make it a good reason. I would however like to point out something. With the high resolution of the 20D you should have next to no problems with any moderate cropping you may need to do to get the images the right aspect ratio for printing at the larger sizes. This was one of the things I really fell in love with with the 20D and that is you have a lot of room from useful and creative cropping and still having enough image left for large sized high quality prints. My 20D died after I updated the firmware and so I am back to using my only 2.3MP Sony CD Mavica and I have to say I really miss the 20D and that resolution. While I can get nice 8x10 prints with the Sony there is nothing extra for any type of cropping which as I said I really miss. I am praying my 20D gets back from the shop in the next week or so. John "Jimmy Pop" wrote in message ... I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11). Thanks for the help! Tom |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter wrote in news:10mlhf7evvlkn63
@corp.supernews.com: Cameras with 3:2 aspect ratio settings are intended for 4x6 prints, which is the most common print in the US. This is also the most common ratio for small prints here in Sweden. But ... that is really no motivation at all, as this format is 4x6 because 35 mm film cameras are 24x36. Larger formats in Sweden are 13x18, 18x24, 24x30, 30x40 and those are not 2:3 ratio. So ... the motivations for a 2:3 ratio for digital cameras are rather weak. /Roland |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jim wrote:
"Jimmy Pop" wrote in message ... Hmmm, seems like the digital era would have been a good time to switch to the 4:3 format (and it seems some did - my Minolta Dimage 7i uses 4:3). So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or 8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the exposure? "That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor here I am not considering? I don't "target" any particular size. However, when cropping to 8x10 or 11x14, the extra space can be helpful, especially if I need to move the subject away from dead center. However, I do agree that now would have been a good time to abandon the 3:2 format that we have been stuck with for 80 years... Jim Why? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I agree that there is no good reason why we use 3:2 seonsors, in the same
way that we don't use 5:4, 4:3, 1.414:1 etc... The standard print sizes are all different ratios (6x4 = 3:2, 7x5 = 1.4:1, 10x8 = 1.2:1, A4 = 1.414:1) Personally, I "see" in 3:2 format when photographing, so I like it, and am glad that my DSLR has kept it. I find that I tend to crop all images that come out of my P&S because they are just the wrong aspect. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
3:2 Aspect Ratio
Jim wrote:
I don't "target" any particular size. However, when cropping to 8x10 or 11x14, the extra space can be helpful, especially if I need to move the subject away from dead center. When you crop the picture, you fundamentally change it. I composed it in the camera, so I'm not interested in doing that. However, I do agree that now would have been a good time to abandon the 3:2 format that we have been stuck with for 80 years... Why? What's wrong with it? All of the silly "standard" print sizes are different shapes, so there is no shape that would fit them all any better than that one. And I'm not even remotely interested in using 4:3. I'd be willing to use 1.414:1, 1.681:1, maybe even 16:9 (though that would suck for verticals), but not 4:3. But even then, switching to any of the above would have the same problem with the "standard" print sizes. Why not just abandon 8x10 paper? It makes no sense anyway. -- Jeremy | |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photo Printing Consoles and Odd Aspect Ratios | Pete | Digital Photography | 7 | September 8th 04 08:12 PM |
scale and ratio | Don | Digital Photography | 9 | August 31st 04 09:50 AM |
A short study on digicam's fixed jpeg compression ratio | Heikki Siltala | Digital Photography | 23 | July 28th 04 08:49 AM |
Light meters, ratio lighting | Alan Browne | Photographing People | 5 | May 6th 04 05:27 PM |
question about mf aspect ratio | Bill Mcdonald | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 53 | February 16th 04 10:16 PM |