Canon and Nikon FFs, they both FAILED part of this task

RichA wrote:

How well did 3:2 serve YOU when you cropped the HELL out of these?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/...7600933950061/

I'm not sure what you mean. None of those pictures were cropped, and all
are 3:2.

--
Jeremy | | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/

RichA wrote:

How did they cope in the bad, old, analog time, anyway, when
everything was 3:2 or square?

They suffered with it. More waste.
When 3:2 is dead and gone, the people who mindlessly support it can
join those who crowed against:
-Dust removal.
-Live View.
-Telecentric lens design
-The elimination of the old SLR shape.

Those things all have something in common, a trait that is not shared by
a 4:3 shape: they don't make the pictures ugly.

--
Jeremy | | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/

On Aug 28, 2:06 pm, Jeremy Nixon wrote:
RichA wrote:
How well did 3:2 serve YOU when you cropped the HELL out of these?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/...7600933950061/

I'm not sure what you mean. None of those pictures were cropped, and all
are 3:2.

--
Jeremy | | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/

Sorry, I thought those little square boxes represented all of the
image, like on pbase.
IMO, (like most 3:2 images) some scream to be cropped.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/...7600933950061/

RichA wrote:
On Aug 27, 3:56 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
RichA wrote:

Why did they not go 4:3?

Why should they?

No answer?

Well, what did I expect from a obsessive-compulsive maniac
contrarian, certainly not reasons _for_ something ...
stupid me.

As I've stated before, MOST professional photographic publishings are
closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2 format.

So _your_ selection of photographic publishings is all that
matters? Fancy that, here I thought there were more important
reasons.

How did they cope in the bad, old, analog time, anyway, when
everything was 3:2 or square?

They suffered with it. More waste.

They enjoyed it. More good photographs.

And what you certainly never knew, you can crop photographs.
You could do so since, well, forever, though cutting
Daguerreotypies was not _that_ easy to do well.

When 3:2 is dead and gone, the people who mindlessly support it can
join those who crowed against:
-Dust removal.
-Telecentric lens design

Could it be that anyone not thinking your way must be an old
idiot set in zir way?

-The elimination of the old SLR shape.

Would you care to show a new ... dear me, I _was_ thinking I
might be talking to someone else. You won't show, right?

-Wolfgang

RichA wrote:

IMO, (like most 3:2 images) some scream to be cropped.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/...7600933950061/

There's nothing in that image that could be cropped without changing the
entire point of the thing.

--
Jeremy | | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/

On Aug 26, 8:38 pm, RichA wrote:
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format.

Nikon did go 5:4 as a cropped mode in the D3, which works out great if
you shoot mostly 8x10.

No matter what the format, though, you probably would gripe.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2

The real move forward would be ISO-216 "A" proportions.

It's the most commonly available paper size everywhere but the third world.

.... and the US.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format. There was nothing, absolutely nothing constraining them here
except having to please an aging group of pros whose teeth were cut on
manual SLRs. It's time to LEAVE the characteristics of 35mm still
film behind. It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced.

NTSC is a 4:3 format. I'd say that makes your post hilariously ironic.

Mark

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:41:16 -0700, Rich_the_A wrote:

On Aug 27, 12:21 am, frederick wrote:
Not Disclosed wrote:
RichA wrote:
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format. There was nothing, absolutely nothing constraining them here
except having to please an aging group of pros whose teeth were cut on
manual SLRs. It's time to LEAVE the characteristics of 35mm still
film behind. It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced. Sony has a chance, a real chance now to
differentiate themselves by doing this. But they won't.

My, how you contradict yourself. Please tell us which direction
television's aspect ratio is changing to as the NTSC format is
replaced. If most professional photographic publishings are closer
to 4:3 it might be because it's a better fit for full page prints in
high end (usually fashion) magazines. Or because of the aspect
ratio of MF and LF cameras. Sony's DSLR offerings aren't intended
primarily for the pro market, and by far the greatest number of
prints made by the non-pros would certainly be the ubiquitous 4"x6"
format which is a perfect match for FF sensors. Can you imagine the
howls of protest when Dad or Daughter get their 250 prints back from
the local lab and see how much was truncated from their camera's 4:3
images? Sony's oddball DSLR format would quickly worsen their (beta
video, Memory Stick, root kit) reputation.


If they went 4:3 then they wouldn't be FF(Full Frame) it's bad enough
that Canon has three different digital formats (FF, 1.3x, and 1.6x)

Also, the "absolutely nothing constraining them" is a myth.
Going deeper than 24mm sensor height may have meant a
change was needed to mirror / box / lens mount. Going
narrower than 36mm to achieve that ratio would have been a
waste of space, like some of the OP's contributions around here.

Oh well, then wny not make it 4:2 instead if width is the only
concern? 3:2 makes no sense today.

Could you please point out where frederick said that "width is the
only concern"? He already objected to wasting sensor space, and
keeping the 36mm width but reducing the sensor's height to get a 4:2
aspect ratio would seriously reduce the sensor's total area and
would be such a stupid idea that it shouldn't have been necessary to
cover all bases by pointing this out. Actually, you could get any
aspect ratio you wish in a DSLR by going to a smaller sensor. How
about one that's 1/2.5" g. Ok, that's too extreme, but how about
Oly's 4/3 format? Happy now?

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:44:38 -0700, RichA wrote:

Because if it was wider than 36mm, then it would have
probably had unacceptable light fall off in the corners.

That's it everyone! Throw out ALL your medium format gear.

You may be proud of that smart-alecky quip, but even you must
surely admit that if it was intended to be taken seriously, it's a
profoundly ignorant and/or stupid statement.