Another source condemns 3:2 format
RichA
Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
David J Taylor
Rich,
The format needs to fit the image, so it will (in theory) be different for
every photo taken, so you will always be cropping and loosing pixels.
With displays now moving to 16:9 for TV, I would have said that 3:2 was
too narrow, not too wide!
A format I've never used is the 2 1/4 inch square format (or any square
format). Resolves the age-old problem as to whether landscape or portrait
fits best, and arguable makes the best use of the lens.
David
[cross-posting trimmed]
Fred
news:541d7bfd-f880-4e0f...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
photograph. I crop most of my photos to 3:2, and many, especially
landscapes, to 16:9.
The boring, nearly square, 4:3 format is *so* yesterday (yawn).
What shape are modern TVs, 4:3, I think not. It's about time we ditched this
ancient format.
tmo...@wildblue.net
I thought folks had gotten over the "necessity" for 8x10s or 4x5s
years ago. I print my own and print a full frame be it 8x12, 11x17,
12x18 or 16x24. the small print standard at least is 4x6 which is a
2x3 format and most good printers offer 8x12 at least. 8x10 or 16x20
is still good when I'm using a 2 1/4x2 3/4 or 4x5 film. The only group
who hasn't adapted is the cheap frame industry, they tend to ignore
2x3 until they get to a 20x30 poster format. So I print and cut my own
mats and there are plenty of frame dealer where I can get channel
frames of the size I need. This was more of an issue when photo paper
came in 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 etc. Way back when I was in college or
teacher told us to print full frame and that is what we did.
Tom
Tom
Don Stauffer
> RichA wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
Still leaves 9-18 MP, which should be enough.
>
> Rich,
>
> The format needs to fit the image, so it will (in theory) be different
> for every photo taken, so you will always be cropping and loosing
> pixels. With displays now moving to 16:9 for TV, I would have said that
> 3:2 was too narrow, not too wide!
Yep, I generally crop every picture I mount. Nothing wrong with that.
I have owned cameras with square, 3:2, and several in-between. None is
ever perfect. So what?
Philip Homburg
4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
4:3 is simply too high for many wide angle landscapes. In my opinion for most
city-scape portraits (just a few buildings, a monument, etc.) 3:2 is also
better than 4:3.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
ray
Well, you certainly could "hack away 1/4 of them most of the time", but if
you'll run the numbers, you'll find that it's only necessary to "hack
away" about 12% to get the aspect ratios you suggest.
whisky-dave
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:541d7bfd-f880-4e0f...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Any idea what the average human vision is as a ratio.
bugbear
>
> A format I've never used is the 2 1/4 inch square format (or any square
> format). Resolves the age-old problem as to whether landscape or
> portrait fits best, and arguable makes the best use of the lens.
Nostalgia for Kodak 126 cartridge film !??!
BugBear
Han Schutten
pixels to get more or less 3:2 most of the time.
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:541d7bfd-f880-4e0f...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 02:50:08 -0700, RichA wrote:
>
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th. Maybe condemn is too
>> strong, but it's been clear for too long that the 3:2 or APS-C format
>> (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is too wide. The 4/3rd
>> ratio is more logical and results in far fewer instances of cropping an
>> image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you have to hack away 1/4 of
>> them most of the time?
>
I don't understand. If I hack 1/4 of the pixels from a 3:2 format I
get 3:(2 * 3/4 ) = 2:1 format. To get that from a 4:3 format I'd have
to chop off 1/3 of the pixels to get 4:(3 * 2/3) = 2:1 format.
That's even worse.
Oh! Wait! you want the squarish 4:3 format? What not go all the
way to 1:1?
Doug McDonald
Chris Malcolm
It's not rectangular!
--
Chris Malcolm
Peter Chant
> 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
>
> 4:3 is simply too high for many wide angle landscapes. In my opinion for
> most city-scape portraits (just a few buildings, a monument, etc.) 3:2 is
> also better than 4:3.
Also begs the question of what happens if you like shooting square formats?
Although I've just gone digital I've been primarily been shooting a TLR for
the past few years and get on quite well with square, it is not too often
(though mainly landscapes) where I have nothing in the top or bottom of the
frame.
4:3 is too wide!!!!
I'd think I'd like a choice but I'm not about to go out and buy a multitude
of bodies to suit each.
DMac
Depends on if you want to measure one eye or both. Both eyes the aspect
ratio we see is about 1.75:1 but your left eye sees more of the left
side than your right eye which sees more of the right side.
The aspect ratio of just one eye is about 1.17:1. I say "about" because
different nationalities (I.E. Asian compared to Anglo Saxon)see a
different aspect ratio due to the eyelid blocking off the top of a scene
in many Asians.
I always liked my old Mamiya 330. You could crop the shot after taking
it and produce an enlargement that looked like you were filling your
field of vision with it. Quite an impressive trick with poster size prints.
Hacking off a heap of pixels to do it with digital will see the image
quite noticeable small compared to its native ratio.
Alan Browne
> On May 19, 5:50 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
Irrelevant BS. They can criticize this all they like. How many of them
put up the bucks to change their equipment?
Nobody cares about how many pixels are edited away any more than they
cared how much image was cropped away in 6x6 format.
I could actually see an over-full-frame sensor that can be cropped as
required. eg: 36x36mm and you end up with a usable circular image.
Crop or mask as required.
--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
> In article <541d7bfd-f880-4e0f...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>
> 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
What applies to photography and cinema are two wildly different things.
I can do slide shows on my Plasma screen, in fact use the camera to
present them with an HDMI output. Doesn't mean I will.
>
> 4:3 is simply too high for many wide angle landscapes. In my opinion for most
> city-scape portraits (just a few buildings, a monument, etc.) 3:2 is also
> better than 4:3.
I agree on that. My camera also shoots 16:9 by cropping the top/bottom
of the frame. However, the raw captured this way is still full sized
3:2. Only the Sony image s/w on the computer will show the in camera
gen'd raw as 16:9. So I don't bother with this mode.
Alan Browne
Human vision is not rectangular, nor is it even a filled image. It is
much more complex for efficiency reasons.
Offhand I'd guess it as roughly 2:1 (reasonable recognition of objects
(not peripheral motion detection)). Further, the 'frame' is irregular
in shape.
But the image we see in that 'frame' is only sharp in a very narrow
area, where the eyes are pointed. Further the image appears to be in
focus everywhere, because we do not have the resolution to detect the
OOF where the eye is not actually pointed. And where it points it is in
focus (normally) almost intantly.
So comparing the two is at best a very general case.
Peter Chant
> I agree on that. My camera also shoots 16:9 by cropping the top/bottom
> of the frame. However, the raw captured this way is still full sized
> 3:2. Only the Sony image s/w on the computer will show the in camera
> gen'd raw as 16:9. So I don't bother with this mode.
>
negative with shutters. Pointless marketingc gimmick IMHO.
Rich
> In article <541d7bfd-f880-4e0f-ac6a-2091d6b37...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Most posted or printed images are closer to 4:3 than 3:2. It's been
that way for decades. Take a look at the shape of website pages and
magazines. They are vertical.
mike
@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, rande...@gmail.com says...
> On May 19, 9:50 am, phi...@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) wrote:
> > In article <541d7bfd-f880-4e0f-ac6a-2091d6b37...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
> > >Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
> > >3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
> > >too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
> > >instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
> > >have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
> >
even better ratio.
> > 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
> >
> > 4:3 is simply too high for many wide angle landscapes. In my opinion for most
> > city-scape portraits (just a few buildings, a monument, etc.) 3:2 is also
> > better than 4:3.
> >
> > --
> > That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
> > could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
> > by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
> > -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
>
> Most posted or printed images are closer to 4:3 than 3:2. It's been
> that way for decades. Take a look at the shape of website pages and
> magazines. They are vertical.
>
Taking a look at most magazines I noted that they are usually A4 format.
To my surprise I found that there is almost no difference in the ratio
between 3:2 and A4, and that between A4 and 4:3. In other words A4 fits
almost exactly between the other two ratios. Of course, if you add a
margin around a photo then in an A4 page the best-fit image will move
closer to 3:2 than 4:3. Your comment that magazines are vertical is
puzzling. You _do_ realise that if you turn a 3:2 picture on its side
you get a 2:3 ratio image?
Mike
Kurt Sloane
news:541d7bfd-f880-4e0f...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
Not for me, I prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio over 4:3. Now, 16:9 is too wide.
To keep everyone happy, why not just make the sensor square, so 36x36, (Full
Frame) or 24x24 (APS-C) and make it possible to select the aspect ratio on
the fly? Maybe this will come when mechanical mirrors are done away with.
Frank ess
My Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 offers16:9, 3:2, and 4:3 at the slide of a
switch. I believe it actually exposes the larger (8MP) image in every
exposure, but only files the appropriate part in case one of the other
sizes is chosen (7MP and 6MP).
--
Frank ess
Bob Larter
Screw you. I happen to be very happy with the 3:2 format, & even when I
crop an image (not often), I usually retain the 3:2 ratio. 4:3 reminds
me too much of a TV screen, which I feel gives a certain mundane look.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
The latter is a good point, but artistically speaking, I really dislike
square format images.
Bob Larter
> I agree on that. My camera also shoots 16:9 by cropping the top/bottom
> of the frame. However, the raw captured this way is still full sized
> 3:2. Only the Sony image s/w on the computer will show the in camera
> gen'd raw as 16:9. So I don't bother with this mode.
I like to have as many pixels as possible, regardless of the format.
That way, I can crop to the ratio that suits the individual image.
Bob Larter
Bullshit.
> Take a look at the shape of website pages and
> magazines. They are vertical.
WTF does vertical vs horizontal orientation have to do with format ratios?
Bob Larter
> In article <83fb3761-f974-4450-87ee-f7c9f6e9a532
> @g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, rande...@gmail.com says...
>> Most posted or printed images are closer to 4:3 than 3:2. It's been
>> that way for decades. Take a look at the shape of website pages and
>> magazines. They are vertical.
>>
> Taking a look at most magazines I noted that they are usually A4 format.
> To my surprise I found that there is almost no difference in the ratio
> between 3:2 and A4, and that between A4 and 4:3. In other words A4 fits
> almost exactly between the other two ratios. Of course, if you add a
> margin around a photo then in an A4 page the best-fit image will move
> closer to 3:2 than 4:3. Your comment that magazines are vertical is
> puzzling. You _do_ realise that if you turn a 3:2 picture on its side
> you get a 2:3 ratio image?
Probably not - Rich isn't very bright.
Don Stauffer
>>
>> A format I've never used is the 2 1/4 inch square format (or any
>> square format). Resolves the age-old problem as to whether landscape
>> or portrait fits best, and arguable makes the best use of the lens.
>
> The latter is a good point, but artistically speaking, I really dislike
> square format images.
>
Hey, how about a circular format? I believe in times past (film days)
there were some. It would complicate the layout and readout of the CCD,
and the image processing, but it could be done. I certainly see enough
portraits matted with circular or elliptical mats.
Paul Furman
> RichA wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>
> Screw you. I happen to be very happy with the 3:2 format, & even when I
> crop an image (not often), I usually retain the 3:2 ratio. 4:3 reminds
> me too much of a TV screen, which I feel gives a certain mundane look.
I've been doing some prints at 16:9, widescreen video format, I kinda
like it. Part of the motivation was to get bigger than 13x19 using roll
stock, so it's closer to 13x24.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Alan Browne
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
>
>
> Uttter crap they are 16:10
Not that that difference is very much, however most are indeed 16:9.
1920:1080 = 16:9 (1920/120:1080/120).
And, by the way, were it really 16:10 it would be published as 8:5.
Rich
Then you are clueless because 4:3 contains MORE pixels as part of a
set-size image circle than 3:2.
DMac
Come on Rich. You know as well as I do that provided the image hight is
the same, 3:2 will have more pixels than 4:3. Not even Irish maths could
get your answer. Image circles have nothing to do with this argument.
DRS
news:9tednSz1fuLzyYnX...@giganews.com
> Woger wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Rich
>> <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.
>>
>>
>> Uttter crap they are 16:10
>
> Not that that difference is very much, however most are indeed 16:9.
>
> 1920:1080 = 16:9 (1920/120:1080/120).
>
> And, by the way, were it really 16:10 it would be published as 8:5.
My Dell FWP2408 (1920*1200) is listed as 16:10 in the specs. I presume the
thinking is that since people have become accustomed to 16:9, using 16:10 is
less likely to frighten the innumerate.
Alan Browne
My Mac too (1920 x 1200). I was really referring to widescreen
television displays, not computer which is probably what Woger was on
about.
But there is absolutely no enduring dimension in computer displays so I
would never refer to it as a standard.
Chris Malcolm
Come on DMac, you know as well as I do that if image height isn't kept
the same (because keeping it the same is wasteful of sensor and camera
capabilities), you get more pixels in 4:3 than 3:2 precisely because
of the way the different rectangles fit in the image circle.
--
Chris Malcolm
ASAAR
> Not for me, I prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio over 4:3. Now, 16:9 is too wide.
>
> To keep everyone happy, why not just make the sensor square, so 36x36, (Full
> Frame) or 24x24 (APS-C) and make it possible to select the aspect ratio on
> the fly? Maybe this will come when mechanical mirrors are done away with.
The taller sensor would require a larger mirror, and the larger
mirror box would create a greater back focus or registration
distance, presenting a mounting problem for many lenses. Yes, if
the mirrors are no longer used, those taller (square) sensors could
be used, but most people don't care for square formats (ie, they've
been voted out by the market), so the flexibility of the selectable
format would require a larger, more expensive, more power hungry
sensor that would create larger files and produce a slower
continuous frame rate. Unless the camera gives up format
flexibility by requiring the cropped format to be produced by the
camera, as you say, on the fly at exposure time. FF (24x36) sensors
are much more expensive than APS-C sensors, from what I've read,
almost 10x higher in cost, in the $1,200 to $1,300 range. A 36x36
sensor would probably go for $2,000 each eventually if produced in
large numbers, much more expensive initially. That's nearly the
size of some of the smaller MF sensors, and look at what they cost!
Allen
> RichA wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>
>
> The format needs to fit the image, so it will (in theory) be different
> for every photo taken, so you will always be cropping and loosing
> pixels. With displays now moving to 16:9 for TV, I would have said that
> 3:2 was too narrow, not too wide!
>
> format). Resolves the age-old problem as to whether landscape or
> portrait fits best, and arguable makes the best use of the lens.
>
>
> [cross-posting trimmed]
This statement (RichA's post, _NOT_ David') is about as senseless as a
statement can be. The format either fits the subject or composition, or
else cropped to fit. This argument is as old as Aristotle's "golden
ratio", which is just as silly as his statement that women have fewer
teeth than men--without bothering to count. I started out in photography
at age 11 (69 years ago)with a 616 box camera, with a format of 2.5" by
4.25", which was superb for landscapes and for groups of three of less
standing figures; on the other hand, for some other things it was really
poor. These people should get a life.
Allen
Alfred Molon
> Come on Rich. You know as well as I do that provided the image hight is
> the same, 3:2 will have more pixels than 4:3. Not even Irish maths could
> get your answer. Image circles have nothing to do with this argument.
The squarer the format, the better use you make of the inner image
circle.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alan Meyer
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:4a141697$0$16036$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
> Hey, how about a circular format? I believe in times past (film days)
> there were some. It would complicate the layout and readout of the CCD,
> and the image processing, but it could be done. I certainly see enough
> portraits matted with circular or elliptical mats.
The first mass market camera ("You push the button - we do the rest"),
was named "the Kodak". It came out in 1888 and produced circular
images. I seem to recall that they were about two inches in diameter
and you got 100 images on a roll of film. You pushed the button 100
times, then mailed the whole thing back to Eastman Company. They
sent you back 100 circular photos (if they all turned out), and your
camera loaded with a fresh roll of film.
It was cheap and a real revolution in its time. However, people didn't
seem to like the circular images that much and Kodak soon switched
to rectangles.
Alan
Peter Irwin
> The first mass market camera ("You push the button - we do the rest"),
> was named "the Kodak". It came out in 1888 and produced circular
> images. I seem to recall that they were about two inches in diameter
> and you got 100 images on a roll of film. You pushed the button 100
> times, then mailed the whole thing back to Eastman Company. They
> sent you back 100 circular photos (if they all turned out), and your
> camera loaded with a fresh roll of film.
>
> It was cheap and a real revolution in its time. However, people didn't
> seem to like the circular images that much and Kodak soon switched
> to rectangles.
It wasn't cheap. It was a toy for the rich and very expensive for
the average person. Remember that $2 a day was good pay in those
days and a lot of people lived on $1 or less. The camera cost $25,
the cost for 100 pictures (develop, print and a fresh roll) was $10.
It might sound cheap until you remember how much $10 was. (It was nearly
a half ounce of gold, but even that understates it in terms of average
wages.)
The Brownie of 1900 was the first mass market camera. The first Brownies
cost $1 and a roll of film (six exposures) was 15 cents. Developing and
printing would have run around another 15 cents or so. It was originally
marketed a a camera for children of well-off parents, but it soon became
clear that most of the sales were to adults who found the price within
their reach.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
David J Taylor
> In article <gv2a4c$jiu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, DMac says...
>
>> Come on Rich. You know as well as I do that provided the image hight
>> is the same, 3:2 will have more pixels than 4:3. Not even Irish
>> maths could get your answer. Image circles have nothing to do with
>> this argument.
>
> The squarer the format, the better use you make of the inner image
> circle.
Hexagonal prints?
Round format is what the lens and CRT makers might prefer.....
David
Robert Coe
: The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
: Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
: 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
Is that why digital television is replacing 4:3 with 16:9?
Bob
Apteryx
No, that's just simple planned obsolescence. Next step is 2.35:1, then
back to circular and start again.
Apteryx
Alan Browne
Shh. You're not supposed to let them know.
Ron Hunter
fit for the human face, so you have to get used to foreheads, and chins
being 'cut off' in closeups. I HATE 16:9 format for television!
Kennedy McEwen
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
Most of Hollywood would improve if you cut off chins and foreheads -
preferably with a chainsaw, not widescreen. ;-)
Aspect ratio wars will continue as long as we permit big chins and
foreheads to exist. Chainsaws are for life, not just for Christmas!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Bob Larter
That's only when they're using old 4:3 source material. If you're
getting that with movies, your TV needs adjusting. (Probably too much
overscan - easily fixed.)
Bob Larter
Like I give a fuck. Most of the time, I crop to a 3:2 ratio anyway,
because that's what looks good to me. If you actually took any pictures,
maybe you'd get some sort of idea about what ratio to shoot to.
Bob Larter
Circular/ellipsoid is even worse, IMHO.
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>>
>> Screw you. I happen to be very happy with the 3:2 format, & even when
>> I crop an image (not often), I usually retain the 3:2 ratio. 4:3
>> reminds me too much of a TV screen, which I feel gives a certain
>> mundane look.
>
> I've been doing some prints at 16:9, widescreen video format, I kinda
> like it. Part of the motivation was to get bigger than 13x19 using roll
> stock, so it's closer to 13x24.
If I shot landscapes, I'd probably like that ratio too, but most of my
shooting is people, where that format would be way too tall.
John Turco
Hello, Alan:
About a hundred years later, during the late 1980's, Kodak introduced the
disposable camera. It was rather similar in concept, to its 19th century
counterpart.
Since then, Kodak has phased out all of its other film cameras. Hence, the
the company has come full circle...pun intended. <g>
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>