Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > newbie question : picture dimension vs print dimension

Reply
Thread Tools

newbie question : picture dimension vs print dimension

 
 
Rene Wong
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
(2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that every
time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some sort
of cropping done?

Rene


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
"Rene Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
> (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
> standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that

every
> time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some

sort
> of cropping done?


Yup. It's probably better to crop the picture yourself, before you print.

However, many of the better digicams have optional 3:2 aspect ratios you can
shoot in, which perfectly fit your 4x6 prints.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tom Thackrey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003

On 28-Sep-2003, "Rene Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
> (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
> standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that
> every
> time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some
> sort
> of cropping done?
>
> Rene


Yes, just like film.


--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
CSM1
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
"Rene Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:lBDdb.146162$(E-Mail Removed) able.rogers.com...
> Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
> (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
> standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that

every
> time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some

sort
> of cropping done?
>
> Rene
>
>


Yes.

The 35mm format is exactly 1:1.5 ratio or 4 X 6.
Digital cameras are mostly 1:1.33 ratio or 3 X 4 the same as current
television screens.

Prints:
4 X 6 = 1:1.5 ratio same as 35mm (That is why the 4 X 6 print is so
popular).
5 X 7 = 1:1.4 ratio
8 X 10 = 1:1.25 ratio

For the 1:1.33 ratio of digital cameras to fit these photo sizes, all images
must be cropped .

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--


 
Reply With Quote
 
mark_digital©
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003

"Rene Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:lBDdb.146162$(E-Mail Removed) able.rogers.com...
> Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
> (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
> standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that

every
> time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some

sort
> of cropping done?
>
> Rene
>
>

Yes. It's no different than printing them yourself.
There is one possible benefit to not cropping. You may be able to print more
images per sheet if you can live with a non-standard length or width and
still retain the full frame. But if you mix, for example, 5 X 7's and 5 X
6.125, your collection may look like a scrap book instead of a standard
album.
Welcome aboard Rene.
Mark_


 
Reply With Quote
 
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:38:58 GMT, Tom Thackrey wrote

>
> On 28-Sep-2003, "Rene Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or
>> multiples of it (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't
>> seem to correlate with standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or
>> 8 x 10. Does this mean that every
>> time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be
>> some sort
>> of cropping done?
>>
>> Rene

>
> Yes, just like film.


Well....I'd say it's not just like film.

Admittedly, it took many years for bog-standard commercial developers
to go to a standard of 4x6 prints, but allowing for minor edge-
cropping, that does give a full-frame print from a 35mm neg. (2 1/4
square was another matter, but I can't speak from experience with that
format.)

I shot 35mm slides for years -- good discipline, since what you take is
what you show -- and I'm finding it difficult to adjust to the square-
ish format of digital.

Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot what I
intend to print, rather than shoot something with the prior intent of
cropping before printing.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bay Area Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
Harvey, you should enjoy the very strong horizontals and verticals
afforded by digital stitching: panoramas on steroids. Have you shot any?

dave

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
snip
>
> Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
> horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot what I
> intend to print, rather than shoot something with the prior intent of
> cropping before printing.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
There are two (actually probably three) types of 'dimensions' of a
digital image. One is in number of pixels.

Really, digital images have no physical dimensions, per say. They can
be displayed or printed any physical size.

However, most people would say that if you print a picture with fewer
than 200-300 pixels per inch, you will notice poor resolution and
pixelization. So in effect the number of pixels does limit the physical
size that make sense to print.

As far as aspect ratio, there is nothing magic about them. Forget the
aspect ratio of popular print sizes. For instance, while 4 x 6 prints
DO match the aspect ratio of 35mm film, the 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 do not. If
you order an 8 x 10 print of a 35mm image, the printer will crop for
you.

BTW, the third 'dimension' I mentioned is file size. However, various
formats compress images different ways, and different amounts, so there
is actually very little correlation between image size in pixels and the
resultant file size.

Rene Wong wrote:
>
> Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
> (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
> standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that every
> time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some sort
> of cropping done?
>
> Rene


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 
Reply With Quote
 
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:21:24 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote that Harvey
wrote,


>> Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
>> horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot
>> what I intend to print, rather than shoot something with the
>> prior intent of cropping before printing.



> Harvey, you should enjoy the very strong horizontals and verticals
> afforded by digital stitching: panoramas on steroids. Have you
> shot any?


I haven't yet; I'll certainly try it out, though.

Digital is pretty new for me -- I'm just getting the feel of my first
digital (a point-and-shoot, dipping-toes-in-water affair which I picked
up to play with before exploring more expensive kit). I'm certainly
not yet comfortable with the proportions of digital in terms of how I
view potential compositions.

(FWIW, the reason for going with a P&S to fool around with is because
with all technical kit -- photography, computers, etc. -- I lean
towards the approach of starting with basic-to-intermediate stuff so
that I can discover what features are missing that I want to have; I
then selectively upgrade. I've never been hot on starting with an all-
singing-dancing outfit -- even if I can afford it -- that has so many
features that I can't get my head around, and will never, ever use. I
realise that the mileage of others differs a lot on this approach.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bay Area Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2003
plus it's nice to be able to toss the camera in your pocket and still be
able to get some decent shots!

dave

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:21:24 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote that Harvey
> wrote,
>
>
>
>>>Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
>>>horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot
>>>what I intend to print, rather than shoot something with the
>>>prior intent of cropping before printing.

>
>
>
>>Harvey, you should enjoy the very strong horizontals and verticals
>>afforded by digital stitching: panoramas on steroids. Have you
>>shot any?

>
>
> I haven't yet; I'll certainly try it out, though.
>
> Digital is pretty new for me -- I'm just getting the feel of my first
> digital (a point-and-shoot, dipping-toes-in-water affair which I picked
> up to play with before exploring more expensive kit). I'm certainly
> not yet comfortable with the proportions of digital in terms of how I
> view potential compositions.
>
> (FWIW, the reason for going with a P&S to fool around with is because
> with all technical kit -- photography, computers, etc. -- I lean
> towards the approach of starting with basic-to-intermediate stuff so
> that I can discover what features are missing that I want to have; I
> then selectively upgrade. I've never been hot on starting with an all-
> singing-dancing outfit -- even if I can afford it -- that has so many
> features that I can't get my head around, and will never, ever use. I
> realise that the mileage of others differs a lot on this approach.)
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a question about 1-dimension and 2-dimension array Luuk C Programming 15 02-11-2010 02:45 AM
print a vs print '%s' % a vs print '%f' a David Cournapeau Python 0 12-30-2008 03:19 AM
a newbie question~ about 2 dimension hash? really appreciate~ vivalon@gmail.com Ruby 4 10-04-2007 11:54 AM
Problem - I want to print Current Output of Pdf file and should print once.I get print dialog box but it is not working keto Java 0 05-30-2007 11:27 AM
Unlarging the print to print using PDF file to print Bun Mui Computer Support 3 09-13-2004 03:15 AM



Advertisments