«

My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
1.50?

On 4-Feb-2004, "Harvey" <> wrote:

> My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
> highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
> hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
> at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most
> common
> print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
> 1.50?

Perhaps this will give you a clue:

Size - ratio
4x5 - 1.25
4x6 - 1.5
5x7 - 1.4
8x10 - 1.25
11x14 - 1.27
16x20 - 1.25
TV - 1.33
640x480 - 1.33
800x600 - 1.33
1024x768 - 1.33


--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers)

When Digicams were first introduced, neither the quality of inkjet printers nor
the pixel count of cameras favored making prints from the digital images
The main end use of digital images was to send them to friends over the
internet or to put on websites. This means viewing on a monitor screen. Nearly
all monitors have an aspect ratio of 1.33.
Many upscale digicams and most Digital SLRs now, do offer a 1.50 aspect ratio.
Bob Williams

Harvey wrote:

> My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
> highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
> hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
> at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
> print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
> 1.50?

>>TV - 1.33

This is completely unrelated, but here in the UK, TV is in the process of
migrating from the traditional 4x3 format to 16x9, or "widescreen". I was
wondering if the same was happening in the US?

Keith

Keith Sheppard wrote:

>>>TV - 1.33
>
>
> This is completely unrelated, but here in the UK, TV is in the process of
> migrating from the traditional 4x3 format to 16x9, or "widescreen". I was
> wondering if the same was happening in the US?
>
> Keith
>
>
>
Yes, and a POX on the idiot who thought that one up. Not only will we
have a choice between losing half our picture, or half our vertical
resolution (or spending thousands on a new TV), but think of the
millions that will be spent on new entertainment centers, changing
furniture arrangements, etc. This is something we did NOT need.

Why did the 120 film format go for 1:1? Why was 4 x 5 camera 4:5?
There has NEVER been a standard aspect ratio for formats in photography.

Even the ratio of popular print sizes are not standard. Yeah, 4 x 6 is
3:2, but 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 are not.

Harvey wrote:
>
> My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
> highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
> hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
> at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
> print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
> 1.50?

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

Harvey wrote:

> My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
> highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
> hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
> at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
> print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
> 1.50?

Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
aspect ratio of your screen.

If it was anything other, you'd probably have people asking why they have
to crop to make wallpapers out of their images.

Consider that the first digital cameras used CCD chips originally
intended for camcorders. That is why they were 4:3. Many just stuck
with that ratio when they started making chips specifically for still
cams.

Jim Townsend wrote:
>
> Harvey wrote:
>
> > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
> > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
> > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
> > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
> > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
> > 1.50?
>
> Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
> is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
> aspect ratio of your screen.
>
> If it was anything other, you'd probably have people asking why they have
> to crop to make wallpapers out of their images.

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

Don Stauffer wrote:

> Consider that the first digital cameras used CCD chips originally
> intended for camcorders. That is why they were 4:3. Many just stuck
> with that ratio when they started making chips specifically for still
> cams.

Excellent point

> Jim Townsend wrote:
>
>> Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
>> is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
>> aspect ratio of your screen.
>>

Jim Townsend <> writes:

> Harvey wrote:
>
> > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
> > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
> > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
> > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
> > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
> > 1.50?
>
> Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
> is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
> aspect ratio of your screen.

Hmm. I'm looking at 1600x1200 right now, which is indeed 4:3. But
1280x1024 comes out to 5:4, and the Mac down the hall is at 16:10.

> If it was anything other, you'd probably have people asking why they have
> to crop to make wallpapers out of their images.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.