Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Proportions of 10D viewfinder compared to 8x10 crop

Reply
Thread Tools

Proportions of 10D viewfinder compared to 8x10 crop

 
 
usenet@imagenoir.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
Kibo informs me that "Mark B." <(E-Mail Removed)> stated that:

>More likely a means of convenience in keeping the same ratio as existing
>35mm film. Not sure where the 3:4 ratio came from for portable digicams,
>though.


My guess would be that the still image sensors evolved from camcorder
sensors, which need to match the 4:3 ratio of TV screens, plus it
matches standard computer screens.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
usenet@imagenoir.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
Kibo informs me that http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Jay Stalman) stated that:

>Thanks for the advice.


No problem, glad I could help.

> When you print at 8x12, what size paper do you
>use?


I generally get anything that big or larger printed at a lab, rather
than doing it myself, as I only have crappy little Epson for proofs.

> Paper comes 8x10 or 11x14 or larger. If you frame these, (or
>sell them) most off the shelf frames come in 8x10 or 11x14, so you
>would need custom framing for all of your prints.


If I were wanting to sell inkjet prints, rather than lab prints, I'd buy
one of the large format Epsons that use 'UltraChrome' pigment ink,
rather than a consumer model like mine. The ink used in the cheaper
models fades too quickly for me to feel comfortable about charging money
for such prints.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
"Mark B." <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>More likely a means of convenience in keeping the same ratio as existing
>35mm film. Not sure where the 3:4 ratio came from for portable digicams,
>though.


Originally, a lot of digicam sensors came from the video world, even
though that's not ideal (video CCDs are usually designed for interlaced
field capture, not frame capture). 4:3 is universal for the older TV
standard.

Also, most computer monitors are still 4:3, so that still makes a lot of
sense for cameras even when a CCD is designed from the ground up for
still cameras.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
In article <p1ARc.3093$(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>David Littlewood wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)> , Jay
>>Stalman <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>> I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
>>> the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
>>> proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
>>> common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
>>> composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
>>> proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
>>> proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
>>> Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.
>>> Jay

>> The lack of standardisation in aspect ratios has been driving
>>photographers nuts for a century or more. The 10x8 or 20x16 print size
>>(aspect ratio 1.2:1) is of course fine for 10x8 or 5x4 camera films,
>>but has always been totally unsuitable for 35mm (aspect ratio 1.5:1).
>> However, I would have thought that the situation was markedly
>>improved for digital photographers. The 1.5:1 aspect ratio is a close
>>match to the International A-range of paper sizes, which is almost
>>universal for inkjet paper.
>> Of course, this might not be the case for the USA, which has for
>>some strange reason clung on to its archaic paper sizes long after
>>they have all but disappeared in Europe. What sizes of inkjet papers
>>are common over there? I'm sure you will be able to buy A4 paper if
>>you look for it.

>
>Unfortunately the digital camera makers have squandered the opportunity
>to make the sensors the same proportion as ISO-216 paper sizes
>(European sizes).
>
>Probably part of the race to have high pixel counts v. a across the
>board rational system.
>
>Another format that could have been aesthetically pleasing and useful
>would be a golden mean ratio.
>

Alan, it's a matter of taste, of course, but I find phi (the golden
ratio; 1.618:1) is a bit too elongated for normal use. Makes nice
"widescreen" shots of course*.

I wonder to what extent this preference is conditioned by familiarity. I
have go so used to the ISO 1.414:1 shape that any other paper size looks
"wrong" to me now; US letter size and 10x8 prints are irritatingly
"square" to my eyes. Perhaps the ancient Greeks would have found golden
ratio paper just right and A4 paper too squat.

*It is also (IMO) a better ratio for subject placement than the "rule of
thirds" which most elementary books parrot - "the rule of 38:62" is a
bit of a mouthful though.

David
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mark B.
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>
>
>> Another format that could have been aesthetically pleasing and
>> useful would be a golden mean ratio.
>>

>
>What ratio is that?
>
>Mark
>
>

1.618:1

It is the ratio which, if you divide a line into A and B in that ratio,
the ratio of the whole to the larger part (A) is equal to the ratio of
the larger part to the smaller part (B).

Thus: (A+B)/A = A/B

The Greeks were very fond of this ratio. It crops up in all sorts of
unexpected areas in nature.
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2004
David Littlewood <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>1.618:1


>It is the ratio which, if you divide a line into A and B in that ratio,
>the ratio of the whole to the larger part (A) is equal to the ratio of
>the larger part to the smaller part (B).


Another way of saying the same thing: if you start out with a piece of
paper whose aspect ratio is the golden ratio, and cut the largest
possible square piece off one end, the smaller piece left over has the
same aspect ratio as the original piece. You can repeat, and you'll get
a series of squares and a series of golden-ratio rectangles.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2004
also it's the only number that becomes its own reciprocal by subtracting 1

1/1.618 = .618


"David Littlewood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mark B.
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >
> >
> >
> >> Another format that could have been aesthetically pleasing and
> >> useful would be a golden mean ratio.
> >>

> >
> >What ratio is that?
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >

> 1.618:1
>
> It is the ratio which, if you divide a line into A and B in that ratio,
> the ratio of the whole to the larger part (A) is equal to the ratio of
> the larger part to the smaller part (B).
>
> Thus: (A+B)/A = A/B
>
> The Greeks were very fond of this ratio. It crops up in all sorts of
> unexpected areas in nature.
> --
> David Littlewood



 
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
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies? Wally Digital Photography 31 02-12-2011 05:27 PM
Small viewfinder compared to film slr geez Digital Photography 4 06-08-2006 08:37 PM
screen proportions fugitive DVD Video 0 03-31-2005 09:27 PM
Metadata : 10d cites 70 mm : is this incorporating 1.6 crop? n Digital Photography 2 10-31-2004 08:54 AM
How do I print a portrait in Photoshop 8x10 Standard Size with constrained proportions? rbaker3 Digital Photography 5 10-15-2003 05:22 AM



Advertisments