Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 3:2 Aspect Ratio

Reply
Thread Tools

3:2 Aspect Ratio

 
 
Jimmy Pop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the
20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my
printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect
ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration?
It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as
well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11).

Thanks for the help!
Tom


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
"Jimmy Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:ckebdb$q41$(E-Mail Removed):

> I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading
> to the 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did
> most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the
> 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the
> 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but
> doesn't seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11).
>


The reason is ... ehem ... that 35 mm film cameras have that aspect ratio.

And I agree ... that is no good reason at all.

But ... it is very easy to define the cropping ration (to 35 mm film .



/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004

"Jimmy Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ckebdb$q41$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to

the
> 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio?

None. It all started when Leitz decided to make a camera for testing 35mm
movie film. They decided on a camera which exposed 2 frames of the movie
film at once.
As the movie frames were (and still may be for all I know or care) 18x24,
the resulting sixe for the still camera was 24x36. This image size is not
convenient to use for producing any of the common prints sizes except 4x6,
However, most of us don't use all of the frame anyway. So, regardless of
the image size some cropping usually needed, and the 3:2 format has been
with us ever since the 1920s.
Jim


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
Jimmy Pop wrote:
> I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the
> 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my
> printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect
> ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect ration?
> It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as
> well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11).
>
> Thanks for the help!
> Tom
>
>

Cameras with 3:2 aspect ratio settings are intended for 4x6 prints,
which is the most common print in the US. Some cameras offer more than
one aspect ratio.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jimmy Pop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
Hmmm, seems like the digital era would have been a good time to switch to
the 4:3 format (and it seems some did - my Minolta Dimage 7i uses 4:3).

So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or
8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the
exposure?

"That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why
don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor here
I am not considering?


"Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:y5zad.3964$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> "Jimmy Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ckebdb$q41$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to

> the
> > 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio?

> None. It all started when Leitz decided to make a camera for testing 35mm
> movie film. They decided on a camera which exposed 2 frames of the movie
> film at once.
> As the movie frames were (and still may be for all I know or care) 18x24,
> the resulting sixe for the still camera was 24x36. This image size is not
> convenient to use for producing any of the common prints sizes except 4x6,
> However, most of us don't use all of the frame anyway. So, regardless of
> the image size some cropping usually needed, and the 3:2 format has been
> with us ever since the 1920s.
> Jim
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy Nixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
Jimmy Pop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the
> 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio?


It is the same as 35mm film, and it is a shape many of us rather like. I
hate 4:3 with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

> I did most of my printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit
> the 4:3 aspect ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the
> 3:2 aspect ration? It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't
> seem to line up as well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11).


There is no "target print size" for any format, because all of those sizes
you think of as standard for printing are different shapes. What fits a
4x6 won't fit a 5x7 or an 8x10; those paper sizes are arbitrary and have
become standard photo print sizes for no good reason at all. Especially
in this day and age, there is very little reason to stick to them.

The 3:2 ratio prints full-bleed on 8x12, for example, and any decent
printing company will offer that size.

5x7 paper is very close to a 1.414:1 ratio; 8x10 is of course 4x5. Both
of those shapes, while common aspect ratios for both photography and other
art forms (the former is used in graphic arts, the latter in large format
photography), are not the shape of virtually any digital camera sensor.
If you use 8x10 paper in particular, you will need to leave large borders
on two sides of the print (larger than the other two sides), or you'll have
to crop, neither of which you probably want to do. Or, change your paper
size either by trimming or by using a more appropriate size in the first
place.

For my own prints, I rarely print full-bleed (borderless) since I prefer
a small border; I stay away from 8x10 paper because it's not useful; I
live with the slight border size differences on 5x7; and I often actually
compose in camera with a 1.414 ratio in mind for vertical compositions
anyway, which fits nicely on 5x7, which is the size I usually get most
everyday prints in.

--
Jeremy | http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jimmy Pop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
Well, after a little looking, this is obviously a very well discussed issue.
But it is a shame that the paper size doesn't match the film's 3:2 size in
more cases. Everything would be so much easier!


"Jimmy Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ckeh00$r3t$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hmmm, seems like the digital era would have been a good time to switch to
> the 4:3 format (and it seems some did - my Minolta Dimage 7i uses 4:3).
>
> So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or
> 8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the
> exposure?
>
> "That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why
> don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor

here
> I am not considering?
>
>
> "Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:y5zad.3964$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> >
> > "Jimmy Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:ckebdb$q41$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading

to
> > the
> > > 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio?

> > None. It all started when Leitz decided to make a camera for testing

35mm
> > movie film. They decided on a camera which exposed 2 frames of the

movie
> > film at once.
> > As the movie frames were (and still may be for all I know or care)

18x24,
> > the resulting sixe for the still camera was 24x36. This image size is

not
> > convenient to use for producing any of the common prints sizes except

4x6,
> > However, most of us don't use all of the frame anyway. So, regardless

of
> > the image size some cropping usually needed, and the 3:2 format has been
> > with us ever since the 1920s.
> > Jim
> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
Yes, people. By far the most popular print size at this time, at least
in the US, is 4x6. What sense does it make to change? Given the
plethora of differing sizes, and variation of standard paper sizes from
country to country, digital photography, a bit international from the
outset, is always going to be a bit of a 'crop and hope' issue.



Jimmy Pop wrote:
> Hmmm, seems like the digital era would have been a good time to switch to
> the 4:3 format (and it seems some did - my Minolta Dimage 7i uses 4:3).
>
> So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or
> 8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the
> exposure?
>
> "That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why
> don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor here
> I am not considering?
>
>
> "Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:y5zad.3964$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
>>"Jimmy Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:ckebdb$q41$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to

>>
>>the
>>
>>>20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio?

>>
>>None. It all started when Leitz decided to make a camera for testing 35mm
>>movie film. They decided on a camera which exposed 2 frames of the movie
>>film at once.
>>As the movie frames were (and still may be for all I know or care) 18x24,
>>the resulting sixe for the still camera was 24x36. This image size is not
>>convenient to use for producing any of the common prints sizes except 4x6,
>>However, most of us don't use all of the frame anyway. So, regardless of
>>the image size some cropping usually needed, and the 3:2 format has been
>>with us ever since the 1920s.
>>Jim
>>
>>

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy Nixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
Jimmy Pop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> So basically the guideline would be when you are targeting an 8x10 (or
> 8.5x11) print, you have to plan to throw away a good portion of the
> exposure?


Or use borders, of course.

> "That's the way it always has been" doesn't seem like a good reason - why
> don't the camera companies all just switch to 4:3? Is there some factor here
> I am not considering?


4:3 was invented by Satan to make pictures ugly.

Besides, it doesn't fit on a 4x6 print very well.

--
Jeremy | (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2004
Your question as been answered and I agree that just because 35mm is doesn't
make it a good reason. I would however like to point out something. With the
high resolution of the 20D you should have next to no problems with any
moderate cropping you may need to do to get the images the right aspect
ratio for printing at the larger sizes. This was one of the things I really
fell in love with with the 20D and that is you have a lot of room from
useful and creative cropping and still having enough image left for large
sized high quality prints.

My 20D died after I updated the firmware and so I am back to using my only
2.3MP Sony CD Mavica and I have to say I really miss the 20D and that
resolution. While I can get nice 8x10 prints with the Sony there is nothing
extra for any type of cropping which as I said I really miss.

I am praying my 20D gets back from the shop in the next week or so.

John



"Jimmy Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ckebdb$q41$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have been using a "prosumer" camera and was looking into upgrading to the
> 20D. What is the reasoning behind the 3:2 aspect ratio? I did most of my
> printing before on A4 Letter paper (8.5 x 11) which fit the 4:3 aspect
> ration much nicer. What is the target print size for the 3:2 aspect
> ration?
> It seems to fit the 4x6 paper size nicely, but doesn't seem to line up as
> well with the larger prints (8x10, 8.5x11).
>
> Thanks for the help!
> Tom
>
>



 
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
How to keep aspect ratio of image inside an ImageButton control? Arthur Hsu ASP .Net 5 12-08-2004 12:51 AM
Newbie: Image button aspect ratio =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgV2hpdGNodXJjaC1CZW5uZXR0?= ASP .Net 5 11-07-2004 11:32 PM
AVI aspect ratio burp@easy.com Computer Support 4 07-12-2004 02:03 PM
Camera aspect ratio vs desired print size question ed Digital Photography 5 07-23-2003 11:51 AM
camera aspect ratio vs. print size question ed Digital Photography 1 07-11-2003 06:23 PM



Advertisments