«

Actually, I didn't really mean I think the ratio should change from 3:2 to
4:3. All I wish is that paper sizes came in more convenient sizes for either
format.


"Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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" <> wrote in message
> > news:y5zad.3964$ ...
> >
> >>"Jimmy Pop" <> wrote in message
> >>news:ckebdb$q41$...
> >>
> >>>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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

"Jimmy Pop" <> wrote in message
news:ckeh00$r3t$...
> 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?
>
I don't "target" any particular size. However, when cropping to 8x10 or
11x14, the extra space can be helpful, especially if I need to move the
subject away from dead center.
However, I do agree that now would have been a good time to abandon the 3:2
format that we have been stuck with for 80 years...
Jim

Ron Hunter <> wrote in news:10mlhf7evvlkn63
@corp.supernews.com:

> Cameras with 3:2 aspect ratio settings are intended for 4x6 prints,
> which is the most common print in the US.

This is also the most common ratio for small prints here in Sweden.
But ... that is really no motivation at all, as this format is
4x6 because 35 mm film cameras are 24x36. Larger formats in Sweden
are 13x18, 18x24, 24x30, 30x40 and those are not 2:3 ratio.
So ... the motivations for a 2:3 ratio for digital cameras are
rather weak.


/Roland

Jimmy Pop wrote:

> "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?

Look at it from the perspective of the digicam makers: your target
market is the 35mm market; your designs and tooling are all centered
around the 35mm market and the 3:2 aspect ratio - viewfinders, shutters,
etc... what good reason is there to change things to a different format?

Any size you shoot can be cropped to any desired size later, so there's
really no reason to redesign your entire manufacturing process simply to
get a slightly wider frame.

"Jimmy Pop" <> wrote in message
news:ckehs1$ra2$...
> 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!

I, like many, will crop out a standard size from the original (say 5x7 or
8x10). You will lose some of original but I find it's rarely a problem.
Than if print comes out a real winner you can find a frame off the shelf for
it. Most editing programs make it easy for you to crop out a standard size.
It doesn't pick a different aspect ratio for the original and distort it.
You just drag the rectangle with the correct aspect ratio around until you
have what you like, and select crop. I never print a 3:2 aspect ration
picture, since it's cheaper to buy a frame off the shelf at the store that
to get one custom made.

>
>
> "Jimmy Pop" <> wrote in message
> news:ckeh00$r3t$...
> > 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" <> wrote in message
> > news:y5zad.3964$ ...
> > >
> > > "Jimmy Pop" <> wrote in message
> > > news:ckebdb$q41$...
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Jim wrote:
> "Jimmy Pop" <> wrote in message
> news:ckeh00$r3t$...
>
>>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?
>>
>
> I don't "target" any particular size. However, when cropping to 8x10 or
> 11x14, the extra space can be helpful, especially if I need to move the
> subject away from dead center.
> However, I do agree that now would have been a good time to abandon the 3:2
> format that we have been stuck with for 80 years...
> Jim
>
>
Why?

I agree that there is no good reason why we use 3:2 seonsors, in the same
way that we don't use 5:4, 4:3, 1.414:1 etc... The standard print sizes are
all different ratios (6x4 = 3:2, 7x5 = 1.4:1, 10x8 = 1.2:1, A4 = 1.414:1)

Personally, I "see" in 3:2 format when photographing, so I like it, and am
glad that my DSLR has kept it. I find that I tend to crop all images that
come out of my P&S because they are just the wrong aspect.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:09:46 -0500, "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

This may be of use ...

Name Aspect Ratio Print Sizes [inches]
4 × 6 3:2 4 × 6, 10 × 15, 18 × 27, 20 x 30
5 × 7 7:5 5 × 7, 10 × 14, 20 × 28
8 × 10 5:4 8 × 10, 16 × 20
11 × 14 14:11 11 × 14, 22 × 28

Hap

Jim <> wrote:

> I don't "target" any particular size. However, when cropping to 8x10 or
> 11x14, the extra space can be helpful, especially if I need to move the
> subject away from dead center.

When you crop the picture, you fundamentally change it. I composed it in
the camera, so I'm not interested in doing that.

> However, I do agree that now would have been a good time to abandon the 3:2
> format that we have been stuck with for 80 years...

Why? What's wrong with it?

All of the silly "standard" print sizes are different shapes, so there is no
shape that would fit them all any better than that one. And I'm not even
remotely interested in using 4:3. I'd be willing to use 1.414:1, 1.681:1,
maybe even 16:9 (though that would suck for verticals), but not 4:3. But
even then, switching to any of the above would have the same problem with
the "standard" print sizes.

Why not just abandon 8x10 paper? It makes no sense anyway.

--
Jeremy |

PlaneGuy wrote:
[]
> Personally, I "see" in 3:2 format when photographing, so I like it,
> and am glad that my DSLR has kept it. I find that I tend to crop all
> images that come out of my P&S because they are just the wrong aspect.

If you had one of the Nikon Coolpix P&S, you would have been able to take
photos in the 3:2 aspect ratio you like. I'm sure other cameras must
offer this as well.

Cheers,
David