Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Running LCD Displays at 1280 x 1024 and effects on photos

Reply
Thread Tools

Running LCD Displays at 1280 x 1024 and effects on photos

 
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Although it introduces an extra problem at the taking stage if precise
>framing is required. Perhaps high-end cameras should offer an additional
>extra aspect ratio of 5:4 as well as the 3:2 commonly offered to
>supplement the natural 4:3?


Don't forget 16:9 monitors, which are increasingly common.

How often does anyone shoot an image to exactly fit one particular
monitor? Manufacturers could do this in camera, but why not do it in
the image editor later?

I think it would be most useful for the camera makers to do what movie
cameras have long done: show the entire image area that will be
recorded, but superimpose a reticle showing the amount of image that
will actually be visible with the chosen projection aperture (e.g. 1.66,
1.85). That way, you don't discard any image data and can crop
differently later, but you get a guide for positioning the subject for
one particular aspect ratio.

That's what most APS cameras did too: they always shot the full 16:9
frame, but the film could be encoded with instructions to mask off part
of the image to get a panorama or classic (1.5) aspect ratio image.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2004
Dave Martindale wrote:
[]
> I think it would be most useful for the camera makers to do what movie
> cameras have long done: show the entire image area that will be
> recorded, but superimpose a reticle showing the amount of image that
> will actually be visible with the chosen projection aperture (e.g.
> 1.66,
> 1.85). That way, you don't discard any image data and can crop
> differently later, but you get a guide for positioning the subject for
> one particular aspect ratio.


Yes, that should be really easy with today's electronic viewfinders. I am
already starting to use the horizontal and vertical alignment lines (like
I used to have on the architectural finder - an F? screen on the Nikon
F3). A jolly site easier to flick a switch than to actually change the
finder screen!

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2004
Dave Martindale <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> That's what most APS cameras did too: they always shot the full 16:9
> frame, but the film could be encoded with instructions to mask off part
> of the image to get a panorama or classic (1.5) aspect ratio image.


Actually APS cameras shot (note past tense) a 4:7 format called APS-H,
either masking off top and bottom to produce panoramic APS-P (9.8 x 28mm)
or masking off the sides to produce 35mm-like ratio APS-C (16 x 24mm).
Note that 28 x 9.8 is wider than HTDV 16:9.

Not that anyone cares about APS. Sorry for mentioning it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Wojciechowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2005
"SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:spFzd.7432$(E-Mail Removed)...
....
> film ratio , which is 3:2. And sometimes camera's best resolution is a bit
> different than monitor size, but there are lower resolutions available,

like
> 1600x1200, which will fit (after resizing). Note that monitor ratio is

4:3,
> while - for example on my Canon S1 max resolution (whixh is 2048x1536) is
> 5:4, while i do have 1600x1200 1024x768 , both 4:3.

....
SleeperMan:

I'd check my math if I were you. 2048x1536 is 4:3, not 5:4.

For the Original Poster: most of today's digital cameras take 4:3 ratio
pictures.
Many also support a cropped 3:2 ratio setting as well. Beyond that, you
will
need to crop your photos to fit the desired end result (or
stretch/compress/distort).


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"I see you coming / To the end of the day
And was it worth it? / No one can say
I see your face / It is ghostly pale
Into the sunset / We are watching you sail"


 
Reply With Quote
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2005
Dan Wojciechowski wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:spFzd.7432$(E-Mail Removed)...
> ...
>> film ratio , which is 3:2. And sometimes camera's best resolution is
>> a bit different than monitor size, but there are lower resolutions
>> available, like 1600x1200, which will fit (after resizing). Note
>> that monitor ratio is 4:3, while - for example on my Canon S1 max
>> resolution (whixh is 2048x1536) is 5:4, while i do have 1600x1200
>> 1024x768 , both 4:3.

> ...
> SleeperMan:
>
> I'd check my math if I were you. 2048x1536 is 4:3, not 5:4.
>

True...my mistake.
But, if you don't have 3:2 feature on your camera, software cropping can be
pain sometimes, since either you cut something on upper or somethign on
lower edge. But, with experience you learn to take some reserve when
shooting...


 
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
HD on 1280 x 1024? Travis Computer Information 5 11-25-2007 05:51 AM
Extra space between form tag and table tag when screen resolution is 1280 x 1024 nikkilou@nycap.rr.com HTML 2 07-24-2007 11:29 PM
DRAW 1280, 1024 Benjohn Barnes Ruby 24 09-10-2006 10:07 AM
Most efficient way of storing 1024*1024 bits Tor Erik Sønvisen Python 15 11-04-2005 10:54 AM
Re: best monitor for 1280 X 1024 Mark A+ Certification 1 05-24-2005 04:54 PM



Advertisments