Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > X for x-it?

Reply
Thread Tools

X for x-it?

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2011
"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4e9e26a4$0$13392$(E-Mail Removed) u...
>
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:j7kfpr$6jm$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> []
>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

>>
>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>
> Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? What happens
> with portrait format?
>
> Trevor.


90% of my photos are viewed on either computer monitors or TV screens.
Very rarely print these days, and likely if I do it's between 3:2 and 4:3.
Portrait, as with TV, simply doesn't work well, so you are stuck with
landscape. You can always crop a 16:9 portrait image of course, just as
you can crop any format (and maybe you /should/ crop if your display
format isn't fixed).

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2011
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:08:50 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: >"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>: >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>: >[]
>: >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
>: >
>: >Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
>:
>:
>: Now that's a good idea!
>
>I don't think so. In portrait orientation it would be useful only for
>photographing cell towers and flagpoles.



Ha! The LX2 could also shoot 3:2 and 4:3, obviously by reducing the
number of pixels, but that was fine for a p+s.

It was sheer delight for landscapes. A digital XPan?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
> Well that's you, but not everybody.

Of course, everyone has different needs.

> I shoot far more portrait format than landscape, and viewing on a
> computer monitor is only to edit, and viewing on a TV is not something I
> even bother with. Each to his own of course, but it seems those needs
> are already well satisfied by a raft of P&S camera's.
> Why on earth would anyone need a Full Frame 4:3 or 16:9 DSLR to simply
> view on a computer monitor or TV given all their limitations?
>
> Trevor.


P&S are not adequate for my needs (except when a very small camera is
required) as they lack the speed of operation, quality viewfinder, and
high-ISO capability. But equally I don't need a full-frame DSLR with the
associated bulk, weight and costs. APS-C (and perhaps 4/3) would suit me
nicely. EVFs are coming along nicely, although not quite there as yet,
and I have a bag of Nikon DX lenses I'm not intending to replace any time
soon.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:j7mc5p$ulv$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
>>>
>>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>>
>> Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? What happens
>> with portrait format?

>
> 90% of my photos are viewed on either computer monitors or TV screens.
> Very rarely print these days, and likely if I do it's between 3:2 and 4:3.
> Portrait, as with TV, simply doesn't work well, so you are stuck with
> landscape. You can always crop a 16:9 portrait image of course, just as
> you can crop any format (and maybe you /should/ crop if your display
> format isn't fixed).



Well that's you, but not everybody. I shoot far more portrait format than
landscape, and viewing on a computer monitor is only to edit, and viewing on
a TV is not something I even bother with. Each to his own of course, but it
seems those needs are already well satisfied by a raft of P&S camera's.
Why on earth would anyone need a Full Frame 4:3 or 16:9 DSLR to simply view
on a computer monitor or TV given all their limitations?

Trevor.








 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
On Oct 20, 8:19*am, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in messagenews:j7mc5p$ulv$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> >>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. *Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

>
> >>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>
> >> Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? *What happens
> >> with portrait format?

>
> > 90% of my photos are viewed on either computer monitors or TV screens.
> > Very rarely print these days, and likely if I do it's between 3:2 and 4:3.
> > Portrait, as with TV, simply doesn't work well, so you are stuck with
> > landscape. *You can always crop a 16:9 portrait image of course, justas
> > you can crop any format (and maybe you /should/ crop if your display
> > format isn't fixed).

>
> Well that's you, but not everybody. I shoot far more portrait format than
> landscape, and viewing on a computer monitor is only to edit, and viewingon
> a TV is not something I even bother with. Each to his own of course, but it
> seems those needs are already well satisfied by a raft of P&S camera's.
> Why on earth would anyone need a Full Frame 4:3 or 16:9 DSLR to simply view
> on a computer monitor or TV given all their limitations?
>
> Trevor.


I think we need a new format, I suggest 13 3/8th : 7 3/4qrts
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2011
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> []
>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.


> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?


No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2011
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> []
>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

>
>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>
> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
>
> -Wolfgang


Made from Metal, of course!

 
Reply With Quote
 
android
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > []
> >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

>
> > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>
> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
>
> -Wolfgang


It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
cake.
It hip to be square though! ;-@

--
moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) ---
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2011
android <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>> >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.


>> > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?


>> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
>> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.


> It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
> cake.


The wafers are circular, though ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
android
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> android <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> > "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
> >> >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

>
> >> > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

>
> >> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
> >> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.

>
> > It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
> > cake.

>
> The wafers are circular, though ...
>
> -Wolfgang


That's so true; but it seems easier to cut straight lines don't you
think. More practical to assemble. You would however get more chips out
of cake/wafer if they were circular. I mearly assume that it's easier
and cheaper to use squares going outside the circle of confusion to get
the desired result.

--
moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to (E-Mail Removed) ---
 
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




Advertisments