Pixel ratio question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Harvey, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Harvey

    Harvey Guest

    My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
    highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
    hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
    at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
    print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
    1.50?
     
    Harvey, Feb 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Harvey

    Tom Thackrey Guest

    On 4-Feb-2004, "Harvey" <> wrote:

    > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
    > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
    > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
    > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most
    > common
    > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
    > 1.50?


    Perhaps this will give you a clue:

    Size - ratio
    4x5 - 1.25
    4x6 - 1.5
    5x7 - 1.4
    8x10 - 1.25
    11x14 - 1.27
    16x20 - 1.25
    TV - 1.33
    640x480 - 1.33
    800x600 - 1.33
    1024x768 - 1.33


    --
    Tom Thackrey
    www.creative-light.com
    tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
    do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers)
     
    Tom Thackrey, Feb 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. When Digicams were first introduced, neither the quality of inkjet printers nor
    the pixel count of cameras favored making prints from the digital images
    The main end use of digital images was to send them to friends over the
    internet or to put on websites. This means viewing on a monitor screen. Nearly
    all monitors have an aspect ratio of 1.33.
    Many upscale digicams and most Digital SLRs now, do offer a 1.50 aspect ratio.
    Bob Williams

    Harvey wrote:

    > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
    > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
    > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
    > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
    > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
    > 1.50?
     
    Robert E. Williams, Feb 5, 2004
    #3
  4. >>TV - 1.33

    This is completely unrelated, but here in the UK, TV is in the process of
    migrating from the traditional 4x3 format to 16x9, or "widescreen". I was
    wondering if the same was happening in the US?

    Keith
     
    Keith Sheppard, Feb 5, 2004
    #4
  5. Harvey

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Keith Sheppard wrote:

    >>>TV - 1.33

    >
    >
    > This is completely unrelated, but here in the UK, TV is in the process of
    > migrating from the traditional 4x3 format to 16x9, or "widescreen". I was
    > wondering if the same was happening in the US?
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    >

    Yes, and a POX on the idiot who thought that one up. Not only will we
    have a choice between losing half our picture, or half our vertical
    resolution (or spending thousands on a new TV), but think of the
    millions that will be spent on new entertainment centers, changing
    furniture arrangements, etc. This is something we did NOT need.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Harvey

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Why did the 120 film format go for 1:1? Why was 4 x 5 camera 4:5?
    There has NEVER been a standard aspect ratio for formats in photography.

    Even the ratio of popular print sizes are not standard. Yeah, 4 x 6 is
    3:2, but 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 are not.

    Harvey wrote:
    >
    > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
    > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
    > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
    > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
    > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
    > 1.50?


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Feb 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Harvey

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Harvey wrote:

    > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
    > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
    > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
    > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
    > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
    > 1.50?


    Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
    is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
    aspect ratio of your screen.

    If it was anything other, you'd probably have people asking why they have
    to crop to make wallpapers out of their images.
     
    Jim Townsend, Feb 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Harvey

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Consider that the first digital cameras used CCD chips originally
    intended for camcorders. That is why they were 4:3. Many just stuck
    with that ratio when they started making chips specifically for still
    cams.

    Jim Townsend wrote:
    >
    > Harvey wrote:
    >
    > > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
    > > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
    > > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
    > > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
    > > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
    > > 1.50?

    >
    > Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
    > is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
    > aspect ratio of your screen.
    >
    > If it was anything other, you'd probably have people asking why they have
    > to crop to make wallpapers out of their images.


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Feb 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Harvey

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Don Stauffer wrote:

    > Consider that the first digital cameras used CCD chips originally
    > intended for camcorders. That is why they were 4:3. Many just stuck
    > with that ratio when they started making chips specifically for still
    > cams.


    Excellent point :)

    > Jim Townsend wrote:
    >
    >> Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
    >> is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
    >> aspect ratio of your screen.
    >>
     
    Jim Townsend, Feb 6, 2004
    #9
  10. Jim Townsend <> writes:

    > Harvey wrote:
    >
    > > My Kodak DC280 has a pixel ratio of horizontal to vertical of 1.506 in the
    > > highest quality setting which makes for nice 6 by 4 prints. On the other
    > > hand my sister's Nikon 3100 has a ratio of 1.33 which makes for white bars
    > > at top and bottom of a 6 by 4 print. Seeing that 6 by 4 is the most common
    > > print size, why would Nikon choose a ratio of 1.33 rather than shoot for
    > > 1.50?

    >
    > Considering the most common method of viewing images from digital cameras
    > is via the computer monitor, it's little wonder the image has the same
    > aspect ratio of your screen.


    Hmm. I'm looking at 1600x1200 right now, which is indeed 4:3. But
    1280x1024 comes out to 5:4, and the Mac down the hall is at 16:10.

    > If it was anything other, you'd probably have people asking why they have
    > to crop to make wallpapers out of their images.


    --
    -Stephen H. Westin
    Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
    represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
     
    Stephen H. Westin, Feb 6, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Abrasha

    Hot pixel vs. stuck pixel

    Abrasha, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,493
    Steven Buglass
    Sep 2, 2003
  2. Tom Thackrey

    Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel

    Tom Thackrey, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    825
  3. Robert E. Williams

    Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel

    Robert E. Williams, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    546
    Don Stauffer
    Sep 16, 2003
  4. Mario
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    597
    Ben Thomas
    Jan 5, 2005
  5. Charles Sten

    Definition of "pixel transition ratio"

    Charles Sten, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    334
    Harvey
    Feb 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page