Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio
    instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?

    I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that
    photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
     
    Guest, Feb 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. You are assuming that all digital cameras have the same aspect ratio. That
    is simply not so. I personally wish for a frame with a ratio of 1.5 to match
    my dSLR.

    However, you are right that the general trend is towards a wide screen
    ration of 1.8. This has been discussed before without any conclusion.
    One theory was that wide screen format originated in movies moved on to TVs
    and as computers were used to display them computer monitors followed that
    trend and now photo frames follow computer monitors.
    Another theory suggests that wide screen computer monitors developed
    independantly of tv formats just because people liked to see two documents
    side by side on their monitor.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Feb 27, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Ali Guest

    Maybe because they play video clips too?

    To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether it's
    for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For stills, it's
    really ridiculous to use this format.
     
    Ali, Feb 27, 2008
    #3
  4. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Sure. The bottom line is that they mostly use CHEAP, low resolution,
    displays made for DVD players, and THEY are 16:9 which is the most
    common aspect ratio for movies these days.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I agree. It is unesthetic, and very difficult to make use of. There is
    inadequate vertical space for good composition, and excessive width for
    good balance, and one must move his eyes to take in all the frame. BAD,
    BAD, BAD!
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2008
    #5
  6. I'm a TV cameraman. Here in the days of transition between 4:3 and 16:9,
    sometimes we'll have 16:9 in our viewfinders, but it will also have a 4:3
    reticule marked electronically, and we'll have to compose for 4:3 but make
    sure our 16:9 isn't shooting off the set or picking up a crewmember
    standing a little too close to the action. Kind of a pain in the butt.
    And, of course, if and when they use the wide format, the action will be
    limited to the middle of the screen, because we had to keep it there so
    it was 4:3 safe. :)
     
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 28, 2008
    #6
  7. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Ron Hunter
    Except that it is not. (Unless you count TV shows as movies...)

    [Gimme 70x48mm!]
    Ilya
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Feb 28, 2008
    #7
  8. Blinky the Shark wrote:
    []
    FYI: in the UK most of the current broadcast output is now 16:9 format.
    Yes, there are sometimes stray folk just on the edges of shots, as you
    mentioned, and I also see images with poorer resolution which look like
    4:3 images cropped at top and bottom to produce 16:9 (or perhaps 14:9) and
    then resampled to full height.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 28, 2008
    #8
  9. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Not to mention the difficulty of keeping heads from being cut off in the
    16:9 format when you try to get close. SUCKS!
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2008
    #9
  10. Guest

    Allen Guest

    Don't knock 16:9. My first camera, 67 years ago, was a box camera that
    took 616 film. 616 and its thicker-spool cousin 116 had an image size of
    2.5" by 4.25", which is fairly close to 16:9. That size was excellent fo
    many landscapes, pictures of large family groups, and, as a vertical,
    pictures of one or two standing people. No one size is ideal, but that
    ratio is good for many things; otherwise, it wouldn't have become the
    movie standard. Also, it's the best thing that has happened (after
    color)for televised sports, such as football and basketball.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Feb 28, 2008
    #10
  11. Guest

    lubecki Guest

    Well, I'd disagree. I've been shooting with a Panasonic LX-1 for a
    while, which uses a 16:9 aspect ratio. I love it. It gives you much
    more interesting composition options:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/253807553
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/236082723
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/236081085
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/254499642
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/284095731
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/183900378

    All those pictures wouldn't be as interesting in the usual 4:3 format.

    Gniewko
     
    lubecki, Feb 28, 2008
    #11
  12. Guest

    lubecki Guest

    Huh? Why is that any different than in the 4:3 format? 16:9 just gives
    you more space on the sides.

    Gniwko
     
    lubecki, Feb 28, 2008
    #12
  13. Guest

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Well, I'd disagree. I've been shooting with a Panasonic LX-1 for a
    while, which uses a 16:9 aspect ratio. I love it. It gives you much
    more interesting composition options:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/253807553
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/236082723
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/236081085
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/254499642
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/284095731
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gniewko/183900378

    All those pictures wouldn't be as interesting in the usual 4:3 format.

    Gniewko

    Actually, I like the format for landscapes, and it's great for wide-screen
    monitor wallpaper.

    But, I'm wondering what happens when you try to display an image with a
    different ratio? Does the frame automatically center / crop it?

    I'm thinking of picking a couple up for my wife, but I'd like to know if
    it's worth it first.

    Thanks,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Feb 28, 2008
    #13
  14. Guest

    Steve Guest

    Speaking of digital photo frames, do you run an up-to-date virus
    scanner on your photo frame's memory if interfaces with your computer?

    If you bought one from Sams Club, Best Buy, Target or Costco, there's
    a good chance that it came to you, in the box, with a nasty trojan
    horse already installed on it ready to infect your computer.

    See story at:

    http://www.enterprise-security-toda...-Have-Virus/story.xhtml?story_id=130000AVIIN0

    Steve

    Story below in case link doesn't work.

    Digital Photo Frames May Harbor Elusive Trojan Horse
    By Jennifer LeClaire
    February 19, 2008 8:09AM

    The Mocmex Trojan horse from China arrives from infected digital photo
    frames or portable storage devices. The Mocmex virus may have been
    introduced during manufacture of digital photo frames in China. The
    Mocmex Trojan horse can avoid antivirus programs and the Windows
    firewall when photo frames are connected to a PC.

    Your digital photo frame could hold more than pictures, according to
    security Relevant Products/Services vendor Computer Associates. A
    virus on the device could steal data from your PC.

    The recently discovered virus has been identified as a Trojan horse
    from China that roots out passwords from online games. However, the
    authors may have more on the agenda than free game play.

    "It is a nasty worm that has a great deal of intelligence," Brian
    Grayek, who heads product development at Computer Associates, told the
    Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

    Mocmex Evades Detection

    Computer Associates calls the virus Mocmex. It recognizes and blocks
    antivirus protection from more than 100 security vendors. It also
    passes through the security and firewall built into Microsoft Relevant
    Products/Services Windows.

    Mocmex downloads files from remote locations, randomly names them, and
    hides them on infected PCs. The hidden agenda and the antivirus
    blocking make it difficult to trace and rid the machine of the virus
    that spreads through photo frames and portable storage devices plugged
    into infected PCs.

    Grayek called it the "nuclear bomb" of malware Relevant
    Products/Services, noting the Trojan authors are well-funded
    professionals who have designed the virus to capture information
    without leaving behind any digital footprints.

    The China Factor

    This isn't the first time this kind of incident has happened -- and
    it's unlikely to be the last, according to Graham Cluley, senior
    technology consultant at Sophos. However, he doesn't think hackers are
    deliberately targeting digital photo frames. It's more likely, he
    said, that an accident occurred during manufacturing.

    "Today, most of these electronic devices are manufactured in China and
    quality control may not always be all that it should be," Cluley said.
    "My suspicion is that the virus was introduced on the conveyor belt;
    perhaps one in every 50 devices is picked off the conveyor belt and
    plugged into a PC to check that it works. Now, if that PC was infected
    with a virus, that would mean that some of the devices are now
    infected with malware."

    The Good and Bad News

    For all the product-manufacturing issues in China, including millions
    of recalled toys making recent headlines, there is good news in the
    photo-frame case: The virus has been around for years, ultimately
    making it easier to remedy.

    Infected frames appear to be coming from Sam's Club, Best Buy, Target
    and Costco, according to SANS researchers. The challenge for retailers
    now, Cluley said, is getting a message to people who may have
    purchased the frames in the run-up to the holidays and may not have
    the right protection in place.

    "Our advice to computer users is to always scan any data-storage
    device they are plugging into their computer with an up-to-date
    antivirus [program] to make sure it is not harboring malicious code,"
    Cluley said. "Think of it this way. You may buy shrink-wrapped fruit
    in the supermarket, but you would still wash it before putting it in
    your mouth."
     
    Steve, Feb 28, 2008
    #14
  15. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Sports is something I rarely watch on TV, and NEVER photograph. I can
    see it's (16:9) use for landscape photography, but for dealing with
    people, or normal scale buildings, it stinks.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 29, 2008
    #15
  16. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    First, I have a good firewall, and anti-malware application. Second, I
    don't connect my photo frame to the computer. I write the card, and
    plug it in. I access the card with a file manager (Not Windows
    Explorer). I am pretty sure that any such trojan would quickly be
    discovered, and the FTC would quickly require recall of all such units,
    and severe penalties on the company. I can't credit this report.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 29, 2008
    #16
  17. Guest

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Try taking a portrait with it.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 29, 2008
    #17
  18. Try using it in "portrait" format!

    <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 29, 2008
    #18
  19. Guest

    user Guest


    It DOES??? For most pictures it gives LESS! Oops ... you DO take
    most picture with the long way vertical, don't you?

    Doug McDonald
     
    user, Feb 29, 2008
    #19
  20. Guest

    Steve Guest

    That's good for you that you don't connect your frame to your PC.
    Others might though. And you're right, the trojan was discovered.
    Quickly is relative. But you're wrong about recalls or penalties.
    When Apple and Seagate shipped iPods and hard drives with a virus
    installed from the factory, there was no FTC recall or penalty.

    Oh, and if you don't believe that Apple and Seagate shipped devices
    from the factory with a virus pre-installed, check out their own
    company websites. I'm sure the company wouldn't admit it themselves
    if it weren't true.

    http://seagate.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/seagate.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=5014
    Is it true that there has been a virus installed on new Maxtor drives?
    It is true that in late September 2007 Seagate discovered that one of
    our Taiwanese contract manufacturers with facilities located in China
    had introduced a virus to the Maxtor Basics PS 3200 external hard
    drives leaving their factory.

    http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/
    We recently discovered that a small number - less than 1% - of the
    Video iPods available for purchase after September 12, 2006, left our
    contract manufacturer carrying the Windows RavMonE.exe virus.

    The report about the picture frames is true whether you credit it or
    not.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Feb 29, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.