Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Resolution for 4x6 Prints

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 2:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
FinePix is 4mp.

I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.

The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping - but needs to be cropped
to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?

More about : resolution 4x6 prints

December 21, 2004 8:17:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
sfreeman@netomic.com says...
> I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> FinePix is 4mp.
>
> I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
> the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
> about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
> resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.
>
> The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping - but needs to be cropped
> to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
> to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
> but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?
>
>

If you look into the menu of the camera there MAY be a setting just below the
max resolution labeled 3:2..

If the camera has that setting, you will get an exact fit to a 4x6 print.

Some cameras have this setting, some dont.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:48:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c326aeef0f0992c989889@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> sfreeman@netomic.com says...
>
> If you look into the menu of the camera there MAY be a setting just below
the
> max resolution labeled 3:2..
>
> If the camera has that setting, you will get an exact fit to a 4x6 print.
>
> Some cameras have this setting, some dont.

Bear in mind, of course, that even cameras that do have a 4x6 setting
are cropping. They're just cropping in the camera, not afterwards
when printing. You won't get the full 4 mp unless the sensor itself
is manufactured in the 2:3 ratio - which is unlikely.

Alan
Related resources
December 21, 2004 10:43:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Your Kodak sensor was 3:2 (6x4) ratio where as the Fuji sensor at 2,272 x
1,704 pixels is 4:3 (6x4.5) ratio, ie a squarer format, nothing to do with
number of pixels just the chip they use.


<sfreeman@netomic.com> wrote in message
news:1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> FinePix is 4mp.
>
> I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
> the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
> about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
> resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.
>
> The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping - but needs to be cropped
> to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
> to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
> but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?
>
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 2:25:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

sfreeman@netomic.com wrote:
> I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> FinePix is 4mp.
>
> I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
> the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
> about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
> resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.
>
> The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping - but needs to be cropped
> to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
> to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
> but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?
>
First, Fuji's advice is laughable.
The aspect ratio (W:H) of a recorded image has NOTHING to do with the
number of megapixels the camera uses.
Most P/S digicams (including your Fuji Finepix S5100)use a 4:3 ratio
which corresponds to the shape of your monitor screen.
Some P/S cameras (including Kodak) use a 3:2 ratio which happens to
correspond to a 6x4 print. All DSLRs use 3:2 because that is the aspect
ratio of 35 mm film (24 x 36 mm).
However, if you use any other popular picture format, e.g. 5x7, 8x10,
11x14 etc. you will have to crop your image to that aspect ratio.
There is NO "one size fits all" aspect ratio for digital images.
Cropping and editing can be done in your photo editor.
If you don't have one, you can download a very capable one for free.
Irfanview is very popular with folks in this NG.
Go to: http://www.irfanview.com/
BTW, Your Finepix S5100 images do NOT fit a 5x6 aspect ratio without
cropping. It uses 4:3 ratio
Bob Williams
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 2:43:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<sfreeman@netomic.com> wrote in message
news:1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> FinePix is 4mp.

That's a strange answer they gave you. Your new camera presumably has a 4:3
aspect ratio like most (not all) recent digital cameras. Since a 4x6 print
has a 3:2 aspect ratio (to fit the 35mm frame it was originally intended
for), there is no way your digital camera can make a 4x6 print without
cropping a little off the top and/or bottom. Most other digital camera users
are in exactly the same boat as you are in this respect.

Some older Fuji digital cameras (e.g. the MX-2900, which was 2.3 MP) did
have a 3:2 aspect ratio and could make a 4x6 print without cropping. Perhaps
your older Kodak was like that too. But it isn't the difference in pixel
count that makes it so.


>
> I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
> the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
> about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
> resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.

Well, not exactly. Most (again, not all) digital cameras today have a 4:3
aspect ratio at EVERY resolution. For example, one of my 5MP cameras offers
resolutions of 2560x1920 (5 MP), 2048x1536 (3.2 MP), 1600x1200 (2 MP) and
640x480. Note that ALL of those are 4:3 and ALL would require the same
cropping to fit a 4x6 print.

There are cameras that do offer some resolutions with a 3:2 aspect ratio. I
don't know about your Fuji.


>
> The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping

I think you mean 5x7, which is the next larger standard print size. That
would still require some cropping but since it is closer to the 3:2 aspect
ratio it wouldn't be as noticeable.


> - but needs to be cropped
> to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
> to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
> but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?

Your assumption is correct, higher MP images do not have a different aspect
ratio just because they have more pixels.

N.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 9:36:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks to all of you! All excellent answers. I get it now. It's a
4:3 ratio versus a 3:2 ratio thing - which is what I was observing.
Fuji customer service just didn't explain it very well. They said it
was because of the higher megapixel resolution. And bravo to Google
Groups! I got all these excellent responses in less than 24 hours.
Thank you for your time.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 12:27:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bet you now wish you paid attention when they were teaching how to multiply
and divide fractions/ratios in school!

Eric Miller

<sfreeman@netomic.com> wrote in message
news:1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> FinePix is 4mp.
>
> I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
> the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
> about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
> resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.
>
> The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping - but needs to be cropped
> to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
> to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
> but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?
>
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 8:17:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<sfreeman@netomic.com> wrote in message
news:1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> FinePix is 4mp.
>

You've already gotten the correct answer, I just wanted to comment that the
answer from Fuji consumer "service" is absolutely terrible - they should be
embarassed.

Mark
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 8:17:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio. Thus, digital camera
designers mostly make cameras that produce images that fill the entire
PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6" print.

Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can pick
whichever your primary destination will be.

Why they bothered with 4:3 vs. 3:2 is one of those dumb design things
where nobody was thinking long-term -- they just didn't standardize on
what was already out there, came up with something new, and voila!
cropping. (almost as nutty as NTSC vs. PAL....)
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 9:08:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cqcse4$9ah$1@news.service.uci.edu>, David Chien
<chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:

> All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.

*most* monitors are 4:3. portrait monitors exsisted back in the 80s and
today, widescreen monitors are becoming common. prints can be any ratio
the user wants; standard paper sizes vary. 4x6 is a 2:3 ratio but 5x7
(close but not quite), 8x10, 8.5 x 11, 11x14 and panorama papers are
not.

> Thus, digital camera
> designers mostly make cameras that produce images that fill the entire
> PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6" print.

for consumer cameras, yes.

> Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can pick
> whichever your primary destination will be.

dslrs have only 3:2.

cameras that have the choice just crop in the camera. there is no point
other than a slightly smaller file size. it is much better to crop
later, just in case you want the additional parts of the image for a
different aspect ratio.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 9:24:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> writes:

> All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio. Thus, digital camera
> designers mostly make cameras that produce images that fill the entire PC
> monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6" print.

Ummm, while the majority of monitors might be 4:3, it isn't the only size.
There are other popular sizes like widescreen (16:9), or standard 17" LCD
1280x1024 (5:4).

Of the standard print sizes I have printed, only 4x6 is 3:2 ratio. You also
have 5:4 (8x10, 16x20), 11:14 (11x14), 7:5 (5x7), etc.

So in summary while those might be the default sizes you are used to, they
aren't the only possible sizes.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 3:12:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:221220041808530305%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <cqcse4$9ah$1@news.service.uci.edu>, David Chien
> <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.
>
> *most* monitors are 4:3. portrait monitors exsisted back in the 80s and
> today, widescreen monitors are becoming common. prints can be any ratio
> the user wants; standard paper sizes vary. 4x6 is a 2:3 ratio but 5x7
> (close but not quite), 8x10, 8.5 x 11, 11x14 and panorama papers are
> not.
>
>> Thus, digital camera
>> designers mostly make cameras that produce images that fill the entire
>> PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6"
>> print.
>
> for consumer cameras, yes.
>
>> Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can pick
>> whichever your primary destination will be.
>
> dslrs have only 3:2.
>
> cameras that have the choice just crop in the camera. there is no point
> other than a slightly smaller file size. it is much better to crop
> later, just in case you want the additional parts of the image for a
> different aspect ratio.

Maybe in some cases, but generally if the user is going to just run off 4x6
prints on a Wal-Mart Fujifilm machine or whatever, it makes sense to use a
3:2 format to begin with so that the shot can be composed that way on the
camera's monitor. That way there are no unpleasant surprises, and no need to
fuss with software in between.

As you say, "cameras that have the choice just crop in the camera," but it's
a choice I like to have when taking shots that I KNOW are going to end up as
4x6s. It's one of the things I love about my Pentax Optio 750Z, which offers
as many resolution choices in 3:2 as it does in 4:3. Some other cameras
offer 3:2 only at the highest resolution, which makes little sense to me.

N.
December 23, 2004 3:46:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:28:56 -0800
In message <cqcse4$9ah$1@news.service.uci.edu>
Posted from University of California, Irvine
David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:

> All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.

Assuming you meant to write "as": meaningless statement.

Assuming you meant to write "are": false statement.

Regardless, the following is partially correct
regarding camera and computer monitor ratios:

> Thus, digital camera designers mostly make
> cameras that produce images that fill the entire
> PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6" print.
>
> Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can pick
> whichever your primary destination will be.
>
> Why they bothered with 4:3 vs. 3:2 is one of those dumb design things
> where nobody was thinking long-term

The decision WAS a long term decision. 'Sell the basic technology
today (which was years ago) to get the masses interested in digital
photography, and get the cash rolling for the future changes.'

> -- they just didn't standardize on
> what was already out there,

Wrong. They used the aspect ration used on 99.99% of the computer
monitors used world wide. You have to consider the international
black market, and the software that was bootlegged on those machines
over the last couple decades. Many countries STILL have flourishing
black markets for old computers... our throw-away's.

That 99.99 percentage is now probably 98.9% and is about to start
dropping rapidly.

> came up with something new, and voila!
> cropping. (almost as nutty as NTSC vs. PAL....)

Uh, 4:3 is about to become history for computer
monitors in favor of widescreen compatible screens.
(The turnover will take a few years, but it's on
the way now. Soon, there will be no where to
buy a new 4:3 monitor.)

Heck, if you think still photography is confusing,
have you studied video and DVD formats? It's a
nightmare (and that is understated, imo).

Q: Assuming a television 1/2 life of 5 years based on your own
viewing and calibration habits, with a focus on collecting DVD movies
today, what format television would be a "best buy"?

1) Good old 4:3
2) EDTV
3) HDTV

Bonus questions: ;^)

Q: If widescreen DVD's were your preference,
would that change your tv answer?

Q: How would "anamorphic" effect your tv decision?

Q: Knowing you were going to replace the tv in 5-10
years, what technology TV would you buy? And why?

(ie tube, plasma, rear projection, LCD, etc)

Q: What is the difference between a TV monitor and
a computer monitor?

Q: Finally, considering all the above, would you, a
photographer, get a tv "monitor" or a tv "set"?

Jeff
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 7:16:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:7c3ks0t2fj7om5epvov6hveaaprmqu9me2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:28:56 -0800
> In message <cqcse4$9ah$1@news.service.uci.edu>
> Posted from University of California, Irvine
> David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.
>
> Assuming you meant to write "as": meaningless statement.
>
> Assuming you meant to write "are": false statement.

Can you clarify that?


>
> Regardless, the following is partially correct
> regarding camera and computer monitor ratios:
>
>> Thus, digital camera designers mostly make
>> cameras that produce images that fill the entire
>> PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6"
>> print.
>>
>> Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can pick
>> whichever your primary destination will be.
>>
>> Why they bothered with 4:3 vs. 3:2 is one of those dumb design things
>> where nobody was thinking long-term
>
> The decision WAS a long term decision. 'Sell the basic technology
> today (which was years ago) to get the masses interested in digital
> photography, and get the cash rolling for the future changes.'

If you're suggesting it's all planned obsolesence, I don't think so. You
yourself explain in your next paragraph why it was done that way.


>
>> -- they just didn't standardize on
>> what was already out there,
>
> Wrong. They used the aspect ration used on 99.99% of the computer
> monitors used world wide.

And that's why. What else could they have done, really? Some did (and do)
make 3:2 cameras, but people viewing their images on 4:3 monitors (as I
suspect most of them do, most of the time) want their screens filled.


> You have to consider the international
> black market, and the software that was bootlegged on those machines
> over the last couple decades. Many countries STILL have flourishing
> black markets for old computers... our throw-away's.
>
> That 99.99 percentage is now probably 98.9% and is about to start
> dropping rapidly.
>
>> came up with something new, and voila!
>> cropping. (almost as nutty as NTSC vs. PAL....)
>
> Uh, 4:3 is about to become history for computer
> monitors in favor of widescreen compatible screens.

Widescreen? It may be going the other way, toward narrower (i.e., more
square) screen. LCD monitors are rapidly becoming more popular in the 17"
and larger sizes, and those are mostly 1280x1024 native resolution--which is
5:4. I don't see any movement toward or much interest in widescreen computer
monitors. For Web surfing or word processing, more height is useful--more
width generally wouldn't be. And those are probably the activities that most
people use computers for.


> (The turnover will take a few years, but it's on
> the way now. Soon, there will be no where to
> buy a new 4:3 monitor.)
>
> Heck, if you think still photography is confusing,
> have you studied video and DVD formats? It's a
> nightmare (and that is understated, imo).
>
> Q: Assuming a television 1/2 life of 5 years based on your own
> viewing and calibration habits, with a focus on collecting DVD movies
> today, what format television would be a "best buy"?
>
> 1) Good old 4:3
> 2) EDTV
> 3) HDTV

The problem with movies on DVD in relation to TV screen aspect ratio is that
there is NO format which perfectly or even approximately fits all movie
formats, and there never can be. Except for watching mostly pre-1950s movies
on a 4:3 screen, you are always going to have black bars somewhere, either
on the sides or on the top and bottom, unless the movie is cropped to fit
the screen--which I think we can agree is not a satisfactory solution. The
16:9 aspect ratio of a widescreen TV is reasonably close to 1.85:1
widescreen movies, but most widescreen movies are much wider than that. A
widescreen TV still gives a good deal of letterboxing when showing a 2.35:1
movie, and that is probably the most common widescreen format--with some
movies ranging from 2.40:1 to 2.75:1 or so.

There just is no really satisfactory answer to the TV aspect ratio question
and never will be, unless someone invents a TV that you can stretch
lengthwise like a dining-room table with extensions. :-)

N.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 7:38:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:7c3ks0t2fj7om5epvov6hveaaprmqu9me2@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:28:56 -0800
>>In message <cqcse4$9ah$1@news.service.uci.edu>
>>Posted from University of California, Irvine
>>David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.
>>
>>Assuming you meant to write "as": meaningless statement.
>>
>>Assuming you meant to write "are": false statement.
>
>
> Can you clarify that?
>
>
>
>>Regardless, the following is partially correct
>>regarding camera and computer monitor ratios:
>>
>>
>>>Thus, digital camera designers mostly make
>>>cameras that produce images that fill the entire
>>>PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6"
>>>print.
>>>
>>>Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can pick
>>>whichever your primary destination will be.
>>>
>>>Why they bothered with 4:3 vs. 3:2 is one of those dumb design things
>>>where nobody was thinking long-term
>>
>>The decision WAS a long term decision. 'Sell the basic technology
>>today (which was years ago) to get the masses interested in digital
>>photography, and get the cash rolling for the future changes.'
>
>
> If you're suggesting it's all planned obsolesence, I don't think so. You
> yourself explain in your next paragraph why it was done that way.
>
>
>
>>>-- they just didn't standardize on
>>>what was already out there,
>>
>>Wrong. They used the aspect ration used on 99.99% of the computer
>>monitors used world wide.
>
>
> And that's why. What else could they have done, really? Some did (and do)
> make 3:2 cameras, but people viewing their images on 4:3 monitors (as I
> suspect most of them do, most of the time) want their screens filled.
>
>
>
>>You have to consider the international
>>black market, and the software that was bootlegged on those machines
>>over the last couple decades. Many countries STILL have flourishing
>>black markets for old computers... our throw-away's.
>>
>>That 99.99 percentage is now probably 98.9% and is about to start
>>dropping rapidly.
>>
>>
>>>came up with something new, and voila!
>>>cropping. (almost as nutty as NTSC vs. PAL....)
>>
>>Uh, 4:3 is about to become history for computer
>>monitors in favor of widescreen compatible screens.
>
>
> Widescreen? It may be going the other way, toward narrower (i.e., more
> square) screen. LCD monitors are rapidly becoming more popular in the 17"
> and larger sizes, and those are mostly 1280x1024 native resolution--which is
> 5:4. I don't see any movement toward or much interest in widescreen computer
> monitors. For Web surfing or word processing, more height is useful--more
> width generally wouldn't be. And those are probably the activities that most
> people use computers for.
>
>
>
>>(The turnover will take a few years, but it's on
>>the way now. Soon, there will be no where to
>>buy a new 4:3 monitor.)
>>
>>Heck, if you think still photography is confusing,
>>have you studied video and DVD formats? It's a
>>nightmare (and that is understated, imo).
>>
>>Q: Assuming a television 1/2 life of 5 years based on your own
>>viewing and calibration habits, with a focus on collecting DVD movies
>>today, what format television would be a "best buy"?
>>
>>1) Good old 4:3
>>2) EDTV
>>3) HDTV
>
>
> The problem with movies on DVD in relation to TV screen aspect ratio is that
> there is NO format which perfectly or even approximately fits all movie
> formats, and there never can be. Except for watching mostly pre-1950s movies
> on a 4:3 screen, you are always going to have black bars somewhere, either
> on the sides or on the top and bottom, unless the movie is cropped to fit
> the screen--which I think we can agree is not a satisfactory solution. The
> 16:9 aspect ratio of a widescreen TV is reasonably close to 1.85:1
> widescreen movies, but most widescreen movies are much wider than that. A
> widescreen TV still gives a good deal of letterboxing when showing a 2.35:1
> movie, and that is probably the most common widescreen format--with some
> movies ranging from 2.40:1 to 2.75:1 or so.
>
> There just is no really satisfactory answer to the TV aspect ratio question
> and never will be, unless someone invents a TV that you can stretch
> lengthwise like a dining-room table with extensions. :-)
>
> N.

Hi...

I propose that we resolve this whole issue by going
back to the original tv format - for those of us not
old enough to remember - round :) 

Ken
December 23, 2004 12:58:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:16:20 GMT
In message <oEryd.4950$by5.2937@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
"Nostrobino" <not.here@ultranet.com> wrote:

> <SNIP>

First, a short reply to correct a small but very important typo on my
part. (I hate when I make an error that changes the entire tone and
intent of a serious reply.)

> > David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.
> >

I wrote:
> > Assuming you meant to write "as": meaningless statement.

The typo "as" should have been "at".

> > Assuming you meant to write "are": false statement.
>
> Can you clarify that?

Uh, yeah. ;^)

If David did not make a typo...

"All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio."

....the statement is meaningless. It's obscure and makes his follow up
comments confusing to interpret.

If he made a typo and meant to write...

"All monitors ARE 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio."

....then it's a false statement.

My apologies to David for confusing the heck out of everything.

Now, on to a reply with MY typo corrected. :-)

Jeff
December 23, 2004 1:47:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:16:20 GMT
In message <oEryd.4950$by5.2937@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
"Nostrobino" <not.here@ultranet.com> wrote:

> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:7c3ks0t2fj7om5epvov6hveaaprmqu9me2@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:28:56 -0800
> > In message <cqcse4$9ah$1@news.service.uci.edu>
> > Posted from University of California, Irvine
> > David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.
> >
> > Assuming you meant to write "AT": meaningless statement.
> >
> > Assuming you meant to write "ARE": false statement.
>
> Can you clarify that?

I hope it's clear now. David made a statement and followed it up with
"Thus, digital... etc", drawing a conclusion from incorrect
information.

> > Regardless, the following is partially correct
> > regarding camera and computer monitor ratios:
> >
> > > Thus, digital camera designers mostly make
> > > cameras that produce images that fill the entire
> > > PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6"
> > > print.
> > >
> > > Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can pick
> > > whichever your primary destination will be.
> > >
> > > Why they bothered with 4:3 vs. 3:2 is one of those dumb design things
> > > where nobody was thinking long-term
> >
> > The decision WAS a long term decision. 'Sell the basic technology
> > today (which was years ago) to get the masses interested in digital
> > photography, and get the cash rolling for the future changes.'
>
> If you're suggesting it's all planned obsolesence, I don't think so. You
> yourself explain in your next paragraph why it was done that way.

I wasn't implying planned obsolescence. We see that every year, but
in this case it was a simple matter of what was widely available.
Also, the monitor manufactures were working like mad inventing all
kinds of display technology and they had to stick with a 4:3 format
for computer software compatibility. Change is now in progress but it
is a struggle to make sense out of all the formats (as you indicate
below).

IOW... we agree on most if not all points. (Kinda rare on usenet,
especially when the subject is extremely diverse. Heh...)

> > > -- they just didn't standardize on
> > > what was already out there,
> >
> > Wrong. They used the aspect ration used on 99.99% of the computer
> > monitors used world wide.
>
> And that's why. What else could they have done, really? Some did (and do)
> make 3:2 cameras, but people viewing their images on 4:3 monitors (as I
> suspect most of them do, most of the time) want their screens filled.

Yup. However, we are now entering a state of change and there is
going to be a battle between monitor and TV companies for domination
of one format. This time I hope for sanity to rule... but then I've
always been a dreamer.

> > You have to consider the international
> > black market, and the software that was bootlegged on those machines
> > over the last couple decades. Many countries STILL have flourishing
> > black markets for old computers... our throw-away's.
> >
> > That 99.99 percentage is now probably 98.9% and is about to start
> > dropping rapidly.
> >
> > > came up with something new, and voila!
> > > cropping. (almost as nutty as NTSC vs. PAL....)
> >
> > Uh, 4:3 is about to become history for computer
> > monitors in favor of widescreen compatible screens.
>
> Widescreen? It may be going the other way, toward narrower (i.e., more
> square) screen. LCD monitors are rapidly becoming more popular in the 17"
> and larger sizes, and those are mostly 1280x1024 native resolution--which is
> 5:4. I don't see any movement toward or much interest in widescreen computer
> monitors. For Web surfing or word processing, more height is useful--more
> width generally wouldn't be. And those are probably the activities that most
> people use computers for.

I agree in one sense: I've always wanted computer monitors turned 90
degrees with increased resolution. That won't happen... the monitors
are going to get wider and have a higher resolution effectively
creating two monitors turned 90 degrees... in a twisted sense. ;^)

I currently use a 15" IBM Flexview TFT at 1600x1200 pixels and can
clearly read a full page of text. If the monitor had a 16:9 aspect
ratio with a 2132 x 1200 pixel resolution it would be capable of
displaying most any film and video format accurately.

That ppi is going to double very soon, and our monitors will have the
clearity and dynamics of a good 300 dpi print. Those monitors will
have a widescreen format... or as I've always called it, a shortscreen
format. ;^)

In a nutshell, we'll have monitors that will display two page
side-by-side page layouts, any ratio photograph, film and video format
at very respectable resolutions (often exceeding the actualy ppi/dpi
of the incoming media).

> > (The turnover will take a few years, but it's on
> > the way now. Soon, there will be no where to
> > buy a new 4:3 monitor.)
> >
> > Heck, if you think still photography is confusing,
> > have you studied video and DVD formats? It's a
> > nightmare (and that is understated, imo).
> >
> > Q: Assuming a television 1/2 life of 5 years based on your own
> > viewing and calibration habits, with a focus on collecting DVD movies
> > today, what format television would be a "best buy"?
> >
> > 1) Good old 4:3
> > 2) EDTV
> > 3) HDTV
>
> The problem with movies on DVD in relation to TV screen aspect ratio is that
> there is NO format which perfectly or even approximately fits all movie
> formats, and there never can be. Except for watching mostly pre-1950s movies
> on a 4:3 screen, you are always going to have black bars somewhere, either
> on the sides or on the top and bottom, unless the movie is cropped to fit
> the screen--which I think we can agree is not a satisfactory solution. The
> 16:9 aspect ratio of a widescreen TV is reasonably close to 1.85:1
> widescreen movies, but most widescreen movies are much wider than that. A
> widescreen TV still gives a good deal of letterboxing when showing a 2.35:1
> movie, and that is probably the most common widescreen format--with some
> movies ranging from 2.40:1 to 2.75:1 or so.
>
> There just is no really satisfactory answer to the TV aspect ratio question
> and never will be, unless someone invents a TV that you can stretch
> lengthwise like a dining-room table with extensions. :-)

Heh... uh, that is more or less what we are going to have in the near
future. Very large screens that do something other than "mask" out
unused areas with black bars. My preference would be a matt that can
be wallpapered to match the room and therefore be virtually "out of
the picture". <G>

In any case, the vast amount of DVDs in production today have a
maximum resolution of 720 x 480 (please correct me if 720 is
incorrect;^) therefore an EDTV is a best fit for todays video. I got
a Panasonic mil-spec plasma EDTV monitor last year and love it. I
always buy (when possible) anamorphic or 16x9 mastered movies and my
grandson and I always agree that the native mastered resolution
renders the best picture.

The so-called black bars on that monitor are meaningless compared to
the superb picture. Going to a movie theater now is usually a
disappointment in sound and picture.

Jumping back on topic, once I got used to it, I like the 3:2 format
for virtual 35mm photography. I prefer NOT cropping what I see
through the viewfinder when I press the shutter button. And I prefer
to have the hardware and software give me the maximum print resolution
possible regardless what some bozo user (ie self) does or does not set
for a DPI.

Jeff
December 23, 2004 1:49:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:38:41 GMT
In message <lZryd.545569$Pl.486099@pd7tw1no>
Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Hi...
>
> I propose that we resolve this whole issue by going
> back to the original tv format - for those of us not
> old enough to remember - round :) 

Works for me! Just remember to make it big enough
to have room to matt the screen for the incoming
media otherwise I'll get terminally confused. :) 

Jeff
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 4:58:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Sfreeman,

I suspect that the setting for the image size was set to the 4:3 format
instead of the 3:2 format. Recent Kodak cameras have both, so it is a
matter of how you set the camera before your picture taking. I am going to
guess that your new camera likely has a similar setting. Just review the
menu and manual for your camera to find out how to make those changes. If
it does not have them, then you will have to crop the image to what you
want.

Good luck, let me know if you think I can help in your picture taking.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




<sfreeman@netomic.com> wrote in message
news:1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> FinePix is 4mp.
>
> I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
> the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
> about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
> resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.
>
> The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping - but needs to be cropped
> to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
> to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
> but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?
>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:28:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:as4ls0tbgscdb6neqlqjm1f7lv96tj5mrt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:16:20 GMT
> In message <oEryd.4950$by5.2937@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
> "Nostrobino" <not.here@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> <SNIP>
>
> First, a short reply to correct a small but very important typo on my
> part. (I hate when I make an error that changes the entire tone and
> intent of a serious reply.)
>
>> > David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.
>> >
>
> I wrote:
>> > Assuming you meant to write "as": meaningless statement.
>
> The typo "as" should have been "at".
>
>> > Assuming you meant to write "are": false statement.
>>
>> Can you clarify that?
>
> Uh, yeah. ;^)
>
> If David did not make a typo...
>
> "All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio."
>
> ...the statement is meaningless. It's obscure and makes his follow up
> comments confusing to interpret.
>
> If he made a typo and meant to write...
>
> "All monitors ARE 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio."

Okay. That's what I think he meant.


>
> ...then it's a false statement.

It's false because of the "all" (heh, same principle that makes most
absolute statements false), but it's probably true for 99% of the monitors
in use today.

N.



>
> My apologies to David for confusing the heck out of everything.
>
> Now, on to a reply with MY typo corrected. :-)
>
> Jeff
December 23, 2004 10:38:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> wrote in message
news:cqf49o$e7s$1@news.kodak.com...
> Greetings Sfreeman,
>
> I suspect that the setting for the image size was set to the 4:3 format
> instead of the 3:2 format. Recent Kodak cameras have both, so it is a
> matter of how you set the camera before your picture taking. I am going
to
> guess that your new camera likely has a similar setting. Just review the
> menu and manual for your camera to find out how to make those changes. If
> it does not have them, then you will have to crop the image to what you
> want.
>
> Good luck, let me know if you think I can help in your picture taking.
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
>
>
> <sfreeman@netomic.com> wrote in message
> news:1103657459.596997.198090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I recently purchased a Fuji FinePix S5100. It takes excellent photos.
> > However, I can not print 4x6 prints without cropping the photo. My
> > previous Kodak digital camera fit a 4x6 print without cropping. I
> > asked Fuji and they said it is because my old camera was a 2mp and the
> > FinePix is 4mp.
> >
> > I understand that the image size is larger and higher resolution. And
> > the images needs to be resized (shrunk) to fit 4x6. My question is
> > about the proportions. Lower resolution fit 4x6 - but higher
> > resolution images appear almost square rather than rectangular.
> >
> > The FinePix images fit 5x6 without cropping - but needs to be cropped
> > to fit 4x6. Why do the higher megapixel images have a different height
> > to width ratio? Why are they not just higher megapixel (finer quality)
> > but still able to fit 4x6 ratio without cropping?
> >
>
>

Keep in mind that one probably will throw away some percentage of the total
pixels if the image has to be cropped to fit the 3.2 aspect ratio. I have
noticed that even on cameras that offer both 4.3 and 3.2, the 3.2 has less
pixels. That could result in some degradation of the image, especially on
low-megapixel cameras.

It also means that one must frame the image with the proper aspect ratio in
mind. For example, one should be careful taking group shots to not have the
group members spread across the entire frame, as the people on the ends
might get cut off.

Finally, I wonder if the optical viewfinder shows the image as 4.3 or 3.2?
(My camera has only a 3.2 aspect ratio--same as a 35mm negative). What the
photographer sees in the LCD or the optical viewfinder might not be what he
prints out . . .
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 11:12:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:qi5ls0590v7v9dj1opg09cbuckpobtgvko@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:16:20 GMT
> In message <oEryd.4950$by5.2937@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
> "Nostrobino" <not.here@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
>> news:7c3ks0t2fj7om5epvov6hveaaprmqu9me2@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:28:56 -0800
>> > In message <cqcse4$9ah$1@news.service.uci.edu>
>> > Posted from University of California, Irvine
>> > David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > All monitors at 4:3 ratio, prints are 3:2 ratio.
>> >
>> > Assuming you meant to write "AT": meaningless statement.
>> >
>> > Assuming you meant to write "ARE": false statement.
>>
>> Can you clarify that?
>
> I hope it's clear now. David made a statement and followed it up with
> "Thus, digital... etc", drawing a conclusion from incorrect
> information.

Yep, clear now.


>
>> > Regardless, the following is partially correct
>> > regarding camera and computer monitor ratios:
>> >
>> > > Thus, digital camera designers mostly make
>> > > cameras that produce images that fill the entire
>> > > PC monitor screen (4:3), and leave it to cropping to fit a 3:2 4x6"
>> > > print.
>> > >
>> > > Some digicams have both formats (eg. Most Sony digicams) so you can
>> > > pick
>> > > whichever your primary destination will be.
>> > >
>> > > Why they bothered with 4:3 vs. 3:2 is one of those dumb design things
>> > > where nobody was thinking long-term
>> >
>> > The decision WAS a long term decision. 'Sell the basic technology
>> > today (which was years ago) to get the masses interested in digital
>> > photography, and get the cash rolling for the future changes.'
>>
>> If you're suggesting it's all planned obsolesence, I don't think so. You
>> yourself explain in your next paragraph why it was done that way.
>
> I wasn't implying planned obsolescence. We see that every year, but
> in this case it was a simple matter of what was widely available.
> Also, the monitor manufactures were working like mad inventing all
> kinds of display technology and they had to stick with a 4:3 format
> for computer software compatibility. Change is now in progress but it
> is a struggle to make sense out of all the formats (as you indicate
> below).
>
> IOW... we agree on most if not all points. (Kinda rare on usenet,
> especially when the subject is extremely diverse. Heh...)

Indeed. :-)


>
>> > > -- they just didn't standardize on
>> > > what was already out there,
>> >
>> > Wrong. They used the aspect ration used on 99.99% of the computer
>> > monitors used world wide.
>>
>> And that's why. What else could they have done, really? Some did (and do)
>> make 3:2 cameras, but people viewing their images on 4:3 monitors (as I
>> suspect most of them do, most of the time) want their screens filled.
>
> Yup. However, we are now entering a state of change and there is
> going to be a battle between monitor and TV companies for domination
> of one format. This time I hope for sanity to rule... but then I've
> always been a dreamer.

I don't really see what they can do other than what they are doing. For TV,
widescreen makes sense because virtually all movies are made in *some*
widescreen format today. The 16:9 aspect ratio doesn't really fit any format
except the Pixar movies which have come out in 1.78:1, probably because
they're also intended for DVD distribution from the get-go. It's close
enough for 1.85:1 a.r. where the letterboxing is almost unnoticeable, much
less satisfactory for the more common movies of 2.35:1 and wider. On the
other hand, to make the TV screen wider would make it worse for all the 4:3
material that's going to be around for many decades to come, from old movies
to old TV favorites like The Avengers, Monty Python, etc. Many of us want
that stuff and collect it avidly. In fact 16:9 is even too wide for early
widescreen movies such as those made with the original Vista Vision process,
usually 1.66:1. So some sort of compromise is necessary, and while 16:9 has
its drawbacks it seems as good an overall compromise as anyone's likely to
come up with.

Computer monitors just don't have the same purpose (though I do enjoy
sometimes watching DVDs on my computers) and just have no reason to go
widescreen as far as I can see. On the contrary, as mentioned I think it's
likely that 4:3 monitors will slip in the market as 5:4 continues to gain in
popularity.


>
>> > You have to consider the international
>> > black market, and the software that was bootlegged on those machines
>> > over the last couple decades. Many countries STILL have flourishing
>> > black markets for old computers... our throw-away's.
>> >
>> > That 99.99 percentage is now probably 98.9% and is about to start
>> > dropping rapidly.
>> >
>> > > came up with something new, and voila!
>> > > cropping. (almost as nutty as NTSC vs. PAL....)
>> >
>> > Uh, 4:3 is about to become history for computer
>> > monitors in favor of widescreen compatible screens.
>>
>> Widescreen? It may be going the other way, toward narrower (i.e., more
>> square) screen. LCD monitors are rapidly becoming more popular in the 17"
>> and larger sizes, and those are mostly 1280x1024 native resolution--which
>> is
>> 5:4. I don't see any movement toward or much interest in widescreen
>> computer
>> monitors. For Web surfing or word processing, more height is useful--more
>> width generally wouldn't be. And those are probably the activities that
>> most
>> people use computers for.
>
> I agree in one sense: I've always wanted computer monitors turned 90
> degrees with increased resolution. That won't happen... the monitors
> are going to get wider and have a higher resolution effectively
> creating two monitors turned 90 degrees... in a twisted sense. ;^)
>
> I currently use a 15" IBM Flexview TFT at 1600x1200 pixels and can
> clearly read a full page of text.

At what type size, though? A friend of mine has a 15" screen that does
1600x1200 on his laptop--he uses it almost entirely for digital photo stuff
and so wants all the resolution he can get (and let's face it, 1600x1200 is
still only 2 megapixels) and he can't read normal text on his desktop *at
all* at that res without his glasses. Neither can I. His vision without
glasses is better than mine, but without glasses I can read the same normal
text on my 19" CRT at 1152x864, or even 1280x1024 if I really have to. (My
19" monitor also does 1600x1200, but I virtually never use it.)


> If the monitor had a 16:9 aspect
> ratio with a 2132 x 1200 pixel resolution it would be capable of
> displaying most any film and video format accurately.
>
> That ppi is going to double very soon, and our monitors will have the
> clearity and dynamics of a good 300 dpi print. Those monitors will
> have a widescreen format... or as I've always called it, a shortscreen
> format. ;^)
>
> In a nutshell, we'll have monitors that will display two page
> side-by-side page layouts, any ratio photograph, film and video format
> at very respectable resolutions (often exceeding the actualy ppi/dpi
> of the incoming media).

I''ll bet you 17,500 zorknids that doesn't happen. :-)

That is, I'll bet there never will be a significant market for widescreen
computer monitors, or any doubling of monitor ppi either as far as the
general market is concerned. Of course for very high-priced, specialized
products anything is possible.



>
>> > (The turnover will take a few years, but it's on
>> > the way now. Soon, there will be no where to
>> > buy a new 4:3 monitor.)
>> >
>> > Heck, if you think still photography is confusing,
>> > have you studied video and DVD formats? It's a
>> > nightmare (and that is understated, imo).
>> >
>> > Q: Assuming a television 1/2 life of 5 years based on your own
>> > viewing and calibration habits, with a focus on collecting DVD movies
>> > today, what format television would be a "best buy"?
>> >
>> > 1) Good old 4:3
>> > 2) EDTV
>> > 3) HDTV
>>
>> The problem with movies on DVD in relation to TV screen aspect ratio is
>> that
>> there is NO format which perfectly or even approximately fits all movie
>> formats, and there never can be. Except for watching mostly pre-1950s
>> movies
>> on a 4:3 screen, you are always going to have black bars somewhere,
>> either
>> on the sides or on the top and bottom, unless the movie is cropped to fit
>> the screen--which I think we can agree is not a satisfactory solution.
>> The
>> 16:9 aspect ratio of a widescreen TV is reasonably close to 1.85:1
>> widescreen movies, but most widescreen movies are much wider than that. A
>> widescreen TV still gives a good deal of letterboxing when showing a
>> 2.35:1
>> movie, and that is probably the most common widescreen format--with some
>> movies ranging from 2.40:1 to 2.75:1 or so.
>>
>> There just is no really satisfactory answer to the TV aspect ratio
>> question
>> and never will be, unless someone invents a TV that you can stretch
>> lengthwise like a dining-room table with extensions. :-)
>
> Heh... uh, that is more or less what we are going to have in the near
> future. Very large screens that do something other than "mask" out
> unused areas with black bars. My preference would be a matt that can
> be wallpapered to match the room and therefore be virtually "out of
> the picture". <G>

But the screen will still have to be there under the wallpaper, won't it?
:-)


>
> In any case, the vast amount of DVDs in production today have a
> maximum resolution of 720 x 480 (please correct me if 720 is
> incorrect;^) therefore an EDTV is a best fit for todays video. I got
> a Panasonic mil-spec plasma EDTV monitor last year and love it. I
> always buy (when possible) anamorphic or 16x9 mastered movies

You bet! I do too. I don't mind 4:3 if the movie or TV program was made that
way, but chopping a widescreen movie down to "full screen" format annoys the
hell out of me and is usually a purchase thumbs-downer for me. I *have*
bought a few movies that way that I just had to have and couldn't get in
widescreen, but it sure makes me grumble a lot.

N.



> and my
> grandson and I always agree that the native mastered resolution
> renders the best picture.
>
> The so-called black bars on that monitor are meaningless compared to
> the superb picture. Going to a movie theater now is usually a
> disappointment in sound and picture.
>
> Jumping back on topic, once I got used to it, I like the 3:2 format
> for virtual 35mm photography. I prefer NOT cropping what I see
> through the viewfinder when I press the shutter button. And I prefer
> to have the hardware and software give me the maximum print resolution
> possible regardless what some bozo user (ie self) does or does not set
> for a DPI.
>
> Jeff
December 24, 2004 9:50:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:12:24 GMT
In message <IEFyd.4857$_X7.4385@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
"Nostrobino" <not.here@ultranet.com> wrote:

> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:qi5ls0590v7v9dj1opg09cbuckpobtgvko@4ax.com...

> <SNIPPAGE to keep it short>
>
> > > Can you clarify that?
> >
> > I hope it's clear now. David made a statement and followed
> > it up with "Thus, digital... etc", drawing a conclusion from
> > incorrect information.
>
> Yep, clear now.

Phew! ;-)

> > ,,,
> >
> > IOW... we agree on most if not all points. (Kinda rare on usenet,
> > especially when the subject is extremely diverse. Heh...)
>
> Indeed. :-)

(no group hugs allowed ;^)

> I don't really see what they can do other than what they are doing.
> ...

We have differing visions here. I tend to lean toward to very high
res wider screens to accommodate lower cost (and consumer accessible)
movie production and DVD mastering... [continued below]

> ...
> Computer monitors just don't have the same purpose (though I do enjoy
> sometimes watching DVDs on my computers) and just have no reason to go
> widescreen as far as I can see. On the contrary, as mentioned I think it's
> likely that 4:3 monitors will slip in the market as 5:4 continues to gain in
> popularity.

....and, for those applications what tend to want a square working
window a winder screen gives all the docking and pallet windows a
place to reside. (I.E. Like using 2 or more monitors today.)

(opinions of course. it WILL be fun to see how things turn out in 10
or 20 more years.)

> > ...
> > I currently use a 15" IBM Flexview TFT at 1600x1200 pixels and can
> > clearly read a full page of text.
>
> At what type size, though?

That depends on the application, and, if Windozer can be coaxed into
behaving. :)  The physical screen has a square 1.333 ppi resolution
and a matt finish (in the photographic sense). The 3 RGB dots that
make up each pixel are so small I can't see them individually without
getting my nose up to the screen with a magnifying glass. The
resolution is enough to work with a full page of text easily (without
eye strain) in Word Perfect sans the top and bottom margins. Side by
side pages CAN be edited but the point size drops to 8-10 points which
is a bit small for my ancient eyes.

I really wish I could get the various imaging programs to show me the
actual "print size" of an image by scaling it to the screen properly.
Big G forbid the operating system actually use a real world DPI for
the screen. :)  It's a pain in the booty to fiddle with a calculator
and resize images to see the pixelated/interpolated "actual print
size" on screen. Heck, I wish my not-so-old HP printer+driver would
let software know the correct physical margins the printer enforces...
a perfectly centered picture would be nice once in a while. :) 

(Did I word that correctly? I've yet to read a thread on the subject
that made sense except for an occasional common sense statement.)

> A friend of mine has a 15" screen that does
> 1600x1200 on his laptop--he uses it almost entirely for digital photo stuff
> and so wants all the resolution he can get (and let's face it, 1600x1200 is
> still only 2 megapixels) and he can't read normal text on his desktop *at
> all* at that res without his glasses. Neither can I. His vision without
> glasses is better than mine, but without glasses I can read the same normal
> text on my 19" CRT at 1152x864, or even 1280x1024 if I really have to. (My
> 19" monitor also does 1600x1200, but I virtually never use it.)

I appreciate what you're saying. But like I indicated, this
particular screen is (almost) magic... definitely a partial peek into
the future. Now that it's two years old, the prototype nature of the
screen is showing... the surface is starting to get a dirty-ish look
to the finish. It's funny actually, because it looks like the faint
digital noise I see in ISO 100 digital blue skys, which makes looking
for sensor dust a hoot! ;^)

> > In a nutshell, we'll have monitors that will display two page
> > side-by-side page layouts, any ratio photograph, film and video format
> > at very respectable resolutions (often exceeding the actualy ppi/dpi
> > of the incoming media).
>
> I''ll bet you 17,500 zorknids that doesn't happen. :-)

I'll see that and up you 8,952 zorknids. Heh...

> That is, I'll bet there never will be a significant market for widescreen
> computer monitors, or any doubling of monitor ppi either as far as the
> general market is concerned. Of course for very high-priced, specialized
> products anything is possible.

Well, there will always be Bozo-sumer, Pro-sumer, and Professional
price ranges. So we may end up both being correct and cancel the bet.

> > ...
> > Heh... uh, that is more or less what we are going to have in the near
> > future. Very large screens that do something other than "mask" out
> > unused areas with black bars. My preference would be a matt that can
> > be wallpapered to match the room and therefore be virtually "out of
> > the picture". <G>
>
> But the screen will still have to be there under the wallpaper, won't it?
> :-)

The older I get, the more I understand the
friendly definitions of the term "bitch slap" <VBG>

> <snip>

Merry Christmas!

Jeff
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:32:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:t3mos05sajl4v4lrssbkvks7jq3r4a3pvb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:12:24 GMT
> In message <IEFyd.4857$_X7.4385@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
> "Nostrobino" <not.here@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
>> news:qi5ls0590v7v9dj1opg09cbuckpobtgvko@4ax.com...
>
>> <SNIPPAGE to keep it short>
>>
>> > > Can you clarify that?
>> >
>> > I hope it's clear now. David made a statement and followed
>> > it up with "Thus, digital... etc", drawing a conclusion from
>> > incorrect information.
>>
>> Yep, clear now.
>
> Phew! ;-)
>
>> > ,,,
>> >
>> > IOW... we agree on most if not all points. (Kinda rare on usenet,
>> > especially when the subject is extremely diverse. Heh...)
>>
>> Indeed. :-)
>
> (no group hugs allowed ;^)
>
>> I don't really see what they can do other than what they are doing.
>> ...
>
> We have differing visions here. I tend to lean toward to very high
> res wider screens to accommodate lower cost (and consumer accessible)
> movie production and DVD mastering... [continued below]
>
>> ...
>> Computer monitors just don't have the same purpose (though I do enjoy
>> sometimes watching DVDs on my computers) and just have no reason to go
>> widescreen as far as I can see. On the contrary, as mentioned I think
>> it's
>> likely that 4:3 monitors will slip in the market as 5:4 continues to gain
>> in
>> popularity.
>
> ...and, for those applications what tend to want a square working
> window a winder screen gives all the docking and pallet windows a
> place to reside. (I.E. Like using 2 or more monitors today.)
>
> (opinions of course. it WILL be fun to see how things turn out in 10
> or 20 more years.)

If I'm still around 20 years from now I probably won't remember my name, let
alone this discussion.


>
>> > ...
>> > I currently use a 15" IBM Flexview TFT at 1600x1200 pixels and can
>> > clearly read a full page of text.
>>
>> At what type size, though?
>
> That depends on the application, and, if Windozer can be coaxed into
> behaving. :)  The physical screen has a square 1.333 ppi resolution
> and a matt finish (in the photographic sense). The 3 RGB dots that
> make up each pixel are so small I can't see them individually without
> getting my nose up to the screen with a magnifying glass. The
> resolution is enough to work with a full page of text easily (without
> eye strain) in Word Perfect sans the top and bottom margins. Side by
> side pages CAN be edited but the point size drops to 8-10 points which
> is a bit small for my ancient eyes.
>
> I really wish I could get the various imaging programs to show me the
> actual "print size" of an image by scaling it to the screen properly.
> Big G forbid the operating system actually use a real world DPI for
> the screen. :)  It's a pain in the booty to fiddle with a calculator
> and resize images to see the pixelated/interpolated "actual print
> size" on screen. Heck, I wish my not-so-old HP printer+driver would
> let software know the correct physical margins the printer enforces...
> a perfectly centered picture would be nice once in a while. :) 
>
> (Did I word that correctly? I've yet to read a thread on the subject
> that made sense except for an occasional common sense statement.)
>
>> A friend of mine has a 15" screen that does
>> 1600x1200 on his laptop--he uses it almost entirely for digital photo
>> stuff
>> and so wants all the resolution he can get (and let's face it, 1600x1200
>> is
>> still only 2 megapixels) and he can't read normal text on his desktop *at
>> all* at that res without his glasses. Neither can I. His vision without
>> glasses is better than mine, but without glasses I can read the same
>> normal
>> text on my 19" CRT at 1152x864, or even 1280x1024 if I really have to.
>> (My
>> 19" monitor also does 1600x1200, but I virtually never use it.)
>
> I appreciate what you're saying. But like I indicated, this
> particular screen is (almost) magic... definitely a partial peek into
> the future. Now that it's two years old, the prototype nature of the
> screen is showing... the surface is starting to get a dirty-ish look
> to the finish. It's funny actually, because it looks like the faint
> digital noise I see in ISO 100 digital blue skys, which makes looking
> for sensor dust a hoot! ;^)
>
>> > In a nutshell, we'll have monitors that will display two page
>> > side-by-side page layouts, any ratio photograph, film and video format
>> > at very respectable resolutions (often exceeding the actualy ppi/dpi
>> > of the incoming media).
>>
>> I''ll bet you 17,500 zorknids that doesn't happen. :-)
>
> I'll see that and up you 8,952 zorknids. Heh...
>
>> That is, I'll bet there never will be a significant market for widescreen
>> computer monitors, or any doubling of monitor ppi either as far as the
>> general market is concerned. Of course for very high-priced, specialized
>> products anything is possible.
>
> Well, there will always be Bozo-sumer, Pro-sumer, and Professional
> price ranges. So we may end up both being correct and cancel the bet.
>
>> > ...
>> > Heh... uh, that is more or less what we are going to have in the near
>> > future. Very large screens that do something other than "mask" out
>> > unused areas with black bars. My preference would be a matt that can
>> > be wallpapered to match the room and therefore be virtually "out of
>> > the picture". <G>
>>
>> But the screen will still have to be there under the wallpaper, won't it?
>> :-)
>
> The older I get, the more I understand the
> friendly definitions of the term "bitch slap" <VBG>
>
>> <snip>
>
> Merry Christmas!

Thanks, and the same to you.

Today at our Christmas family get-together I saw the first wide-screen
computer monitor I have ever seen. My nephew has a notebook with a 17"
widescreen monitor that he runs at 1440x900 and it looks great. Though of
course that is not quite 16:9 it looks very close to it; I'm not sure what
the actual screen dimensions are.

N.
!