Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

digital photography and frame sizes

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:40:39 AM

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

Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame choices -
made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would find a very strong
market for this since this is a hard size to find in nice frames. Custom
made frames can be expensive. There's a lot of photo printer paper out
there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't they noticed?! There are a lot of
printers that do borderless. There are a lot of people who would prefer not
to cut out 8x10 pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll
fit in standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame companies
are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should go into the
frame business?

Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning. WHERE
ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I got it out of
my system.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:42:54 AM

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

I have had very good luck finding premade frames at Aaron Brothers
http://www.aaronbrothers.com/

My Canon S400 is 3:4 and so I print borderless and frame in 5x7,
8.5x11 and 12x16 and have to crop very little if any.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:46:00 PM

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

larrylook wrote:
> Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
> choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
> find a very strong market for this since this is a hard size to find
> in nice frames. Custom made frames can be expensive. There's a lot
> of photo printer paper out there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't
> they noticed?! There are a lot of printers that do borderless.
> There are a lot of people who would prefer not to cut out 8x10
> pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll fit in
> standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
> cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame
> companies are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should
> go into the frame business?
>
> Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
> WHERE ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I
> got it out of my system.

Not just frames...you just can't print a photo in Camera ratio, like
2048x1536 (in my Canon S1), which has 4:3 ratio, while photo paper is
usually 10x15 cm, which is 3:2. I really don't understand why they still
make analog photo format and at the same time they mean this same format to
be used with DIGITAL camera photos...
It's the same as i would try to squeeze truck tyres on my motorcycle...
Related resources
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:46:01 PM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:iQxBd.7650$F6.1329641@news.siol.net...
> larrylook wrote:
> > Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
> > choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
> > find a very strong market for this since this is a hard size to find
> > in nice frames. Custom made frames can be expensive. There's a lot
> > of photo printer paper out there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't
> > they noticed?! There are a lot of printers that do borderless.
> > There are a lot of people who would prefer not to cut out 8x10
> > pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll fit in
> > standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
> > cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame
> > companies are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should
> > go into the frame business?
> >
> > Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
> > WHERE ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I
> > got it out of my system.
>
> Not just frames...you just can't print a photo in Camera ratio, like
> 2048x1536 (in my Canon S1), which has 4:3 ratio, while photo paper is
> usually 10x15 cm, which is 3:2. I really don't understand why they still
> make analog photo format and at the same time they mean this same format
to
> be used with DIGITAL camera photos...
> It's the same as i would try to squeeze truck tyres on my motorcycle...

Agree with above. However personally I don't have a big problem using pse3
cropping tool to crop to standard sizes. It's a fairly quick process for
me, and I crop every single picture I print with no exception. I enjoy
processing and I want every picture cropped as best as possible. Cropping
in old times may have been time consuming, but now only seconds with editing
programs. When I crop out a 8.5x11 portion with pse3, or an 8x10 portion,
I'm preserving aspect ratio (of cropped portion). There's never any
distortion with my process. But I'm losing a bit of original photo. So
I've learned to shoot a slightly bigger picurer (zoom out slightly with lens
or stand back a foot), because I know I'll crop a bit.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:46:01 PM

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

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:iQxBd.7650$F6.1329641@news.siol.net...
> larrylook wrote:
>> Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
>> choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
>>> It's the same as i would try to squeeze truck tyres on my motorcycle...
>
>

You know, that would look really bad.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:53:08 PM

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

larrylook wrote:
> Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
> choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
> find a very strong market for this since this is a hard size to find
> in nice frames. Custom made frames can be expensive. There's a lot
> of photo printer paper out there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't
> they noticed?! There are a lot of printers that do borderless.
> There are a lot of people who would prefer not to cut out 8x10
> pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll fit in
> standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
> cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame
> companies are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should
> go into the frame business?
>
> Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
> WHERE ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I
> got it out of my system.

There are no standard ratios. This is not a digital issue, it is the
same in film. Look at all the different sizes in film. 35mm 4X5 6x6 half
frame etc. On the other side we have standard NA paper sizes for photos and
then a different set of sizes for printed material like 8X10 vs 8.5 x 11.
At least in most of the rest of the world they use the same sizes for photo
and printed materials.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:28:13 PM

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

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:40:39 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com>
wrote:

>Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame choices -
>made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would find a very strong
>market for this since this is a hard size to find in nice frames. Custom
>made frames can be expensive. There's a lot of photo printer paper out
>there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't they noticed?! There are a lot of
>printers that do borderless. There are a lot of people who would prefer not
>to cut out 8x10 pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll
>fit in standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
>cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame companies
>are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should go into the
>frame business?
>
>Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning. WHERE
>ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I got it out of
>my system.

Get a miter box, learn how to use it and make frames any size you
want.

By the way frame companies do make 8 1/2x11 frames. They are called
document frames.

**********************************************

"He that would make his own liberty secure
must guard even his enemy from oppression."

Thomas Paine (1795)
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:28:14 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j5gdt09b4cvm0fh6p7gef6tv7e5lifncup@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:40:39 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame choices -
> >made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would find a very
strong
> >market for this since this is a hard size to find in nice frames. Custom
> >made frames can be expensive. There's a lot of photo printer paper out
> >there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't they noticed?! There are a lot of
> >printers that do borderless. There are a lot of people who would prefer
not
> >to cut out 8x10 pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so
they'll
> >fit in standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area
by
> >cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame companies
> >are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should go into the
> >frame business?
> >
> >Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
WHERE
> >ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I got it out
of
> >my system.
>
> Get a miter box, learn how to use it and make frames any size you
> want.
>
> By the way frame companies do make 8 1/2x11 frames. They are called
> document frames.

I'm sure there are frames. But I'm looking for real nice ones for
photography show. Look at the wealth of metal frames at B&H (they have a
huge inventory) with 8.5x11 opening:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:28:15 PM

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

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:cuadnVHI8NWQWUvcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:j5gdt09b4cvm0fh6p7gef6tv7e5lifncup@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:40:39 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
choices -
> > >made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would find a very
> strong
> > >market for this since this is a hard size to find in nice frames.
Custom
> > >made frames can be expensive. There's a lot of photo printer paper out
> > >there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't they noticed?! There are a lot
of
> > >printers that do borderless. There are a lot of people who would
prefer
> not
> > >to cut out 8x10 pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so
> they'll
> > >fit in standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area
> by
> > >cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame
companies
> > >are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should go into the
> > >frame business?
> > >
> > >Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
> WHERE
> > >ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I got it out
> of
> > >my system.
> >
> > Get a miter box, learn how to use it and make frames any size you
> > want.
> >
> > By the way frame companies do make 8 1/2x11 frames. They are called
> > document frames.
>
> I'm sure there are frames. But I'm looking for real nice ones for
> photography show. Look at the wealth of metal frames at B&H (they have a
> huge inventory) with 8.5x11 opening:
>
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...

And here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=searc...
The first doesn't even have that size of an opening.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:15:55 PM

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

larrylook wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:iQxBd.7650$F6.1329641@news.siol.net...
>> larrylook wrote:
>>> Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
>>> choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
>>> find a very strong market for this since this is a hard size to find
>>> in nice frames. Custom made frames can be expensive. There's a lot
>>> of photo printer paper out there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't
>>> they noticed?! There are a lot of printers that do borderless.
>>> There are a lot of people who would prefer not to cut out 8x10
>>> pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll fit in
>>> standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
>>> cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame
>>> companies are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I
>>> should go into the frame business?
>>>
>>> Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this
>>> morning. WHERE ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!!
>>> There, I got it out of my system.
>>
>> Not just frames...you just can't print a photo in Camera ratio, like
>> 2048x1536 (in my Canon S1), which has 4:3 ratio, while photo paper is
>> usually 10x15 cm, which is 3:2. I really don't understand why they
>> still make analog photo format and at the same time they mean this
>> same format to be used with DIGITAL camera photos...
>> It's the same as i would try to squeeze truck tyres on my
>> motorcycle...
>
> Agree with above. However personally I don't have a big problem
> using pse3 cropping tool to crop to standard sizes. It's a fairly
> quick process for me, and I crop every single picture I print with no
> exception. I enjoy processing and I want every picture cropped as
> best as possible. Cropping in old times may have been time
> consuming, but now only seconds with editing programs. When I crop
> out a 8.5x11 portion with pse3, or an 8x10 portion, I'm preserving
> aspect ratio (of cropped portion). There's never any distortion with
> my process. But I'm losing a bit of original photo. So I've learned
> to shoot a slightly bigger picurer (zoom out slightly with lens or
> stand back a foot), because I know I'll crop a bit.

True. But, what's the point of having bigger pic format if you have to crop
every single one of them...?
I crop in Canon Photo print tool. But, you loose either one or other's edge
pic details...
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:16:55 PM

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

Rudy Benner wrote:
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:iQxBd.7650$F6.1329641@news.siol.net...
>> larrylook wrote:
>>> Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
>>> choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
>>>> It's the same as i would try to squeeze truck tyres on my
>>>> motorcycle...
>>
>>
>
> You know, that would look really bad.

You think so? What about those biiiiig trucks which drive over cars etc... i
bet it would look similar...i wouldn't drive it over cars, though...
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:17:26 PM

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

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com>
wrote:

>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:j5gdt09b4cvm0fh6p7gef6tv7e5lifncup@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:40:39 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame choices -
>> >made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would find a very
>strong
>> >market for this since this is a hard size to find in nice frames. Custom
>> >made frames can be expensive. There's a lot of photo printer paper out
>> >there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't they noticed?! There are a lot of
>> >printers that do borderless. There are a lot of people who would prefer
>not
>> >to cut out 8x10 pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so
>they'll
>> >fit in standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area
>by
>> >cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame companies
>> >are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should go into the
>> >frame business?
>> >
>> >Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
>WHERE
>> >ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I got it out
>of
>> >my system.
>>
>> Get a miter box, learn how to use it and make frames any size you
>> want.
>>
>> By the way frame companies do make 8 1/2x11 frames. They are called
>> document frames.
>
>I'm sure there are frames. But I'm looking for real nice ones for
>photography show. Look at the wealth of metal frames at B&H (they have a
>huge inventory) with 8.5x11 opening:
>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...

Use larger frames and mat to fit. Cutting a mat is no big deal
particularly if you then do a dry press mount.



******************************************************

"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely
to be preferred to the presence of those who think
they've found it."

_The Monstrous Regiment_
Terry Pratchett
2003
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:17:27 PM

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

Finally, the voice of sanity.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:44:14 AM

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

anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote:

> Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame choices -
> made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would find a very strong
> market for this since this is a hard size to find in nice frames. Custom
> made frames can be expensive. There's a lot of photo printer paper out
> there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't they noticed?! There are a lot of
> printers that do borderless. There are a lot of people who would prefer not
> to cut out 8x10 pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll
> fit in standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
> cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame companies
> are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should go into the
> frame business?
>
> Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning. WHERE
> ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I got it out of
> my system.
>
>
Try using the international standard A4 instead of that old-fashioned US
standard A4 is 21cm x 29.7cm - much closer to the 4:3 ratio.

Using these frames would mean you'd have to cut an additional frame with art
paper but it would work
January 2, 2005 4:03:47 AM

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

SleeperMan wrote:


>
> Not just frames...you just can't print a photo in Camera ratio, like
> 2048x1536 (in my Canon S1), which has 4:3 ratio, while photo paper is
> usually 10x15 cm, which is 3:2. I really don't understand why they still
> make analog photo format and at the same time they mean this same format
> to be used with DIGITAL camera photos...
>

Ever think it's a problem with the camera? My E300 sensor is the same ratio
as my screen and a 8X10 print. Wonder why they make digital cameras with
sensors a different ratio than the screen they are going to be displayed
on? You think the monitor makers should change to match your camera?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 4:03:48 AM

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

Stacey commented courteously ...

> Ever think it's a problem with the camera? My E300
sensor
> is the same ratio as my screen and a 8X10 print. Wonder
why
> they make digital cameras with sensors a different ratio
> than the screen they are going to be displayed on? You
> think the monitor makers should change to match your
> camera?

Hi, Stacey.

My Fuji 4900 stores in Windoze SVGA resolutions. My Nikon
5700 does that plus 3:2. My wife's little Kodak 6330, on
the other hand, is set to "crop" for 4 x 6 so that prints
on the Dock 6000 don't look wonky. I don't think my Fuji
or Nikon is broke nor do I think the Kodak is broke for
being "non standard".

We're not going to change what Matthew Brady invented
here, I don't think. ;-) And, cropping each image is a
PITA, to be sure.

But, I use Paint Shop Pro 8 & 9, which have built-in
cropping "presets" for just about every media size and
type I can think of, or I can create my own, which I did
for stuff like 1280 x 960, 800 x 600, etc. Plus, PSP has
scripting and batch processing, so I could automate the
whole thing if it really became a bother.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:31:58 AM

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

SleeperMan wrote:
> larrylook wrote:
>
>>Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
>>choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
>>find a very strong market for this since this is a hard size to find
>>in nice frames. Custom made frames can be expensive. There's a lot
>>of photo printer paper out there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't
>>they noticed?! There are a lot of printers that do borderless.
>>There are a lot of people who would prefer not to cut out 8x10
>>pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll fit in
>>standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
>>cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame
>>companies are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should
>>go into the frame business?
>>
>>Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
>>WHERE ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I
>>got it out of my system.
>
>
> Not just frames...you just can't print a photo in Camera ratio, like
> 2048x1536 (in my Canon S1), which has 4:3 ratio, while photo paper is
> usually 10x15 cm, which is 3:2. I really don't understand why they still
> make analog photo format and at the same time they mean this same format to
> be used with DIGITAL camera photos...
> It's the same as i would try to squeeze truck tyres on my motorcycle...
>
>
Life, and the marketplace can be strange. It is STILL difficult to find
envelopes that hold a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper folded in half. Since
this is the 'standard' letter size in the US, doesn't it make sense that
there would be a common, and standard, envelope? Yes, I can get them
many more places than I could a few years ago, but why was it ever a
problem?
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:37:28 PM

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

Stacey wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Not just frames...you just can't print a photo in Camera ratio, like
>> 2048x1536 (in my Canon S1), which has 4:3 ratio, while photo paper is
>> usually 10x15 cm, which is 3:2. I really don't understand why they
>> still make analog photo format and at the same time they mean this
>> same format to be used with DIGITAL camera photos...
>>
>
> Ever think it's a problem with the camera? My E300 sensor is the same
> ratio as my screen and a 8X10 print. Wonder why they make digital
> cameras with sensors a different ratio than the screen they are going
> to be displayed on? You think the monitor makers should change to
> match your camera?

Nope. i didn't say that anythign is wrong with monitor. I just said that
manufacturers should start to make photo papers in the size of digital
camera ratios, not still in analog ones. If oyur sensor is the same as
screen ratio, then you MUST crop if oyu want to print to standard sized
photo paper, right? screen AND camera do have both 3:4 ratio, but PAPERS
still have 3:2 instead of 4:3----that's my problem.
Now, normally you do have an option to shoot in 3:2 mode, but what's the
point of having such sensor, if you don't use upper and lower part of it?
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:39:46 PM

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> larrylook wrote:
>> Does anyone here agree with me that there need to be more frame
>> choices - made with 8.5x11" openings? I think manufacturers would
>> find a very strong market for this since this is a hard size to find
>> in nice frames. Custom made frames can be expensive. There's a lot
>> of photo printer paper out there in this size (8.5x11)!! Haven't
>> they noticed?! There are a lot of printers that do borderless.
>> There are a lot of people who would prefer not to cut out 8x10
>> pictures, with a paper cutter, from 8.5x11 paper so they'll fit in
>> standard frames with 8x10 openings. Why waste this surface area by
>> cutting it out and throwing it in the garbage? Maybe the frame
>> companies are in bed with the paper cutter companies? Maybe I should
>> go into the frame business?
>>
>> Excuse me for shouting, but I just can't control myself this morning.
>> WHERE ARE ALL THE FRAMES I NEED WITH 8.5X11 OPENINGS!!! There, I
>> got it out of my system.
>
> There are no standard ratios. This is not a digital issue, it is
> the same in film. Look at all the different sizes in film. 35mm 4X5
> 6x6 half frame etc. On the other side we have standard NA paper
> sizes for photos and then a different set of sizes for printed
> material like 8X10 vs 8.5 x 11. At least in most of the rest of the
> world they use the same sizes for photo and printed materials.

No standards? Why then you can easily get photo paper in 4x6 or 5x7 in
ratio? Standard in analog film format is 3:2. While digital producers
decided that standard is 4:3 - same as monitor ratio...i see those as
STANDARD...
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:45:51 PM

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

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
> Hi, Stacey.
>
> My Fuji 4900 stores in Windoze SVGA resolutions. My Nikon
> 5700 does that plus 3:2.

4:3 aspect ratio has its roots in analog TV from the late 1930s, Windows
simply followed the common convention at the time as computers originally
used TV monitors (with a 4:3 aspect ratio) as their displays. This helped
keep the cost of computers down...

Cheers,
David
January 2, 2005 1:48:35 PM

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

stewy said the following on 1/01/2005 10:44 PM:
> Try using the international standard A4 instead of that old-fashioned US
> standard A4 is 21cm x 29.7cm - much closer to the 4:3 ratio.

Or 8.27" x 11.7" for those who haven't caught up with the rest of
the world
January 3, 2005 12:50:13 AM

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

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:31:58 -0600
In message <jcPBd.21464$Af2.12979@fe21.usenetserver.com>
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Life, and the marketplace can be strange. It is STILL difficult to find
> envelopes that hold a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper folded in half. Since
> this is the 'standard' letter size in the US, doesn't it make sense that
> there would be a common, and standard, envelope? Yes, I can get them
> many more places than I could a few years ago, but why was it ever a
> problem?

The standard US letter is folded twice and there
have been standard envelopes as far back as I can
remember... which is quite a while... ;^)

Are there 8.5 x 12.75 papers for 8.5 wide printers?
Or 11 x 16.5 papers for 11 wide printers?

8 x 12 borderless prints would be nice.
My tft is 12" wide at 133.33 ppi.

Jeff
!