Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

any way to convert vertical pic to horizontal without loos..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 4, 2005 6:42:53 AM

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

Hello,

Sorry if my questions seam stupid.

When I tale digital photo with my camera in vertical position and
later I rotate it horizontally, I notice that a lot is lost in photo
size as displayed on the TV set.

Is there a way to try to fullfill as much as possible the TV screen ?

What software and steps should I follow to process the pic ?

Thanks,

Mario
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:11:45 PM

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

rotate the TV set instead?!? ;-D

"Mario" <marmagi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:472db9ab.0501040342.5ba0438a@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> Sorry if my questions seam stupid.
>
> When I tale digital photo with my camera in vertical position and
> later I rotate it horizontally, I notice that a lot is lost in photo
> size as displayed on the TV set.
>
> Is there a way to try to fullfill as much as possible the TV screen ?
>
> What software and steps should I follow to process the pic ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mario
January 4, 2005 7:08:21 PM

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

In article <472db9ab.0501040342.5ba0438a@posting.google.com>, marmagi@hotmail
..com says...
>
>Hello,
>
>Sorry if my questions seam stupid.
>
>When I tale digital photo with my camera in vertical position and
>later I rotate it horizontally, I notice that a lot is lost in photo
>size as displayed on the TV set.
>
>Is there a way to try to fullfill as much as possible the TV screen ?
>
>What software and steps should I follow to process the pic ?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mario

Mario,

If I understand the question/problem correctly, the answer is basically no.
One has to consider the aspect ratio of the image's intended use. The same
thing happens when one shoots a vertical image, which is to be projected onto
a horizontal screen. You either loose top, and/or bottom due to crop, if you
fill the horizontal, or you have blank space on one/both sides, if you fill
the heigth of the screen. It's like shooting a building with a 1:15 aspect
ratio, and wanting to fill an 8x10 (4:5 aspect ratio) page, crop out
foreground and sky, but not have borders - it cannot be done. You will always
have a 1:15 within the 4:5. Frame your images for the aspect ratio of your TV,
which will always be horizontal, unless you take Dps' suggestion of turning
your TV on its side, which is not usually recommended. :-}

Hunt
Related resources
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:39:10 PM

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

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:11:45 +0200, "Dps" <servis*REMOVE
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr> wrote:

>rotate the TV set instead?!? ;-D

ROTFL!
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 5:57:22 PM

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

anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Sorry if my questions seam stupid.
>
> When I tale digital photo with my camera in vertical position and
> later I rotate it horizontally, I notice that a lot is lost in photo
> size as displayed on the TV set.
>
> Is there a way to try to fullfill as much as possible the TV screen ?
>
> What software and steps should I follow to process the pic ?
>
The only effective way is to crop the vertical picture into horizontal
format of at least to a square image.

Of course you could get a bigger TV...
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:52:20 AM

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

stewy wrote:
> anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Sorry if my questions seam stupid.
>>
>>When I tale digital photo with my camera in vertical position and
>>later I rotate it horizontally, I notice that a lot is lost in photo
>>size as displayed on the TV set.
>>
>>Is there a way to try to fullfill as much as possible the TV screen ?
>>
>>What software and steps should I follow to process the pic ?
>>
>
> The only effective way is to crop the vertical picture into horizontal
> format of at least to a square image.
>
> Of course you could get a bigger TV...
>
Anyone who is displaying digital pictures on a TV doesn't care much for
resolution anyway.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 9:59:34 AM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Anyone who is displaying digital pictures on a TV doesn't care much for
> resolution anyway.

REally! Got HD?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:04:27 PM

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

jpmcw@comcast.net writes:

>> Anyone who is displaying digital pictures on a TV doesn't care much for
>> resolution anyway.

>REally! Got HD?

The highest resolution available with an HD signal is about 2 megapixels
(1920x1080). But most "HD" TV sets can't display that, they're usually
limited to 720 scan lines. That will display 720P format at full
resolution, but not 1080i.

So most "HD" TVs are equivalent to less than 1 megapixel, while the very
best are 2 megapixels. Neither will show all the information in a 3 MP
or larger digital camera image.

Dave
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:29:51 PM

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> jpmcw@comcast.net writes:
>
>>> Anyone who is displaying digital pictures on a TV doesn't care much
>>> for resolution anyway.
>
>> REally! Got HD?
>
> The highest resolution available with an HD signal is about 2
> megapixels (1920x1080). But most "HD" TV sets can't display that,
> they're usually limited to 720 scan lines. That will display 720P
> format at full resolution, but not 1080i.
>
> So most "HD" TVs are equivalent to less than 1 megapixel, while the
> very best are 2 megapixels. Neither will show all the information in
> a 3 MP or larger digital camera image.
>
> Dave

Of course if you want a 9.2MPix display, there's always the IBM T221:

http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 8:44:10 PM

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

At $8,399 each ... has anyone used one of these for Photo Editing?





"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:357jofF4jmki0U1@individual.net...
>
> Of course if you want a 9.2MPix display, there's always the IBM T221:
>
>
http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...
840&langId=-1&partNumber=9503DG5&storeId=1
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:50:55 AM

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

In message <357jofF4jmki0U1@individual.net>,
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Of course if you want a 9.2MPix display, there's always the IBM T221:
>
> http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc...

It must have it's own internal buffer for the display, because the specs
don't make any sense. 31 KHz maximum horizontal refresh, and 2400 lines
just don't mix in a traditional passive display.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:15:43 AM

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

JPS@no.komm writes:

>It must have it's own internal buffer for the display, because the specs
>don't make any sense. 31 KHz maximum horizontal refresh, and 2400 lines
>just don't mix in a traditional passive display.

Any LCD display with analog inputs probably has an internal frame
buffer, with the incoming video being digitized into the buffer
asynchronously from the display. It sounds like the actual display
update rate is 48 Hz.

By the way, 31 kHz is listed as the *minimum* horizontal refresh rate.
That probably means the analog input circuitry simply won't lock below
that frequency. It's not a maximum rate.

Dave
!