Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will 16:9 rule the world?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 31, 2005 9:30:00 AM

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

Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
digital cameras go widescreen?

Evad

More about : rule world

Anonymous
a b C Monitor
January 31, 2005 10:34:02 AM

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

Evad wrote:
>Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer
>monitors will digital cameras go widescreen?


One already has ... the Fuji FinePix 810 has a widescreen LCD and it
looks like it can take widescreen pictures.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
January 31, 2005 1:05:45 PM

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

Evad wrote:
> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
> digital cameras go widescreen?
>
> Evad
>
>
>
Probably, unfortunately. The 16:9 format is just not pleasing to my
perceptions.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
January 31, 2005 1:07:27 PM

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

"Evad" <evad@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:366tnsF4ttqueU1@individual.net...
>
> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors
> will digital cameras go widescreen?
>
> Evad
>
>

I would doubt that. Very few shots that I take would lend themselves to
that format, A landscape would probably be ok, but most photos are of
specifics, such as people, objects, etc, and would only take up a portion of
the screen.

Don
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
January 31, 2005 1:26:30 PM

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

There doesn't seem to be a reason that they should. The widescreen format
of the new tv's is designed to let you see then entire image size as
originally shot (more rectangular). 35mm aspect ration of digital cameras
is already longer than it is taller. That's why you can't see the entire
image on a regular tv without space at the top or bottom or sides. 35mm
can't fill a square tv set tube.
CM


On 1/31/05 9:30 AM, in article 366tnsF4ttqueU1@individual.net, "Evad"
<evad@dodgeit.com> wrote:

>
> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
> digital cameras go widescreen?
>
> Evad
>
>
>
January 31, 2005 2:25:04 PM

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

Evad wrote:
> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
> digital cameras go widescreen?
>
> Evad

16:9 video is recorded on 4:3 sensors. They use special lenses to
compress the horizontal axis. It's pretty clever.

Bob
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
January 31, 2005 7:19:53 PM

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

On 1/31/05 8:30 AM, in article 366tnsF4ttqueU1@individual.net, "Evad"
<evad@dodgeit.com> wrote:

>
> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
> digital cameras go widescreen?
>
> Evad
>
>
>
No! It will probably rule the television and computer monitor world but not
photography. For example 8x10 has continued to remain a popular size
enlargement even though 35mm cameras (and their digital derivatives) are a
3:2 aspect ratio and must be cropped for an 8x10 print.
Chuck
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
January 31, 2005 8:42:12 PM

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

"Evad" <evad@dodgeit.com> writes:

> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
> digital cameras go widescreen?

So far, only Panasonic cameras have a 16:9 option.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
January 31, 2005 9:49:08 PM

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:30:00 -0800, "Evad" <evad@dodgeit.com> wrote:

>Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
>digital cameras go widescreen?

Yes, just like APS with it's panorama mode which completely
obliterated the old 35mm film market 5 years ago.

...or NOT.

My D70 images can be cropped to fit a HDTV wide screen without loss of
resolution (other than the downsize shrink to naff HD standards that
is required). So I see no reason for special equipment.

--
Owamanga!
February 1, 2005 3:50:23 AM

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

bob wrote:

> Evad wrote:
>> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors
>> will digital cameras go widescreen?
>>
>> Evad
>
> 16:9 video is recorded on 4:3 sensors. They use special lenses to
> compress the horizontal axis. It's pretty clever.
>

That being the case, I can't see why they couldn't do the same on the
current cameras with software to "revert" it to 16X9"

--

Stacey
February 1, 2005 7:12:33 AM

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

Evad wrote:
> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors will
> digital cameras go widescreen?
>
> Evad


Actually, 16:9 is quite dramatic when used appropriately. It's excellent
for landscape, or group pix. I think the 3:2 ratio in film is nice too.
However, I don't think we'll see 16:9 in photography as a standard. The
image circle will need to be enlarged to produce that ratio and thus the
lens would need to be much larger and much more expensive. It would be
too costly to dump all the dSLR and 4/3 systems.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 1, 2005 8:04:45 AM

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

"Evad" <evad@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:366tnsF4ttqueU1@individual.net...
>
> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors
> will digital cameras go widescreen?
>
> Evad
>
>

Why would it? Are you taking photographs to show on a TV, or on a monitor,
or to print?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
February 1, 2005 3:30:29 PM

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

Stacey wrote:
> bob wrote:
>
>
>>Evad wrote:
>>
>>>Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors
>>>will digital cameras go widescreen?
>>>
>>>Evad
>>
>> 16:9 video is recorded on 4:3 sensors. They use special lenses to
>>compress the horizontal axis. It's pretty clever.
>>
>
>
> That being the case, I can't see why they couldn't do the same on the
> current cameras with software to "revert" it to 16X9"


Those camcorders use anamorphic lens adaptor in front of the lens. A
good adaptor lens is very expensive.

The cheap P&S camcorders nowadays have true 16:9 sensors and use the
center portions of the sensor for 16:9 video. The rest of the sensor is
for image stabilization and as a 2, 3MP still camera. The downside is
each pixel is small and has poor low light performance.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 1, 2005 5:01:49 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "Evad" <evad@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
> news:366tnsF4ttqueU1@individual.net...
>>
>> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer
>> monitors will digital cameras go widescreen?
>>
>> Evad
>>
>>
>
> Why would it? Are you taking photographs to show on a TV, or on a
> monitor, or to print?

Mostly on a monitor for me.

Interestingly, my latest monitor is 5:4 aspect ratio (1280 x 1024) rather
than 4:3!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 1, 2005 6:27:17 PM

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

>>> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors
>>> will digital cameras go widescreen?
>>>
>>> Evad
>>Why would it? Are you taking photographs to show on a TV, or on a
monitor,
>>or to print?

I suspect most of us use all these methods. When I'm on vacation, the first
time I see my pics is usually on the TV in the hotel bedroom when I get back
at the end of the day. Here in the UK, most hotel TVs are still 4x3 but I
guess it will only be a matter of time.

I remember reading that a large proportion of digital photos (can't remember
the figure) never make it beyond their owners' fixed discs. In PC terms,
widescreen laptops are becoming more popular but I don't think they're
anything like as common as widescreen TVs yet. I don't know about full
sized monitors.

As for printing, that seems to be the area which is most lagging behind. I
frequently see 6x4 photo paper in the shops but never 5.5x4, which strikes
me as odd seeing as the paper is presumably aimed at the digital photography
market. I guess it may have something to do with the rarity of "digital
aspect ratio" photo frames and albums. Manufacturers of those commodities
seem to have a great deal of difficulty catching up with the digital age.

Maybe they will one day. If 16x9 were to become common as an option in
cameras then I guess it would only be a matter of time (but probably quite a
lot of time) before an enterprising paper manufacturer started producing
appropriate shaped paper.

Keith
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 1, 2005 6:32:32 PM

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

On 2/1/05 7:04 AM, in article I7LLd.26979$xt.21756@fed1read07, "Skip M"
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:


>> Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors
>> will digital cameras go widescreen?
>>
> Why would it? Are you taking photographs to show on a TV, or on a monitor,
> or to print?
Good point! And, if the OP is taking pictures to show on a 16:9 TV monitor
what about photos taken in portrait configuration? Many, many photographs
look their best composed and displayed in this way. These would look really
terrible on a 16:9 monitor.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 2, 2005 2:20:05 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> Interestingly, my latest monitor is 5:4 aspect ratio (1280 x 1024) rather
> than 4:3!

Isn't that just the resolution you've chosen? What is the physical height and
width of the screen?


--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 2, 2005 3:37:51 PM

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

Ben Thomas wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, my latest monitor is 5:4 aspect ratio (1280 x 1024)
>> rather than 4:3!
>
> Isn't that just the resolution you've chosen? What is the physical
> height and width of the screen?

No, I could choose any resolution within limits, but it would look awful
unless I choose the same resolution as the monitor: 1280 x 1024 pixels.
It's an LCD monitor.

David
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 2, 2005 5:45:12 PM

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

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:37:51 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Ben Thomas wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly, my latest monitor is 5:4 aspect ratio (1280 x 1024)
>>> rather than 4:3!
>>
>> Isn't that just the resolution you've chosen? What is the physical
>> height and width of the screen?
>
>No, I could choose any resolution within limits, but it would look awful
>unless I choose the same resolution as the monitor: 1280 x 1024 pixels.
>It's an LCD monitor.
>
>David

While you may not have 'chosen' that resolution, the question about
physical screen size is still valid: although 1280:1024 is 5:4, the
screen's physical size might have a different aspect ratio (i.e. the pixels
[or rgb-triples] might not be square).

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 2, 2005 6:21:47 PM

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

Graham Holden wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:37:51 -0000, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Ben Thomas wrote:
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interestingly, my latest monitor is 5:4 aspect ratio (1280 x 1024)
>>>> rather than 4:3!
>>>
>>> Isn't that just the resolution you've chosen? What is the physical
>>> height and width of the screen?
>>
>> No, I could choose any resolution within limits, but it would look
>> awful unless I choose the same resolution as the monitor: 1280 x
>> 1024 pixels. It's an LCD monitor.
>>
>> David
>
> While you may not have 'chosen' that resolution, the question about
> physical screen size is still valid: although 1280:1024 is 5:4, the
> screen's physical size might have a different aspect ratio (i.e. the
> pixels [or rgb-triples] might not be square).
>
> Regards,
> Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)

Well, they are as near square as I can see (when I use a testcard with a
90 degree diagonal cross) but for your benefit:

horizontal 375mm vertical 300mm

I would not have dreamed of buying a display with non-square pixels!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 9, 2005 12:51:46 PM

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

In article <I7LLd.26979$xt.21756@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> "Evad" <evad@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
> news:366tnsF4ttqueU1@individual.net...
> >
> > Now with the advent of 16 by 9 HDTV's and Widescreen Computer monitors
> > will digital cameras go widescreen?
> >
> > Evad
> >
> >
>
> Why would it? Are you taking photographs to show on a TV, or on a monitor,
> or to print?

16:9 is even longer than the 35mm 2:3 frame - and that was hassle format
to use. 8x10 paper was 4:5, 7x5 paper was 7:5 etc.

Take my advice, don't bother with widescreen unless you want to watch
DVDs, get yourself another video card and get 2 standard monitors.
!