Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Aspect ratios

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:28:49 PM

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

I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I will
not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all my
4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?

Gav

More about : aspect ratios

May 5, 2005 2:43:23 PM

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

Gav wrote:
> I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
> compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
> Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
> and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
> backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
> keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
> the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I will
> not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all my
> 4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
> line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?
>
> Gav
>
>
It is always best to keep the original, unedited photos, stored on CDs. If you need more
prints later, it isn't very hard to crop the originals again. I only keep the edited
versions if there was multi-step editing that would take time to do again.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:47:26 PM

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

In article <d5cp0j$dra$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, Gav says...
> I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
> compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
> Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
> and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
> backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
> keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
> the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I will
> not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all my
> 4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
> line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?

Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
of time.

As for deleting them, why don't you just copy all the images to a couple
of DVDs ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Related resources
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:47:27 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce40a1bbf09c2d998ab03@news.supernews.com...
> In article <d5cp0j$dra$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, Gav says...
> > I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
> > compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes
(at
> > Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in
4:3
> > and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
> > backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
> > keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them
on
> > the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I
will
> > not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting
all my
> > 4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
> > line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?
>
> Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
> sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
> of time.

Do you think this will eventually be the case? I thought the same, but why
are the top end cameras still taking in 3:2?

>
> As for deleting them, why don't you just copy all the images to a couple
> of DVDs ?

I plan to when I'm finished sorting them, but due to the fact I am making so
many
changes I'm currently backing up to DAT with a 5 week rotation.

> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:47:27 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce40a1bbf09c2d998ab03@news.supernews.com...
>
> Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
> sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
> of time.
>

You've got this backwards. Widescreen TVs will be taking over the market
and 4:3 will become the exception.

Mark
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:47:27 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:

>
> Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
> sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
> of time.

Look at how long 8 x 10 and 5 x 7 papers stay with us, even after 35mm,
with its 3:2 format, became the mainstream format.

I guess I fail to see the problem. What is wrong with cropping to
whatever format your paper is, and even cropping/trimming within that
format if the subject suggests it? Even if you don't want to buy a
paper trimmer, an exacto knife and ruler is really cheap.
May 5, 2005 3:47:28 PM

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

Gav wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ce40a1bbf09c2d998ab03@news.supernews.com...

>>Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
>>sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
>>of time.
>
>
> Do you think this will eventually be the case? I thought the same, but why
> are the top end cameras still taking in 3:2?

Because they're based on 3:2 film cameras. Actually I don't suppose
there's any technical reason for the less-than-35mm-size cameras to
not be 4:3. It's just tradition and the associated availability of
print sizes.

However I wonder whether 4:3 might not just be a phase anyway. Why not
sqrt(2):1, or 16:9, or (1+sqrt(5)):2 ? I also notice quite a few 5:4
paper sizes being offered; maybe that could be a new standard.

Gav, photobox.co.uk offer 6"x4.5" and 8"x6" prints (ie 4:3 without
cropping). I haven't used them much but they seem ok so far.

- Len

('A' series paper, HDTV, Golden ratio)
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 4:54:07 PM

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

On Thu, 5 May 2005 10:28:49 +0100, "Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@nospam.portakabin.com> wrote:

>I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
>compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
>Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
>and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
>backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
>keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
>the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I will
>not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all my
>4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
>line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?

Always keep the originals.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:02:53 PM

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

In article <rMGdncvfp78hZ-TfRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Mark B. says...
>
> You've got this backwards. Widescreen TVs will be taking over the market
> and 4:3 will become the exception.

How many digital cameras with the aspect ratio of a widescreen TV are
there on the market ? Even DSLRs are for what concerns volumes a small
fraction of the digital market.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:20:28 PM

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

On Thu, 5 May 2005 11:47:26 +0200, in rec.photo.digital , Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1ce40a1bbf09c2d998ab03@news.supernews.com> wrote:

>In article <d5cp0j$dra$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, Gav says...
>> I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
>> compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
>> Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
>> and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
>> backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
>> keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
>> the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I will
>> not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all my
>> 4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
>> line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?
>
>Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
>sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
>of time.

Which makes me wonder why we don't see 8x11 or 8x5.5 frames.

>As for deleting them, why don't you just copy all the images to a couple
>of DVDs ?

--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:38:24 PM

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

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:12:56 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Don
Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> in
<1115302459.7a5c7956b81a9dd41614faf840597c56@teranews> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>>
>> Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
>> sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
>> of time.
>
>Look at how long 8 x 10 and 5 x 7 papers stay with us, even after 35mm,
>with its 3:2 format, became the mainstream format.
>
>I guess I fail to see the problem. What is wrong with cropping to
>whatever format your paper is, and even cropping/trimming within that
>format if the subject suggests it? Even if you don't want to buy a
>paper trimmer, an exacto knife and ruler is really cheap.

The problem for me is that I compose in the camera and then have to
mess up that composition to fit standard prints. Or have a problem
framing.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:52:44 PM

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

Gav wrote:
> I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
> compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
> Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
> and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
> backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
> keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
> the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I will
> not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all my
> 4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
> line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?
>
> Gav
>
>
I never recommend throwing away more data than necessary, so I would
KEEP the 4:3 and ditch the 3:2 copies. This will greatly reduce your
space requirements, and will still leave you with all the original data.
You never know when it will come in handy.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:56:21 PM

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

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 11:47:26 +0200, in rec.photo.digital , Alfred Molon
> <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> in
> <MPG.1ce40a1bbf09c2d998ab03@news.supernews.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <d5cp0j$dra$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, Gav says...
>>
>>>I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
>>>compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
>>>Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
>>>and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
>>>backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
>>>keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
>>>the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I will
>>>not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all my
>>>4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
>>>line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?
>>
>>Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
>>sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
>>of time.
>
>
> Which makes me wonder why we don't see 8x11 or 8x5.5 frames.
>
>
>>As for deleting them, why don't you just copy all the images to a couple
>>of DVDs ?
>
>
If you are looking for logic in popular print sizes, you will be
disappointed. There is none.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:58:17 PM

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

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>Which makes me wonder why we don't see 8x11 or 8x5.5 frames.

I have several framed 8x12s. The frames came from a local camera store,
sitting beside the 8x10 frames. You *can* get them, but they're less
common than the traditional sizes.

Dave
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:49:19 AM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce41bc5d8bb052c98ab06@news.supernews.com...
> In article <rMGdncvfp78hZ-TfRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Mark B. says...
>>
>> You've got this backwards. Widescreen TVs will be taking over the market
>> and 4:3 will become the exception.
>
> How many digital cameras with the aspect ratio of a widescreen TV are
> there on the market ? Even DSLRs are for what concerns volumes a small
> fraction of the digital market.
> --
>

All I'm saying is that in a few years the majority of TVs on the market will
be wider than 4:3. The 'digital wave' is going to overtake this old
standard as well as film.

Mark
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:53:25 AM

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

"Gav" <gavin.metcalfe@nospam.portakabin.com> wrote in message
news:D 5cp0j$dra$1@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
>I currently have a Canon S50 which takes photos in 4:3 ratio like many
> compacts. I convert all the photos I take to 3:2 for printing purposes (at
> Jessops, ASDA etc..) and so I have 2 copies of each photo I take, 1 in 4:3
> and 1 in 3:2. This obviously takes up quite a bit of space and I'm now
> backing up around 10Gb of data. My question is, is there any point me
> keeping the 4:3 copies? Only reason I can think of is for viewing them on
> the TV? I'm planning to get a Canon 350D within the next few weeks so I
> will
> not have any 4:3 photos after that anyway. I'm very close to deleting all
> my
> 4:3's but don't want to wish that I hadn't deleted them further down the
> line. Can anybody think of any other reasons I should keep them?
Personally, I would only bother keeping the 4:3 original versions. Any time
you want to print them in a 3:2 format, you can crop at the time, but if you
only have an already cropped version, you will have to crop even more if you
want to print at a different ratio print size. The most common mid-sized
enlargements are 5x7 and 8x10 inches - both of these sizes don't have a lot
of cropping when printed from a 4:3 original. There is a lot of cropping
when printing these sizes from a 3:2 original.
>
> Gav
>
>
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:53:26 AM

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

Justin Thyme wrote:


> Personally, I would only bother keeping the 4:3 original versions. Any time
> you want to print them in a 3:2 format, you can crop at the time, but if you
> only have an already cropped version, you will have to crop even more if you
> want to print at a different ratio print size.

I agree. I always keep my original shots. I do crop and edit when
I want to print or post on the web, but if I need the space, I'll
discard the edited shot before I'll delete the original.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:13:56 AM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ce40a1bbf09c2d998ab03@news.supernews.com...
>
> Given that the digital wave is on its way to overroll film, 4:3 should
> sooner or later become the "mainstream" aspect ratio. It's just a matter
> of time.
History doesn't support that view. For some 40 years, 35mm has been the most
common film format shot, with it's 3:2 aspect ratio, yet the most common
enlargement size is still 8x10 with a 4:5 ratio, which requires a lot of
cropping from a 35mm original. 8x12, which perfectly matches 35mm, is a
very rare size. 6x4 and 5x3.5" still remain the most common standard print
sizes, even though 6x4.5" or 5.33x4" would match digital better. Many
mini-lab printers could be configured to print in these sizes, but not many
labs will do it for you. 8x6 & 16x12 are the only readily available 4:3
print sizes - neither are very popular.
Olympus are the only manufacture to offer 4:3 in an SLR camera, and their
cameras are not nearly as popular as the 3:2 Nikon, Canon, Pentax & Minolta
offerings. Personally I'd like to see 5:4 in a camera, to match 8x10 &
16x20.
>
> As for deleting them, why don't you just copy all the images to a couple
> of DVDs ?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:43:10 PM

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

Matt Silberstein wrote:

>>I guess I fail to see the problem. What is wrong with cropping to
>>whatever format your paper is, and even cropping/trimming within that
>>format if the subject suggests it? Even if you don't want to buy a
>>paper trimmer, an exacto knife and ruler is really cheap.
>
>
> The problem for me is that I compose in the camera and then have to
> mess up that composition to fit standard prints. Or have a problem
> framing.
>
>

Cameras used to adjust the viewfinder view to show a bit less than the
actual image would be, to facilitate a bit of cropping. Don't know of
digicams do this or not- I guess I should calibrate my viewfinder and
find that out.

As far as framing, usually the matts are not cut to a 3:2, so 35mm
photographers always had to crop, unless they were doing a 4 x 6 print
unmatted. So digicam users are no worse off than 35mm users. If one
wanted to print a 35mm frame with full 3:2, it was- out with the X-acto
knife and cut the matt.

BTW, if framing, one does not need to trim the print- the matt takes
care of that.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 6:31:19 PM

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

Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> >>I guess I fail to see the problem. What is wrong with cropping to
> >>whatever format your paper is, and even cropping/trimming within that
> >>format if the subject suggests it? Even if you don't want to buy a
> >>paper trimmer, an exacto knife and ruler is really cheap.
> >
> >
> > The problem for me is that I compose in the camera and then have to
> > mess up that composition to fit standard prints. Or have a problem
> > framing.
> >
> >
>
> Cameras used to adjust the viewfinder view to show a bit less than the
> actual image would be, to facilitate a bit of cropping. Don't know of
> digicams do this or not- I guess I should calibrate my viewfinder and
> find that out.
>
> As far as framing, usually the matts are not cut to a 3:2, so 35mm
> photographers always had to crop, unless they were doing a 4 x 6 print
> unmatted. So digicam users are no worse off than 35mm users. If one
> wanted to print a 35mm frame with full 3:2, it was- out with the X-acto
> knife and cut the matt.

Almost all viewfinders underscan, i.e. the vf - direct or slr - shows
less than the imaging medium will capture. Exceptions are top-end slr's
like the EOS 1 series, and the digital equivalent.

I've not thought about this before, as photogs we seem to accept the
common aspect ratios, and allow them to dictate our composition within
the preset frame shape, whereas painters seem to be under no constraint
as to aspect ratio, except perhaps where they buy ready-made canvases.

Also, while I like the 3:2 as a landscape orientation, I find it a bit
narrow when used in portrait orientation. With the current crop of
printers (at least other than in the States) offering an A-series format
- A4, A3, I am finding that shape works well for almost all my shots,
being 1:1.414, intermediate between 4:3 (1:1.33) and 3:2 (1:1.5). The
advantage of the A-series is that it is based on 1:sqrt(2), so cutting
an A3 in half gives an A4, in half again gives A5, and so on, and they
are all the same aspect ratio.

Fitting a 4:3 ratio onto A4 paper loses a small amount of height off a
landscape image - about 12.7mm, or about 6% of the height; and fitting a
3:2 ratio onto A4 loses a small amount of width - about 18mm, or about
6% also.

So, my wifes p&s and my 300D print equally well on A-series papers. Now,
if we can get the snapshot size changed from 6x4 (100 x 150mm) to A6
(105 x 148mm) then we could all be happy ...

Colin
!