What if FF and APS-C also switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

[Al D]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

This goes back even further.

--
"All things in nature are dark except where exposed by the light." - Leonardo da Vinci

 

[KLO82]

For photography, unlike video, the aspect ratio of the sensor/ image should be something that works reasonably well on both portrait and landscape orientation. To me it seems 3:2 is the highest ratio that works in portrait orientation, any higher ratios (16:9, 8:5, 1.85:1, 2.39:1 etc) do not work at all in portrait orientation. 4:3, 7:5 probably work better than 3:2 for portrait orientation, but then it seems not everyone is happy about those aspect ratios in landscape orientation.

I hate the fact that most computer displays today are optimized for viewing videos/ horizontal frames. The ipad has smaller ratio (7:5) because Apple understood that viewers will view it in both portrait and landscape orientation.

 

[tbcass]

I never said it didn’t. The beauty of a square sensor is it can accommodate any aesthetic ratio and therefore could appeal to everybody.

That's as maybe but I don't even know why people are discussing this with such passion, because as I said, it isn't going to happen.

Probably not just like a FF 4/3 sensor is never going to happen. My point was we would see a FF square sensor before a 4/3 because it has more practical value and greater versatility.

 

[Adso of Melk]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

 

[Al D]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

 

[tbcass]

The beauty of a square sensor is it can accommodate any aesthetic ratio and therefore could appeal to everybody.

It's appeal is actually very little. The reason is the loss of resolution that it causes. Most people most of the time want rectangular pictures.

Consider full frame (the proportional loss is the same whatever the physical size). A square sensor that fits the FF image circle would be 30.6mm wide (and high); the standard FF sensor is 36mm wide. For a horizontal rectangular picture the square sensor therefore starts off 15% narrower; so one loses 15% of linear (lens) resolution. And by area it's worse - the loss is 28% of pixel resolution.

You're right. I forgot that a 36mm square sensor wouldn't accommodate existing lenses.

--
Tom

 

[Adso of Melk]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

 

[Sittatunga]

I don't see any point in switching to a 4:3 format. I use it on my Smartphone but there's nothing special about it.

And what is special about the 3:2?

Invented by Leica, when they doubled the size of the standard movie frame, which had a 4:3. Went from 24x18 mm to 36 x 24 mm.

QWERTY.

The original Nikon 35mm rangefinder cameras were 32x24mm (4:3) format. Film processors couldn't cope,

Film processors were fine. The film's a continuous strip. it isn't processed a frame at a time. The only problem was slide mounts. In fact, the whole story was a flimsy excuse for a non-tariff import barrier.

I wasn't born until well after 1947 so I can't comment on how automated enprint machines were then. At the very least, Nikon format would have required a separate line for printing at 6 sprocket holes per frame rather than 4 or 8 and trimming the negatives to lengths consistent with the print envelope size.

We were talking about film processing, not printing. There were many camera sold for which there was not an automatic printing process available. Especially on a camera in the market sector that the Nikon was in, many users would not be using enprinting machines in any case,

My father's and grandfather's generations used colour slide film until well into the 1970s anyway. So it wasn't that flimsy an excuse.

It's a pretty flimsy excuse for banning its export to the US, which is what happened. Generally if a product has a feature which the market doesn't like, it's left to the market to cast its verdict. The reason specifically given was Kodachrome slide mounts, yet Kodak was very happy to return Kodachrome uncut and unmounted. It's was the service that half-frame users became familiar with.

Simply, it was nothing to do with whether or not film processors could or couldn't cope. There were 35mm film cameras using 24x36, 24x24 and 24x18 and film processors coped with them. It was to do with putting obstacles in the way of Japanese camera exports. The 24x32mm format was also being used by Minolta, Topcon and Olympus, so banning it had the effect of stoping exports from a number of companies. As it happened, they were all very adaptable and moved to 24x36 fast enough to make the ban moot.

 

[Phil A Martin]

I never said it didn’t. The beauty of a square sensor is it can accommodate any aesthetic ratio and therefore could appeal to everybody.

That's as maybe but I don't even know why people are discussing this with such passion, because as I said, it isn't going to happen.

Probably not just like a FF 4/3 sensor is never going to happen.

I fully realise that and as I cannot afford medium format digital, that's why I'm getting used to 3x2 again

My point was we would see a FF square sensor before a 4/3 because it has more practical value and greater versatility.

 

[Al D]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Who does portrait today? professionally? What gear do they use?

 

[tbcass]

There is no denying that 4:3 format is a more natural vision for our eyes.

Horizontal field of view for human vision is 210 degrees while vertical is 150 degrees so the theoretical ratio would be 1.4:1 or 4.2:3 which is close to 4:3 but humans by nature are more attune to horizontal field of view than vertical and our eyes and head movements are more designed to be horizontal. That's because in primitive humans danger was far more likely to come from the sides and not above. Also the prey they hunted was on the ground. That's why wide screen movies are the norm. Even 16:9 HD isn't wide enough to seem natural. That said when looking at screens or prints at the sizes we usually use any format fits well within a far narrower field of view.

 

[Phil A Martin]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Who does portrait today? professionally? What gear do they use?

I guess it depends. I had a friend who used to do graduation shoots and every thing was shot on 35mm 3x2.

 

[Al D]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Who does portrait today? professionally? What gear do they use?

I guess it depends. I had a friend who used to do graduation shoots and every thing was shot on 35mm 3x2.

Exactly.. School photos, weddings, most shoot FF or high-end APS-C.

 

[Adso of Melk]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Who does portrait today? professionally? What gear do they use?

I guess it depends. I had a friend who used to do graduation shoots and every thing was shot on 35mm 3x2.

Exactly.. School photos, weddings, most shoot FF or high-end APS-C.

And some then cropping to 4:3.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

Do you know anyone who shoot stills in 16:9 because of PC screen? Photo's AR doesn't have anything to do with screen.

APS film was designed to do just that (30.2 x 16.7mm).



Nor is 16:9 anything new. Many of Kodak's early cameras produced a 4.5x2.5 inch negative.

 

[Mark B.]

There is no denying that 4:3 format is a more natural vision for our eyes.

I will deny it. I'm certain I am seeing in a wider AR than 4:3.

 

[Al D]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Who does portrait today? professionally? What gear do they use?

I guess it depends. I had a friend who used to do graduation shoots and every thing was shot on 35mm 3x2.

Exactly.. School photos, weddings, most shoot FF or high-end APS-C.

And some then cropping to 4:3.

or 5:7 or 4:5 or not. Order what you want. I'll send you the form. ;-)

 

[J A C S]

There is no denying that 4:3 format is a more natural vision for our eyes.

Horizontal field of view for human vision is 210 degrees while vertical is 150 degrees so the theoretical ratio would be 1.4:1 or 4.2:3 which is close to 4:3 [...]

You really have to divide tan(half-angles) but 210 would give you a negative ratio...

 

[Phil A Martin]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Who does portrait today? professionally? What gear do they use?

I guess it depends. I had a friend who used to do graduation shoots and every thing was shot on 35mm 3x2.

Exactly.. School photos, weddings, most shoot FF or high-end APS-C.

And some then cropping to 4:3.

Actually he didn't

 

[robert1955]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Then use your phone or iPad for photography