does the 2:3 aspect ratio make sense?

Ok, so why don't camera makers offer anything other than this ratio for D SLR's knowing many of us are making portrait 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 .. sizes?

Consider this: (were talking all un-interpolated here)

Things being as they are, 8x10's out of my D100 go from 6MP to 4.8MP or from 2000 x 3008 to 2000 x 2400. Which leaves me w/250dpi at the 8x10 print size.

If my sensor where designed w/ 4x5 ratio, out of cam. images would be 2739 x 2191= still 6MP but @ 8x10 this now becomes 273 dpi.

Ok I belive the 1Ds is 8.9MP, doing the math right (or wrong?) I'm saying the pixel dim. are around 2650 x 2435, which, when cropped to 8x10 leaves 304 dpi.

. . . I think you get the point,

So, I guess what I'm saying is I HATE WASTING PIXELS!!!

OK ... feel better now.

Seriously though, you could abandon making 4x6's, (who needs them anywhay) You would have to crop to get 4x6, but I wouldn't mind wasting pixels (via cropping) when going to a small print size, I do when going large . . . makes sense.

I guess if you're a pano person, you'ld have to generally disagree with me.

Hey, why not 2 formats: 1 panoramic and 1 portrait.

just my thoughts.

andy

There is some tradition in the 3:2 ratio. It does make a lot of sense for me, though. I do many panoramas (see site below). Panoramas done with one row of shots are easier and faster than two dimensional arrays of shots. Thus, I like 3:2 as, for a fixed number of pixels, it maximizes the number of pixels on one direction and gives me more resolution. It does mean more stitches but that is a small price to pay. Also there are shots where 3:2 works better for a good composition. I would say that it is better to have to crop 3:2 to get 4:3, etc. than to go the other way around. Either way, of course, you waste pixels.
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm

Andrew Marshall said:

Ok, so why don't camera makers offer anything other than this ratio
for D SLR's knowing many of us are making portrait 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
.. sizes?

Click to expand...

One does. Check out the Oly 4/3 system. The 4:3 aspect ratio (much more efficient crop to 8x10 or 5x7) is
a part of the rationale behind the whole "4/3 system".

Andrew Marshall said:

Consider this: (were talking all un-interpolated here)

Click to expand...

Andrew Marshall said:

Seriously though, you could abandon making 4x6's, (who needs them
anywhay)

Click to expand...

And you could abandon your 8x10s and 5x7s.

Andrew Marshall said:

You would have to crop to get 4x6, but I wouldn't mind
wasting pixels (via cropping) when going to a small print size, I
do when going large . . . makes sense.

I guess if you're a pano person, you'ld have to generally disagree
with me.

Click to expand...

A pano parson, a wildlife person, a landscape person, a group portrait person, an event shooter, a forensics photographer...

Andrew Marshall said:

Hey, why not 2 formats: 1 panoramic and 1 portrait.

Click to expand...

They have that. Go check out the Olymous forum.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

The 3:2 aspect ratio seems to have arisen from the historical needs of adapting 35mm movie film (frame size 24x18mm, or 4:3 shape) to get a large enough image for still photographic needs out of a strip of film only 24mm wide; very small in that era.

The wide 3:2 shape does seem to have been an excellent choice: it allows the 35mm film printer to print at all of most of the common shapes, from 5:4 through 4:3 and 7:5 to 3:2, always using the full 24mm height of the frame, and so having the largest image of each of those shapes on the film that is possible with 35mm format film. As others has said, it is also fairly good for those who like rather panoramic formats.

In the digital world however, the design constraint is not so much "maximum frame height" but getting the most out of a given area of sensor, since sensor area is a major factor in sensor and camera cost. So maybe the new optimum is a sensor shape which, for a give area, covers the user's preferred range of print shapes with the least percentage cropping. For the panoramically inclined, 3:2 still makes sense (the wider 16:9 of APS seems to have been rejected in DSLR's, even the ones called "APS format"). For those who print mostly over the traditional mainstream of shapes from 5:4 to 3:2, a shape in the middle of that range might make more sense; such as 4:3 or 7:5 (close to the "metric" paper sizes A4, A3 etc.).

4:3 is the choice of most or all compact digicams (a few 3:2 and 5:4 digicams used to exist, but seem to be gone now), and of most of the more recent digital backs for medium format and large format, and of the 4/3 DSLR format.

7:5 or actually "metric paper shape" has been chosen by Fuji for their forthcoming 20MP digital back, if it ever actually appears.

3:2 thrives in "35mm backward compatable DSLRs", and is used in some older sensors for digital backs.

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Andrew Marshall said:

Ok, so why don't camera makers offer anything other than this ratio
for D SLR's knowing many of us are making portrait 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
.. sizes?

Click to expand...

One does. Check out the Oly 4/3 system. The 4:3 aspect ratio (much
more efficient crop to 8x10 or 5x7) is
a part of the rationale behind the whole "4/3 system".

Click to expand...

Checked out the new E-1, nice! But I have big invest. in Nikon glass.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Consider this: (were talking all un-interpolated here)

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Seriously though, you could abandon making 4x6's, (who needs them
anywhay)

Click to expand...

And you could abandon your 8x10s and 5x7s.

Click to expand...

What!?!

I don't think myself of any other portrait/wedding photog. could give up standard print sizes.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

You would have to crop to get 4x6, but I wouldn't mind
wasting pixels (via cropping) when going to a small print size, I
do when going large . . . makes sense.

I guess if you're a pano person, you'ld have to generally disagree
with me.

Click to expand...

A pano parson, a wildlife person, a landscape person, a group
portrait person, an event shooter, a forensics photographer...

Click to expand...

If you mean this to say that I , the portrait guy, am in the minority here? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Hey, why not 2 formats: 1 panoramic and 1 portrait.

Click to expand...

They have that. Go check out the Olymous forum.

--
Ciao!
"Ciao" what is this?

Click to expand...

I believe Olympus is moving in the right direction here. And I would hope their move represents the beginning of migration in that general direction for other cam. manufacturers, and I believe it is. Look at the options w/MF systems, for example. Not to say that 2:3 should go away, but hey Nikon give me some options here please . . . Tired if clickin my 4.8MP D100's, when "leaving room" for 4x5's and such. And oh . . . the wasted Mg Bites of pixels on my HD and in archive, from thousands of wedding pictures, that will never be used . . just takin up space.

Cheers

andy

BJL said:

The 3:2 aspect ratio seems to have arisen from the historical needs
of adapting 35mm movie film (frame size 24x18mm, or 4:3 shape) to
get a large enough image for still photographic needs out of a
strip of film only 24mm wide; very small in that era.

The wide 3:2 shape does seem to have been an excellent choice: it
allows the 35mm film printer to print at all of most of the common
shapes, from 5:4 through 4:3 and 7:5 to 3:2, always using the full
24mm height of the frame, and so having the largest image of each
of those shapes on the film that is possible with 35mm format film.
As others has said, it is also fairly good for those who like
rather panoramic formats.

In the digital world however, the design constraint is not so much
"maximum frame height" but getting the most out of a given area of
sensor, since sensor area is a major factor in sensor and camera
cost. So maybe the new optimum is a sensor shape which, for a give
area, covers the user's preferred range of print shapes with the
least percentage cropping. For the panoramically inclined, 3:2
still makes sense (the wider 16:9 of APS seems to have been
rejected in DSLR's, even the ones called "APS format"). For those
who print mostly over the traditional mainstream of shapes from 5:4
to 3:2, a shape in the middle of that range might make more sense;
such as 4:3 or 7:5 (close to the "metric" paper sizes A4, A3 etc.).
4:3 is the choice of most or all compact digicams (a few 3:2 and
5:4 digicams used to exist, but seem to be gone now), and of most
of the more recent digital backs for medium format and large
format, and of the 4/3 DSLR format.
7:5 or actually "metric paper shape" has been chosen by Fuji for
their forthcoming 20MP digital back, if it ever actually appears.
3:2 thrives in "35mm backward compatable DSLRs", and is used in
some older sensors for digital backs.

Click to expand...

All I know is when I go down to get prints made they come out perfect in 3:2. Nuf said ;-)
Josh

Lenses specifically designed for digital sensors can get a smaller and lighter (slightly) lens for the same pixels with a 4:3 than they can with 3:2.

I usually print 5 X 7s to pass around, but for smaller prints I can get four 4 X 5.33 pictures from an 8.5 X 11 sheet and to me the format looks better than 4 X 6.

Andrew Marshall said:

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Andrew Marshall said:

Ok, so why don't camera makers offer anything other than this ratio
for D SLR's knowing many of us are making portrait 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
.. sizes?

Click to expand...

One does. Check out the Oly 4/3 system.

Click to expand...

Checked out the new E-1, nice! But I have big invest. in Nikon glass.

Click to expand...

I know that feeling. Although Nikon glass holds a ton of value and is pretty easy to sell, there just isn't enough range in the Oly line to replace it.

Andrew Marshall said:

Andrew Marshall said:

Andrew Marshall said:

Consider this: (were talking all un-interpolated here)

Click to expand...

Andrew Marshall said:

Seriously though, you could abandon making 4x6's, (who needs them
anywhay)

Click to expand...

And you could abandon your 8x10s and 5x7s.

Click to expand...

What!?!
I don't think myself of any other portrait/wedding photog. could
give up standard print sizes.

Click to expand...

Well, you were the one to suggest that the non-portrait photographers give up our standard sizes.

Andrew Marshall said:

Andrew Marshall said:

Andrew Marshall said:

You would have to crop to get 4x6, but I wouldn't mind
wasting pixels (via cropping) when going to a small print size, I
do when going large . . . makes sense.

I guess if you're a pano person, you'ld have to generally disagree
with me.

Click to expand...

A pano parson, a wildlife person, a landscape person, a group
portrait person, an event shooter, a forensics photographer...

Click to expand...

If you mean this to say that I , the portrait guy, am in the
minority here? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Click to expand...

They may constitute the majority of working pros (actually, adter years of dealing with PPA, there's no "maybe"). But pros constitute a small fraction of photographers, including the advanced amateurs who are the primary consumer of SLRs.

Andrew Marshall said:

Andrew Marshall said:

Andrew Marshall said:

Hey, why not 2 formats: 1 panoramic and 1 portrait.

Click to expand...

They have that. Go check out the Olymous forum.

Click to expand...

I believe Olympus is moving in the right direction here. And I
would hope their move represents the beginning of migration in that
general direction for other cam. manufacturers, and I believe it
is.

Click to expand...

I think they're going to be migrating towards 3:2, not away. Right now, digicams are still suffering from their "legacy" of adapted video camera technology, and a 4:3 format that goes back for almost 100 years of vidicon tubes. But TV is moving towards a 16:9 aspect (beyond 3:2), video cameras will follow, laptops are already heading in that direction. Still cameras will catch up eventually.

Andrew Marshall said:

Look at the options w/MF systems, for example. Not to say
that 2:3 should go away, but hey Nikon give me some options here
please . . . Tired if clickin my 4.8MP D100's, when "leaving room"
for 4x5's and such.

Click to expand...

The "option" will likely take the form of a DSLR with more megapizels, so that you can throw away a good portion of those and still have a good sized portrait.

Remember, portrait and wedding shooters exist in a fairly narrow range of focal lengths, roughly from 35mm equivelant to 135mm. It's the landscape, architectural, panorama, etc. shooters who push the wide angle limits and are most hurt by cropping.

Andrew Marshall said:

And oh . . . the wasted Mg Bites of pixels on
my HD and in archive, from thousands of wedding pictures, that will
never be used . . just takin up space.

Click to expand...

So, how about this. Nikon already has the technology for programable overlays on the viewfinder. The D100 and D70 use a transparent LCD display inside the viewfinder to show you the active AF zones and all gridlines that you can turn on and off. It would not be much trouble to add programable 8x10 crop lines, or even a programable mask.

When in 8x10 mode, the JPEG and raw files would only contain the 8x10 pixels. The 8x10 mode would raise the crop factor a little bit (the cropped image would have a diagonal slightly smaller than an uncropped 3:2).

Actually, I'd like to see two 8x10 modes. One where the finder showed 8x10 guidelines, stored the whole 3:2 raw file, and gave it an 8x10 tag. The "I'd think I want an 8x10, but I want to see and store the extra pixels just in case" mode.

And another mode where the finder is actually masked, and the extra pixels aren't stored. The "I know what I want" mode.

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

But TV is moving towards a 16:9 aspect
(beyond 3:2), video cameras will follow, laptops are already
heading in that direction. Still cameras will catch up eventually.

Click to expand...

I think you are right Joe. The whole visual culture is going towards
the wider image. Soon everybody will have an LCD wide screen on their
walls for watching all kind of pictures - including their wedding pictures.

fangel

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

I think they're going to be migrating towards 3:2, not away. Right
now, digicams are still suffering from their "legacy" of adapted
video camera technology, and a 4:3 format that goes back for almost
100 years of vidicon tubes. But TV is moving towards a 16:9 aspect
(beyond 3:2), video cameras will follow, laptops are already
heading in that direction. Still cameras will catch up eventually.

Click to expand...

Movies have had far wider aspect ratios than mainstream still photography for almost half a century and the video industry is finally catching up with that, but the needs of still photography are different than for moving pictures, and I do not see any trend of still photography to go wider.

The amateur enthusiasts that dominate SLR market volume has been offered 3:2 aspect printing paper but the market as a whole rejected it (except for snapshot size). Add in the majority of professional work that is portraits, and 3:2 is even more out on a limb.

In the compact digicam mainstream, the sensor shape battle seems to be over, with the very few 3:2 and 5:4 shape sensors now gone (perhaps the 11x8.5 shape of standard US letter format inkjet paper is a driving force there).

In the world of medium format and large format digital backs, which are generally in smaller formats than the camera's and so can be a different shape, 4:3 seems to be the dominant choice, with a dash of square.

In fact, almost the ONLY digital cameras offering 3:2 shape are the the 2% or so of them that are DSLR's based on 35mm film camera components and designed for compatability and familiarity for the world of 35mm film SLR's, which seems a backward rather than a forward looking motivation.

Dear Andrew,

Did you ever complain about 35mm film? Nikon could have made film into any ratio they wanted to. They chose 2:3 because that was the standard but Widelux made their own size. I have also seen some camera that shoot a 1/2 frame of 35mm. Just like Bronica can make a 6x4.5, Hassy can make 6x6, Mamiya 6x7 and Fuji 6x9 and 6x17 all on the same 120 film, Nikon could have made a 4:5 ratio with 35mm to make 8x10 with no crops.

They could do this with digital (much easier than they could with film) but maybe the demand is not there yet. Olympus does use it as a selling point for their E1. They say if you shoot a 6mp Nikon you will throw away enough pixels to make an 8x10 that it would equal a 5mp Olympus E1.

Andrew Marshall said:

Ok, so why don't camera makers offer anything other than this ratio
for D SLR's knowing many of us are making portrait 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
.. sizes?

Consider this: (were talking all un-interpolated here)

Things being as they are, 8x10's out of my D100 go from 6MP to
4.8MP or from 2000 x 3008 to 2000 x 2400. Which leaves me
w/250dpi at the 8x10 print size.

If my sensor where designed w/ 4x5 ratio, out of cam. images would
be 2739 x 2191= still 6MP but @ 8x10 this now becomes 273 dpi.

Ok I belive the 1Ds is 8.9MP, doing the math right (or wrong?) I'm
saying the pixel dim. are around 2650 x 2435, which, when cropped
to 8x10 leaves 304 dpi.

. . . I think you get the point,

So, I guess what I'm saying is I HATE WASTING PIXELS!!!

OK ... feel better now.

Seriously though, you could abandon making 4x6's, (who needs them
anywhay) You would have to crop to get 4x6, but I wouldn't mind
wasting pixels (via cropping) when going to a small print size, I
do when going large . . . makes sense.

I guess if you're a pano person, you'ld have to generally disagree
with me.

Hey, why not 2 formats: 1 panoramic and 1 portrait.

just my thoughts.

andy

Click to expand...

Qwerty13 said:

Dear Andrew,

Did you ever complain about 35mm film? Nikon could have made film
into any ratio they wanted to. They chose 2:3 because that was the
standard but Widelux made their own size. I have also seen some
camera that shoot a 1/2 frame of 35mm. Just like Bronica can make a
6x4.5, Hassy can make 6x6, Mamiya 6x7 and Fuji 6x9 and 6x17 all on
the same 120 film, Nikon could have made a 4:5 ratio with 35mm to
make 8x10 with no crops.

They could do this with digital (much easier than they could with
film) but maybe the demand is not there yet. Olympus does use it as
a selling point for their E1. They say if you shoot a 6mp Nikon you
will throw away enough pixels to make an 8x10 that it would equal a
5mp Olympus E1.

Click to expand...

Getting nostalgic again. Over the last century, camera manufacturers tried just about every possible format on 35mm.

Most 35mm cameras took some integer number of sprocket hole perforations. Those are on 4.75mm centers, if memory serves. There is a little "safe space" betweeen images.

I have one 35mm camera in my collection that takes 24mm square pictures. I think it's a Kosmos. It does not use integer spacings.

My stereo Realist takes 24x23mm verticals. (5 perf). My 3D Nimslo takes 24x18 verticals (4 perf).

There are several European cameras at 7 perf (24x30mm), and one 9 hole 24x42.

And there's the Fuji XPan, 14 perf (24x65mm).

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

With a square sensor, you maximize use of the lens and you can decide later how to crop. Also there could be the overlays like Joe talked about for different ratios. But you could also go a step farther, and switch between landscape and portrait modes without re-orienting the camera. I would like to be able to take a bunch of portraits without holding the camera sideways.

Cheers,
Max

--
Max's Pictures and cameras: http://www.thelehmans.net/photo/

As a serious amateur I find that the available mass market digital printing is here, is economical and , while it doesn't even try to compete with pro labs it is a great value.
example...I've done this...

Go to a friends wedding or kid's bar mitzvah or shoot them playing golf or whatever.

Costco ( no endorsement and not a pro lab, so don't flame) will do two 18x12(!) inch, four 12x8 inch and thirty 6x4's for under twenty bucks.

Heck, I can do this as a favor for free for friends and get thanks and gratitude worth WAY more that twenty bucks forever.
No wasted pixels!!

If I start charging it would stop being a hobby. I enjoy this too much. I am in no way trying to put a dent on pro business and am having a great time.

good day, good shooting

Maxwell said:

With a square sensor, you maximize use of the lens and you can
decide later how to crop.

Click to expand...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=7433416

Unless you're producing square prints, you always have to crop a square, and you have to crop it about 8% more than you have to crop a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor to get to a "stock" print size like 8x10, 5x7 (and I won't get into my personal favorite, the 8x12).

Since you're always cropping a square, you're always using a smaller portion of the len's image circle than a 4:3 or 3:2 rectangle does.

However, these arguments about 8% of an image circle really aren't that important. Digital photography is advancing at suce a rapid rate that 6 years (4 complete "Moore's law" 18 month doubling cycles) will see so much resolution that we don't care if we're throwing some away with a "crop always" workflow.

The convenience of a square sensor might well overshadow it's 8% efficiency loss.

Maxwell126963 said:

Also there could be the overlays like
Joe talked about for different ratios. But you could also go a
step farther, and switch between landscape and portrait modes
without re-orienting the camera. I would like to be able to take a
bunch of portraits without holding the camera sideways.

Click to expand...

It would be handy. I can handle turning the camera. An E-1 with 14-54, or a D100 with 28-80 (my usual event camera) isn't all that heavy. Not like the dark ages of medium format. But the whole concept of needing a formidable bracket with a camera rotator or "flip" mechanism to keep my flash over the camera is a major pain. And I use a really nice rotator.

Landscape and studio portrait shooters would probably vote for keeping the rectangular format and squeezing out that last 8%, so once again, a split develops in the photographic community.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

BJL said:

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

I think they're going to be migrating towards 3:2, not away. Right
now, digicams are still suffering from their "legacy" of adapted
video camera technology, and a 4:3 format that goes back for almost
100 years of vidicon tubes. But TV is moving towards a 16:9 aspect
(beyond 3:2), video cameras will follow, laptops are already
heading in that direction. Still cameras will catch up eventually.

Click to expand...

Movies have had far wider aspect ratios than mainstream still
photography for almost half a century and the video industry is
finally catching up with that, but the needs of still photography
are different than for moving pictures, and I do not see any trend
of still photography to go wider.
The amateur enthusiasts that dominate SLR market volume has been
offered 3:2 aspect printing paper but the market as a whole
rejected it (except for snapshot size). Add in the majority of
professional work that is portraits, and 3:2 is even more out on a
limb.
In the compact digicam mainstream, the sensor shape battle seems to
be over, with the very few 3:2 and 5:4 shape sensors now gone
(perhaps the 11x8.5 shape of standard US letter format inkjet paper
is a driving force there).
In the world of medium format and large format digital backs, which
are generally in smaller formats than the camera's and so can be a
different shape, 4:3 seems to be the dominant choice, with a dash
of square.
In fact, almost the ONLY digital cameras offering 3:2 shape are the
the 2% or so of them that are DSLR's based on 35mm film camera
components and designed for compatability and familiarity for the
world of 35mm film SLR's, which seems a backward rather than a
forward looking motivation.

Click to expand...

In recognition of the growing popularity of the widescreen format used in a range of consumer electronics products, the FinePix F710 Zoom incorporates a new 2.1" widescreen LCD for image capture and playback of 16:9 format images - a picture size adjusted for optimised playback on the now-ubiquitous widescreen television. In addition, printing images is made easier thanks to the inclusion of PictBridge™, the industry standard for printing images from a digital camera without using a PC.

fangel said:

In recognition of the growing popularity of the widescreen format
used in a range of consumer electronics products, the
FinePix F710 Zoom incorporates a new 2.1" widescreen LCD
for image capture and playback of 16:9 format images ...

Click to expand...

You beat me to it! But the sensor is still 4:3, so what they are offering seems to be an option of croppiig away 25% of recorded pixels to get a panormaic image for viewing directly on "home entertainment systems". Not very relevant to the discussions of what more serious SLR users are likely to want.

It has another benefit of allowing a larger LCD screen, as height tends to be the limitation on LCD size in compact digicams. That will be better for zooming in and checking details. Next step: a touch screen interface covering the whole back panel of a digicam ... which then becomes a PDA.

Maybe EVF digicams could allow rotation of just the sensor, allowing normal horizontal holding of the camera for verticals, and normal flash positioning. One LF back does this. Tricky with SLR's though!

2:3 is much more pleasing to the eye than 3:4. And jives more with acutal human eyesight. This is a fact.

Regards,
Sean

Andrew Marshall said:

Ok, so why don't camera makers offer anything other than this ratio
for D SLR's knowing many of us are making portrait 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
.. sizes?

Consider this: (were talking all un-interpolated here)

Things being as they are, 8x10's out of my D100 go from 6MP to
4.8MP or from 2000 x 3008 to 2000 x 2400. Which leaves me
w/250dpi at the 8x10 print size.

If my sensor where designed w/ 4x5 ratio, out of cam. images would
be 2739 x 2191= still 6MP but @ 8x10 this now becomes 273 dpi.

Ok I belive the 1Ds is 8.9MP, doing the math right (or wrong?) I'm
saying the pixel dim. are around 2650 x 2435, which, when cropped
to 8x10 leaves 304 dpi.

. . . I think you get the point,

So, I guess what I'm saying is I HATE WASTING PIXELS!!!

OK ... feel better now.

Seriously though, you could abandon making 4x6's, (who needs them
anywhay) You would have to crop to get 4x6, but I wouldn't mind
wasting pixels (via cropping) when going to a small print size, I
do when going large . . . makes sense.

I guess if you're a pano person, you'ld have to generally disagree
with me.

Hey, why not 2 formats: 1 panoramic and 1 portrait.

just my thoughts.

andy

Click to expand...

BJL said:

You beat me to it! But the sensor is still 4:3, so what they are
offering seems to be an option of croppiig away 25% of recorded
pixels to get a panormaic image for viewing directly on "home
entertainment systems". Not very relevant to the discussions of
what more serious SLR users are likely to want.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that. Can't tell you which one, but one of the sensor manufacturers just sent me some data sheets on a sensor outside the antique 4:3 mode. Hopefully, they'll announce publically before SAE next month.

Wide sensors make sense in the auto industry. Rear windows have an aspect over 2:1.

Didn't Sony just announce a line of camcorder CCDs, 2mp, 16:9 HDTV style?

BJL said:

It has another benefit of allowing a larger LCD screen, as height
tends to be the limitation on LCD size in compact digicams. That
will be better for zooming in and checking details. Next step: a
touch screen interface covering the whole back panel of a digicam
... which then becomes a PDA.

Click to expand...

I hope it has a couple of CF slots. We've got some neat cell phone on a CF card samples in the lab.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com