4:3 ratio and standard print formats

[Rony Zmiri]

I read in one of the reviews about the E-1 that "the 4:3 ratio doesn't match with many standard print formats nor HDTV (16:9)".

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/dslr/olympus_e1/verdict.htm

What does it mean?
Can't you just order prints as with any other DSLR?

 

[Big Ga]

I read in one of the reviews about the E-1 that "the 4:3 ratio
doesn't match with many standard print formats nor HDTV (16:9)".

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/dslr/olympus_e1/verdict.htm

What does it mean?

It means they watch a lot of films, but know bugger all about printing.

 

[vlatko]

I mean, 16:9? Why TH would you need 16:9 on a DSLR? So you can show your photos on a HDTV set? Jeeez...

 

[Rennie Petersen]

I read in one of the reviews about the E-1 that "the 4:3 ratio
doesn't match with many standard print formats nor HDTV (16:9)".

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/dslr/olympus_e1/verdict.htm

What does it mean?

Depends what one means by "standard" print format.

HDTV = 16:9 = 1.777
Canon, Nikon, etc. DSLR, and 35 mm film = 3:2 = 1.5
Metric paper, A3, A4, A5, etc. = square root of 2 = 1.414
Fourthirds DSLR, non-DSLR digicams, traditional TV, PC monitors = 4:3 = 1.333
American 8.5" x 11" paper = 1.294
Medium format film cameras = square = 1.0

What do you consider the "standard" aspect ratio?

Note that the 4:3 aspect ratio is in between metric paper and American letter paper. The 3:2 aspect ratio is quite far from American letter paper.

(Personally, I kind of like the idea of square sensors, that would optimize use of the lens and make rotating the camera unnecessary.)

Can't you just order prints as with any other DSLR?

Of course you can. Depending on what print size you request your pictures will be cropped in one dimension or extra white borders will be added on the other dimension. Unless you crop your pictures yourself to match the print size. That applies to all cameras and all print sizes.

Rennie

--
Olympus E-500, Sony F717, Sony P100, HP 8750, Canon S820
http://renniep.smugmug.com

 

[Big Ga]

I mean, 16:9? Why TH would you need 16:9 on a DSLR? So you can show
your photos on a HDTV set? Jeeez...

Hard to tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here.

The funny thing is I DO have a need for 16:9 images as we produce a lot of video DVDs of shoots. But normal albums are closer to 4:3 most of the time. So there is no real solution other than realising you're going to have to crop at some time or another.

 

[JR_Sprawls]

Actually 4:3 is a better fit to traditional photos sizes than the 3:2 of most SLRs. It's a pretty good fit to 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20. It's also a decent fit to "letter size" for those who use inkjet printers. The one important exception is 4x6, which was invented for the 3:2 ration of 35mm film -- if you want to order small prints 3:2 cameras have an advantage.

Like the poster above, I too would like a square chip with switchable formats -- and no more need to rotate the camera.

--
J.R.

Somewhere south of Amarillo

http://jrsprawls.com
http://fotolocus.com

 

[Bobby J]

to comment but didn't because I realized that not everything in the United States is standard in other parts of the world. I wasn't at all certain what was a "standard" size photo for the comentator.

Here, at least, 4x5,5x7,8x10,11x14,16x20 and 20x24 inches are the traditional photo sizes. 4:3 enlarges to those sizes with very little cropping.
35mm foremat does not. It requires significant cropping.

I chose to use the Mamyia M645, and RB-67 for most of my work because I could compose tightly in the camera and the client got a print that looked like what I showed him in the proofs.

The only size "standard" I know of that fits the 2:3 camera with little cropping is 4x6, which I never heard of untill digital photography came along. I think even most of the P&S digicams use 4:3.

Anyhow I like to compose a photo in the camera so that it doesn't require cropping for me to print in a US traditional foremat.
--
BJM

 

[vlatko]

I mean, 16:9? Why TH would you need 16:9 on a DSLR? So you can show
your photos on a HDTV set? Jeeez...

Hard to tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here.

I was being sarcastic.

The funny thing is I DO have a need for 16:9 images as we produce a
lot of video DVDs of shoots.

That's interesting, and I must admit something like that did occur to me as I was writing, but...

Why 16:9? Why not 4:3 so it can be seen without letterboxing on ordinary TVs?

What do you do with portrait-oriented photos?

But normal albums are closer to 4:3
most of the time. So there is no real solution other than realising
you're going to have to crop at some time or another.

That's definitely the case, whatever sensor or film format you use.