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

[Al D]

Can I get 16:10 please? My monitor is 16:10

Specifically for full frame: by definition full frame is 36x24 which is 3:2 so help me out here: what do you suggest, just an option in the menus to crop to 4:3 ? make the sensors smaller to match? or bigger? in other words a new format?

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

 

[TacticDesigns]

4:3 is often cited as a disadvantage to the MFT system, as we most often prefer 3:2. It means we have to crop into 4:3 and give up resolution to get it.

+1

4:3 has to be cropped on both ends depending on what size paper you are printing it out on.

For 4x6 you have to lose pixels on the long sides.

For 8x10 you have to lose pixels on the short sides.

So . . . if you want to leave the option to print a picture out either as a 4x6 or 8x10 then you have to shoot wide both ways.

Whereas for 3:2 you only have to leave extra pixels on either end of the long side.*

*Although I shoot wide both ways to leave wiggle room. LOL.

My compact waterproof camera is 4:3 and it is something I constantly forget when shooting with it.

Sometimes I wish my waterproof camera were 3:2 as I've grown accustomed to shooting with 3:2 with my dSLR cameras. And . . . most of my prints end up as 4x6 anyway. Especially since I have a 4x6 picture printer (Canon Selphy CP1300).**

**I'm wondering if I should just set my waterproof compact camera to 3:2 aspect ratio and be done with it! LOL. I think I might try that this summer. Actually, I think I might set my Pentax Q to 3:2 as well.

When we make prints, the most common size these days is 4x6", which is a perfect fit for 3:2 aspect ratio.

+1 for me, especially since my photo printer prints on 4x6 paper. (Canon Selphy CP1300.)

I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be a deal-killer either, as I rarely even use the full 24 MP of my FF camera; I normally shoot at 16 MP.

Even with my MFT system, I shoot at 16 MP (full res., on my camera) crop down to 3:2, and still have extra resolution to play with.

Resolution is cheap, these days.

Take care & Happy Shooting!


--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/sets/72157631300869284/

[FL][RP][LS][GC][51][ML][TMPM][ExifTool][TimeStamp]

 

[Adso of Melk]

Why do you need 4:3 when the 3:2 cover the area of it and can be select in the setting?

It does not cover the area. 4:3 has less information on the sides but more information on the top and bottom. With a 3:2 sensor you can crop the sides but you cannot add information above and below.

 

[Adso of Melk]

And in the world of cinema:

Why The Old-School 4:3 Aspect Ratio Is Coming Back With A Vengeance Right Now

https://noamkroll.com/why-the-old-school-43-aspect-ratio-is-coming-back-with-a-vengeance-right-now/

There Is No Better Way To Frame a Face

"So far, we’ve touched on some of the superficial qualities that may be drawing filmmakers to 4:3. But at the end of the day, even if a filmmaker is enticed by the vintage look, or the format’s ability to differentiate their work from the next filmmaker, that’s simply an entry point.

What ultimately gets most filmmakers to actually commit to the 4:3 format are the aesthetic benefits – namely framing options. I could write an entire article about how framing is affected by various aspect ratios, and the merits of each format, but for the sake of this post I will focus on just one key factor: Framing faces."

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

I didn't mention the reason for my inclination towards 4:3 (not that it matters as such )

Earlier I always thought 16:9 or 16:10 to be more immersive but if one were to "exhaust" the available width, increasing the height increases the immersiveness.

What does this mean? How do you define "immersive"? How do you quantify it? If a simple increase in height-to-width ratio has the effect you mention (whatever it means) then you should be rooting for vertical formats, not just a trivial adjustment of horizontal.

IOW when width is maximised (as allowed by horizontal FOV) and matched for all formats, 4:3 will be most immersive. Maybe the same reason for which IMAX native is 1.435:1 ?

Though this applies only to large screen or prints IMO, but nevertheless was wondering if digital sensor can or should unify in the aspect ratio (4:3) irrespective of sensor size.

Esp even when the smartphone screens are wider than 16:9 they still chose 4:3 sensors. Need to study the reason..

Because it's near the optimum for cropping to the range of aspect ratios actually used, and their relative popularity.

That's true for any size of sensor; 3:2 is actually the odd one out among commonly used aspect ratios. However, the reasons for 3:2 are 100 years old and the manufacturers clearly don't see any reason to change.

 

[J A C S]

And in the world of cinema:

Why The Old-School 4:3 Aspect Ratio Is Coming Back With A Vengeance Right Now

https://noamkroll.com/why-the-old-school-43-aspect-ratio-is-coming-back-with-a-vengeance-right-now/

There Is No Better Way To Frame a Face

"So far, we’ve touched on some of the superficial qualities that may be drawing filmmakers to 4:3. But at the end of the day, even if a filmmaker is enticed by the vintage look, or the format’s ability to differentiate their work from the next filmmaker, that’s simply an entry point.

What ultimately gets most filmmakers to actually commit to the 4:3 format are the aesthetic benefits – namely framing options. I could write an entire article about how framing is affected by various aspect ratios, and the merits of each format, but for the sake of this post I will focus on just one key factor: Framing faces."

Written 3 years ago - now we can tell that it was not a great prediction of a trend. Nobody goes to "the movies" anymore; people stream movies on 16:9 TVs and devices.

 

[Phil A Martin]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

I didn't mention the reason for my inclination towards 4:3 (not that it matters as such )

Earlier I always thought 16:9 or 16:10 to be more immersive but if one were to "exhaust" the available width, increasing the height increases the immersiveness.

What does this mean? How do you define "immersive"? How do you quantify it? If a simple increase in height-to-width ratio has the effect you mention (whatever it means) then you should be rooting for vertical formats, not just a trivial adjustment of horizontal.

I think I'll start a campaign for 3x2 ratio cameras to be redesigned with a vertical sensor to match smartphones. If people want to use them landscape format, they can purchase an attachable grip so they can use the camera on it's side

IOW when width is maximised (as allowed by horizontal FOV) and matched for all formats, 4:3 will be most immersive. Maybe the same reason for which IMAX native is 1.435:1 ?

Though this applies only to large screen or prints IMO, but nevertheless was wondering if digital sensor can or should unify in the aspect ratio (4:3) irrespective of sensor size.

Esp even when the smartphone screens are wider than 16:9 they still chose 4:3 sensors. Need to study the reason..

Because it's near the optimum for cropping to the range of aspect ratios actually used, and their relative popularity.

That's true for any size of sensor; 3:2 is actually the odd one out among commonly used aspect ratios. However, the reasons for 3:2 are 100 years old and the manufacturers clearly don't see any reason to change.

--
---
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________
I'm happy for anyone to edit any of my photos and display the results
_________________________________________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]

 

[Sittatunga]

I think I'll start a campaign for 3x2 ratio cameras to be redesigned with a vertical sensor to match smartphones. If people want to use them landscape format, they can purchase an attachable grip so they can use the camera on it's side

Most half-frame cameras were vertical (3:4) ratio. How about a campaign for 1.4142:1 or 0.7071:1 to match international passport sizes?

 

[Adso of Melk]

And in the world of cinema:

Why The Old-School 4:3 Aspect Ratio Is Coming Back With A Vengeance Right Now

https://noamkroll.com/why-the-old-school-43-aspect-ratio-is-coming-back-with-a-vengeance-right-now/

There Is No Better Way To Frame a Face

"So far, we’ve touched on some of the superficial qualities that may be drawing filmmakers to 4:3. But at the end of the day, even if a filmmaker is enticed by the vintage look, or the format’s ability to differentiate their work from the next filmmaker, that’s simply an entry point.

What ultimately gets most filmmakers to actually commit to the 4:3 format are the aesthetic benefits – namely framing options. I could write an entire article about how framing is affected by various aspect ratios, and the merits of each format, but for the sake of this post I will focus on just one key factor: Framing faces."

Written 3 years ago - now we can tell that it was not a great prediction of a trend. Nobody goes to "the movies" anymore; people stream movies on 16:9 TVs and devices.

This is very recent:

"You will watch the Snyder Cut in 4:3 aspect ratio because HBO Max respects cinema"

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/18/22337756/snyder-cut-aspect-ratio-justice-league-hbo-max-warning

 

[J A C S]

And in the world of cinema:

Why The Old-School 4:3 Aspect Ratio Is Coming Back With A Vengeance Right Now

https://noamkroll.com/why-the-old-school-43-aspect-ratio-is-coming-back-with-a-vengeance-right-now/

There Is No Better Way To Frame a Face

"So far, we’ve touched on some of the superficial qualities that may be drawing filmmakers to 4:3. But at the end of the day, even if a filmmaker is enticed by the vintage look, or the format’s ability to differentiate their work from the next filmmaker, that’s simply an entry point.

What ultimately gets most filmmakers to actually commit to the 4:3 format are the aesthetic benefits – namely framing options. I could write an entire article about how framing is affected by various aspect ratios, and the merits of each format, but for the sake of this post I will focus on just one key factor: Framing faces."

Written 3 years ago - now we can tell that it was not a great prediction of a trend. Nobody goes to "the movies" anymore; people stream movies on 16:9 TVs and devices.

This is very recent:

"You will watch the Snyder Cut in 4:3 aspect ratio because HBO Max respects cinema"

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/18/22337756/snyder-cut-aspect-ratio-justice-league-hbo-max-warning

I guess one movie is a trend nowadays...

 

[PicPocket]

I guess one movie is a trend nowadays...

There is always that someone who will do things different, but someone buying a roll of film or a vinyl record often isn't a sign of things turning around

 

[Aaron801]

I actually prefer the 4:3 ration and am happy that this is the native one on my m43 camera. If I were to ever get an APS-C (I'd love a Fuji!) or an FF camera I'd feel like I was missing the 4:3 format. Of course I could crop all of the shots, but it wouldn't be the same and I'd feel like I was missing out of on some of the resolution of these bigger format cameras. If these things were designed to do 4:3, then it would be easy to have them switchable to a slightly smaller 3:2.... Why not?

Over the last four decades, most of my significant work has been shot on 67 format and I'm strongly drawn to the 67/54/43 range of formats. I've often thought it would be nice to have a dedicated 43 equivalent of full frame but it's never going to happen.

The digital revolution brought the potential for a wide range of formats but given the hold of the 35mm/32 ratio over photography, the clamour was for full frame and that's where the investment has gone. Panasonic had the opportunity to play on their 43 tradition and propose a FF/43 camera but even they went for the standard FF/32 format.

The plain facts are, no matter how much we desire it, I don't think any company has the will or the resources to invest in what will be seen as an esoteric format that only appeals to a minority. Especially considering most mirrorless cameras allow the user to crop in camera and use that for the purpose instead.

I'm sure that you're probably right. Nowadays people think more about what fills up more of their screen real estate rather than thinking more deeply about the kind of format that makes the most sense for their photography in a stylistic/artistic way. Back in the film days, there wasn't just more formats that were 4:3 (or closer to it), but you had paper sizes that were that ratio and there were lots of people that cropped to get up more out that expensive photo paper... and maybe because they liked the look as well.





There certainly are a lot of obscure little features built into modern digital cameras. Ones that most of use don't use, let alone even think about. Still, a variable format type arrangement would be very low on the list of features to include because it isn't something that can just be added to a chip or software, but requires that the camera be physically built very differently; something that manufacturers are unlikely to see enough of a payoff to bother with.




I did own a GH2 Which had that sort of feature (but which I have to admit, I rarely used), and it's proof that such a thing is indeed possible.

 

[j3ffw]

Personally I think it would be great both for stills and video. For video it would add area to the footage that would be cropped therefor helping stabilize footage, easy with today's software impossible back in the film days. And for stills with high pixel count cameras it would allow you have both a horizontal image and if needed an easy crop to a vertical.

When I was using 4x5 I almost always had a mask taped on the ground glass to simulate what type of film back I might have on, a specific layout given to me by the designer how the image needed to be composed or just guidelines to keep some safety room on the edges.

In today/tomorrow's world images need to be flexible to accommodate what device they are being viewed on. I don't believe it can said that there are any set dimensions today seeing that a website content can be viewed on a horizontal display or turned 90 degrees on a tablet.

Viewfinders would need to have adjustable masks so we could visualize how we are most likely going to crop in post but this would give us freedom to supply images for the fluid medium of the web. I'd be fine with a square image file to capture as much as the lens's image circle is projecting.

p.s. meant to have this in reply to the OP's post

 

[tbcass]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

Wrong question. What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

 

[TacticDesigns]

Personally I think it would be great both for stills and video. For video it would add area to the footage that would be cropped therefor helping stabilize footage, easy with today's software impossible back in the film days. And for stills with high pixel count cameras it would allow you have both a horizontal image and if needed an easy crop to a vertical.

+1

That is a very good point.

The ability to shoot horizontal for TV screen display.

But the ability to crop out vertical to have some variety.

It is one of the reasons I was thinking a square sensor made sense!

Take care & Happy Shooting!

When I was using 4x5 I almost always had a mask taped on the ground glass to simulate what type of film back I might have on, a specific layout given to me by the designer how the image needed to be composed or just guidelines to keep some safety room on the edges.

In today/tomorrow's world images need to be flexible to accommodate what device they are being viewed on. I don't believe it can said that there are any set dimensions today seeing that a website content can be viewed on a horizontal display or turned 90 degrees on a tablet.

Viewfinders would need to have adjustable masks so we could visualize how we are most likely going to crop in post but this would give us freedom to supply images for the fluid medium of the web. I'd be fine with a square image file to capture as much as the lens's image circle is projecting.

 

[Phil A Martin]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

Wrong question. What reason is there to switch to 4:3

Aesthetics

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

Wrong question. What reason is there to switch to 4:3

Aesthetics

Poor reason. It’s not financially practical to create a whole new large sensor format because some people like 4:3 aesthetically. There are practical reasons for a FF square sensor because it would fit in the image circle of existing lenses with no wasted sensor space. Both 43 and 32 are inefficient in in this regard. A square sensor could accommodate all ratios.

--
Tom

 

[sybersitizen]

... What reason is there to switch to 4:3

Aesthetics

There's nothing inherently esthetic about either aspect ratio. Either can work well, and so can others, depending on the circumstances.

There are probably only two (if any) aspect ratios that can claim some special esthetic superiority: the square, which has perfect symmetry, and the golden rectangle (based on the golden ratio, a ratio that's frequently observed in nature.)

 

[Phil A Martin]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

Wrong question. What reason is there to switch to 4:3

Aesthetics

Poor reason. It’s not financially practical to create a whole new large sensor format because some people like 4:3 aesthetically.

There already are 4/3 ratio sensors of different sizes.

Actually it’s not financially practical to create a whole new FF square sensor and what's more, it ain't gonna happen

But pardon me for thinking that aesthetics might play a part in photographic image making.

 

[Phil A Martin]

... What reason is there to switch to 4:3

Aesthetics

There's nothing inherently esthetic about either aspect ratio. Either can work well, and so can others, depending on the circumstances.

I didn't say there was anything inherently aesthetic about the 4x3 ration over other image ratios but a great many people aren't tied to their PC monitors and do like the 6x7/5x4/4x3 range and they like them for aesthetic reasons. After years of shooting 67, I'm drawn to it but presently shoot 3x2 because my camera is 3x2.

There are probably only two (if any) aspect ratios that can claim some special esthetic superiority: the square, which has perfect symmetry, and the golden rectangle (based on the golden ratio, a ratio that's frequently observed in nature.)