Aspect Ratio...

Discussion in 'Photography' started by J, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. The tactic that Panasonic used in one of their older LX compacts (which
    didn't quite get to full-size square, I think, but did do 9:16, 2:3 and
    3:4, was to have a sensor where the corners of each of those rectangles
    touched the existing image circle.

    So you could usefully have a 36x36mm censor that could be used as 36x24
    horizontally or vertically just fine, with existing lenses, but would not
    get any use out of the corner 4mm or so of the square. You *could*
    happily make a 30.5mm square frame though.

    Cheers,
     
    Andrew Reilly, Nov 20, 2011
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. J

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:08:35 +0000, Pete A wrote:
    :
    : > The show-stopper for having a 36x36 mm frame would seem to be the number
    : > of existing lenses that are incompatible with it rather than anything
    : > else.
    :
    : The tactic that Panasonic used in one of their older LX compacts (which
    : didn't quite get to full-size square, I think, but did do 9:16, 2:3 and
    : 3:4, was to have a sensor where the corners of each of those rectangles
    : touched the existing image circle.
    :
    : So you could usefully have a 36x36mm censor that could be used as 36x24
    : horizontally or vertically just fine, with existing lenses, but would not
    : get any use out of the corner 4mm or so of the square. You *could*
    : happily make a 30.5mm square frame though.

    Correct. I wasn't thinking clearly when I said 36x36. A lens couldn't be
    expected to perform up to spec if a corner of the projected image lay outside
    the image circle for which the lens was designed.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 20, 2011
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. J

    Pete A Guest

    It would work with some lenses. The link below will show you the
    rectangular light baffle problem I mentioned (scroll down to see the
    rear view):

    <http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_70_300mm_f_4_5_6id290.html>

    It's a worse problem in some of the fast telephotos (I can't find a
    picture of one). I think the picture height is limited to about 24 mm.
     
    Pete A, Nov 21, 2011
    #43
  4. J

    NM5K Guest

    I think a lot of it also has to do with the video modes that
    most can run. SD video is 4:3 ratio. So if the camera is going
    to do video also, it makes things easy if the sensor is 4:3.
    Being as they have that ratio sensor, naturally the 4:3 ratio
    for stills is easy to come by, and all you have to do for other
    ratios is crop.
    That's the way mine is..
    It's using a 4:3 sensor, and can do both SD and HD video.
    HD video is 16:9 ratio, so they crop the top and bottom to
    get that. If you chose SD video, it's an uncropped 4:3.
    As far as stills, I can choose 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9.
    The 16:9 is used mostly by people that want to show images
    directly to an HDTV. I almost never use that for stills
    being as I don't show them on a TV. I use 4:3 and 3:2 about 50/50.
    Depends what I'm shooting. If I want something wide screen, I
    crop it myself rather than use 16:9.
    I usually use 3:2 for landscape type stuff.. 4:3 for taking
    pictures of objects like flowers, insects, etc..
    I end up cropping almost everything I use to some extent..
    So I really don't need the camera to do it. 4:3, I have
    the maximum to work with, and less of a chance of something
    getting cut off from the top or bottom. So I use it a good bit.
     
    NM5K, Nov 21, 2011
    #44
  5. I agree. I have an AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 IF-ED, and I seem to remember
    that it has that issue too, although it is not within arms' reach to
    check at the moment. I couldn't find a picture on the web of the rear
    baffle either, but expected that I would, because it is (somewhat?)
    unusual in that there is no lens there...

    Cheers,
     
    Andrew Reilly, Nov 21, 2011
    #45
  6. J

    Pete A Guest

    My AF 180 mm is what made me realise the problem (I have the early
    version with the skinny focus ring). As you say, the rear element is
    quite a way in; this lens needs as much of the throat diameter as it
    can get in the corners at full aperture.
     
    Pete A, Nov 21, 2011
    #46
  7. J

    Chemiker Guest

    Just for fun:

    There was a thread recently decrying the 2:3 (35mm) apect ratio. I
    found it funny, because any photog who composes using the rule of
    thirds is introducing 2:3 into the picture by stealth. Horizontally,
    the entire picture width is 3 thirds, and the subject is either 2
    thirds from the left or the right margin. Same for vertical. Check it
    out.



    Just sayin'.

    Alex

    Oh, putting your horizon line 1/3 down from the top or (up from the
    bottom) is usually a pretty decent place to put it.
     
    Chemiker, Nov 21, 2011
    #47
  8. It always was; I mostly used easels with adjustable arms :). (Except I
    loved the 3.5x5 Speed-easel for making my own snapshot prints.)
    Remember the people who made a fetish of always printing full-frame,
    though? Filed-out negative carriers and the like, letting the actual
    edge of the image on the film show? (Mostly a 35mm affectation so far
    as I recall.)
    Too easy; 1:1.6180339887... :)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 21, 2011
    #48
  9. Well, the internal baffling and the lens shades are often rectangular;
    but that shouldn't start to cut into the image circle until you get out
    to the actual limits of 35mm film dimensions. So I don't, on
    reflection, see any big technical reason for not having a less
    rectangular aspect ratio so long as the dimensions were smaller than
    24x36. Good thinking!

    I wasn't, obvously, there when they debated and made the choice :).

    There's probably a simple aspect of not introducing another change on
    top of the big one (digital) that they were already introducing.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 21, 2011
    #49
  10. Yes, that too.
    Most of which are never used.
    I tend to agree.
    It always made great sense to me; the hand supporting the camera and
    lens is in a great position to adjust that aperture ring. Of course it
    does mean distinguishing three rings by touch on zooms.

    Also complicates modes where the body wants to set the aperture, as your
    "EE" errors show! Nikon fixed that by going to the G lenses with no
    aperture ring.
    Well, I've already jumped into the m43 for my small camera (replacing an
    LX3 that was brilliant in bright light but not good enough in room
    light), before the Nikon 1 came out.

    Sounds like the Nikon 1 has really licked the focus speed problems for
    mirrorless cameras. So I may have to switch, or at least replace my
    body, some day when that spreads a bit.
    Yes, adjusting the flash head is an additional problem, and the fill
    card ends up in the wrong place for verticals.

    With the battery grip on my D700 it's VERY happy vertically. Best
    vertical setup I've had since my initial Miranda Sensorex in 1969 (which
    had a front-mounted shutter release; I didn't need my right arm flapping
    unsupported in the breeze to shoot verticals with that).

    The Mamiya RB67 rotating back was an important innovation in medium
    format (not 4x5 hadn't had it long ago).

    I always regarded 6x6 cameras as undesirable because they wasted so much
    of the film (for ordinary rectangular pictures); I would have gotten a
    6x4.5 or a 6x7 if I'd ever gotten serious there. (In practice I owned a
    Yashicamat 124G 6x6, a Fuji GS645, and a Norita Graflex 6x6.)

    But in digital, paying more for the bigger sensor to make orientation a
    flick on some simple control might be a very very good choice.
    Although, as with 6x6, my instinct then would be to record everything
    and crop later. Maybe a partially-transparent viewfinder overlay,
    though, to help in composition.
    In the end it matters not where you do it; I agree with that. To me
    that sounds like the hard way, but you get to do it your way, and I
    can't really criticize anything but the results (and you're not
    required to care :)).

    I find that, for anything getting "exhibition quality printing" (quotes
    because I mean me myself doing the best I can; rather than claiming to
    meet some objective outside standard), I nearly always end up with some
    local corrections, dodging or burning or the moral equivalent (I prefer
    to use curves adjustment layers with layer masks).

    Most pictures don't get that, though; they just go through Bibble with
    semi-custom parameters, which is the same level of result you can get in
    camera.
    Yes!

    Depending on the details, I might write my jpegs onto the card after
    processing. But I take it they have a serious need for speed.
    Sometimes the need for speed is real and that's what you have to do.
    I haven't done Nikon or other courses either, though I'm kind of dancing
    around some local ones on composition that might be interesting.

    I've read some good books, including Adams' Basic Photo series, which
    have taught me a LOT. I've also been lucky enough to get to sit for
    hours at various times at a computer with Ctein, working on some of my
    images with his help. Amazing what you can learn sitting for a few
    hours with a master printer working on stuff!
    135 format changed that rather slowly, though; beyond snapshot level,
    the print formats stayed the same for something like 60 years after it
    was introduced.
    Plus letterbox tapes of films viewed on an old SD TV.

    You may well be onto something there -- except that the move is AWAY
    FROM 2:3 into 4:3, a less rectangular format, as the default. 16:9 is
    also present, though, so maybe.
    I can remember "A<digit>" easily. In fact, through enough repetition, I
    remember that A4 is their "letter" size, and since I know bigger numbers
    are smaller sizes (because they represent cuts), so I can deduce roughly
    what it all means.
    A pleasure! I hope ongoing.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 21, 2011
    #50
  11. J

    Pete A Guest

    He he. I've just carefully examined my oven control panel and can just
    make out which buttons I never, or very rarely, use - it's about half
    of them.

    This test doesn't work very well on some appliences: apparently, I
    haven't used my washer/dryer at all!
     
    Pete A, Nov 21, 2011
    #51
  12. J

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Remember the people who made a fetish of always printing full-frame,
    : though? Filed-out negative carriers and the like, letting the actual
    : edge of the image on the film show? (Mostly a 35mm affectation so far
    : as I recall.)

    Probably because most of us shot slides at one time or another. Cropping those
    was hard, and cropped slides never looked right.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 22, 2011
    #52
  13. J

    PeterN Guest

    Sorry, can't agree. A carefully crafted crop improved the image, at
    least in the eye of the maker. That was the very reason for the crop.
     
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2011
    #53
  14. J

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 11/22/2011 12:56 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > : Remember the people who made a fetish of always printing full-frame,
    : > : though? Filed-out negative carriers and the like, letting the actual
    : > : edge of the image on the film show? (Mostly a 35mm affectation so far
    : > : as I recall.)
    : >
    : > Probably because most of us shot slides at one time or another. Cropping those
    : > was hard, and cropped slides never looked right.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : Sorry, can't agree. A carefully crafted crop improved the image, at
    : least in the eye of the maker. That was the very reason for the crop.

    But then the cropped slide projected smaller than the others.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 22, 2011
    #54
  15. J

    PeterN Guest

    Not always. Remember superslides, shot on 120 transparency film. I also
    used a slide copy stand and bellows, which I recently sold. I had to be
    careful about color balance when doing this work.


    <http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/superslide.htm>
     
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2011
    #55
  16. There was "cropping tape". I used it on copy slides, but never on
    originals. And on the copy slides, just to mask out very narrow errors
    at the margins, so it didn't look too bad unless I got it crooked.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 22, 2011
    #56
  17. J

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : > : Remember the people who made a fetish of always printing full-frame,
    : > : though? Filed-out negative carriers and the like, letting the actual
    : > : edge of the image on the film show? (Mostly a 35mm affectation so far
    : > : as I recall.)
    : >
    : > Probably because most of us shot slides at one time or another. Cropping those
    : > was hard, and cropped slides never looked right.
    :
    : There was "cropping tape". I used it on copy slides, but never on
    : originals. And on the copy slides, just to mask out very narrow errors
    : at the margins, so it didn't look too bad unless I got it crooked.

    Yeah, but you and Peter probably cropped your 35mm prints as well. So did I.
    But I never learned to crop slides, so there was a lot of pressure to get it
    right without cropping. My point was just that I could imagine that attitude
    carrying over to making prints as well.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 22, 2011
    #57
  18. J

    PeterN Guest


    Yup! and I also mined my slides. Sometimes I found several images in one
    slide. I also made Cibachrome prints.
    I really miss the vivid colors I got from the Cibachrome prints. I have
    never been able to duplicate that color depth in PS, without the print
    becoming artificial looking.
     
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2011
    #58
  19. J

    Chemiker Guest

    Yup, did that. Those projecters were priced high enough to give you
    nosebleed. Image quality was really nice though. I also recall slides
    in 6x7, film laminated in glass to preserve flatness. Mostly
    Universities, supported by grants. Films were shot of microscopic
    stuff and larger, and the films were sandwiched in glass and projected
    without any manipulation. Big, clumsy, and dark, but good detail.

    Alex
     
    Chemiker, Nov 23, 2011
    #59
  20. J

    Pete A Guest

    Cibachrome prints gave a magical quality for several reasons. Here's a
    brief overview.

    They used azo dyes, which are renowned for their vivid colours hence
    being used in artists paints.

    The base layer was white opaque polyester, which gave a super glossy
    surface. Product CRC II (1980) offered a base of resin coated paper (I
    can't remember why one would want this instead of polyester).

    The Cibachrome equivalent of film grain gave the prints a
    three-dimensional metallic paint quality.

    I'm not surprised you can't get the Cibachrome look with PS, ink-jet,
    and paper :)
     
    Pete A, Nov 23, 2011
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.