Re: Why 3:2 ?
- From: "Tesco News" <photy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:02:36 GMT
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dfc330f6fcbee2598ae14@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Just wondering why most DSLRs use the 3:2 aspect ratio, when a 4:3
> aspect ratio makes better use of the lens, i.e. uses more the (sharper)
> central part of the lens.
>
> I understand that film is standardised at 36x24mm, but with a DLSR any
> sensor size within a 36x36mm square should be possible.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
Hi there.
The 3 x 2 ratio, just happens to be well known to ex 35 mm Film Camera
users, and therefore there is one less thing to think about after changing
to digital.
As you say, there is no real reason why all the Camera Makers should stick
to that shape.
What really "amuses" me, ( if I owned one it would be "pissed off"), is the
little direct Printers which all seem to be 6 x 4, when most of the P & S
Cameras seem to be 12 x 9 format. These Prnters are aimed directly at P & S
users, who keep wondering why Heads or Feet get cut off from Landscape
Format shots.
Roy G
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why 3:2 ?
- From: hellman
- Re: Why 3:2 ?
- References:
- Why 3:2 ?
- From: Alfred Molon
- Why 3:2 ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Canon's RS-80n3 Remote Switch
- Next by Date: Re: Getting a photo print to match a scan
- Previous by thread: Re: Why 3:2 ?
- Next by thread: Re: Why 3:2 ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|