Re: Why 3:2 ?
- From: Rich <none@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:04:54 -0500
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:40:15 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<MikeJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
>
>Tradition (better acceptance of new technology if it shares similar
>features, in this case, aspect ratios, to what came before) plus something
>practical- we typically sweep side-to-side with our eyes, when taking in a
>scene. Less often (or less obvious) we look up & down. Thus a 3:2 aspect
>ratio appears to take in more.
>
>Plus, we're taught to prefer "widescreen" presentations at movies and now in
>our homes as well. 4:3 is basically old-school TV.
>
>So perhaps the question becomes, why aren't more non-DSLR units 3:2? You've
>already brought up the practical aspect of that decision (using more of the
>lens). Wonder if there's anything else?
And yet virtually no finished pictures you see in publications are 3:2
with far more being closer to 4:3. Why not start out right?
-Rich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why 3:2 ?
- From: kashe
- Re: Why 3:2 ?
- From: Dirty Harry
- Re: Why 3:2 ?
- References:
- Why 3:2 ?
- From: Alfred Molon
- Re: Why 3:2 ?
- From: Mike Jacoubowsky
- Why 3:2 ?
- Prev by Date: Re: cold weather digital
- Next by Date: Re: i'm about ready to shoot my wad for a fujifilm s9000z (if i can find one around here, or maybe a reputable mail-order house...) any discouraging words?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why 3:2 ?
- Next by thread: Re: Why 3:2 ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
