3:2

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ArmyKnight12, Dec 27, 2008.

  1. ArmyKnight12 macrumors 6502

    ArmyKnight12

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Here
    #1
    Can anyone tell me about shooting pictures with 3:2 image size as opposed to the VGA type. Probably, a very dumb question. What exactly does 3:2 mean? The pictures I took with that selected appear to be much better than the regular email file type.
     
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    What camera are you using?
    3:2 is the ratio, basically it's like 4:3 is a full screen TV .. it is like that.

    Honestly your question makes little sense to me. :confused:
     
  3. ArmyKnight12 thread starter macrumors 6502

    ArmyKnight12

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Here
    #3
    Im using a Sony Cybershot 7.2 MP. It's ok, I looked it up in the user manual!
     
  4. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #4
    Aspect ratio is what this is in regards to I believe. All SLR cameras I'm aware of shoot images in the 3:2 aspect ratio.

    It's a width/height comparison. Not all cameras are the same as far as the aspect ratios go.

    EDIT - sorry... looks like you found your answer before I posted.
     
  5. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #5
    It is the ratio if the width to the heigh of the image or screen. For example the standard 35mm film camera shoots an image that is 36mm wide and 24mm tall. 36:24 reduces to 3:2. Digital SLRs have kept the same aspect ratio. However most point and shoot camera shoot a more square image. The SLR and the new HD video formats are very close. Both are wide, wider then most standard picture frames which are 8x10 or 5x7.

    I'm finding I like both 16:9 and square (1:1) format. For verticals I tend to like 4:5 Shooting for either of these takes some getting used to. You have to visualize the final frame even if the view finder is a different shape.
     
  6. bking1000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #6
    3:2 is a nice aspect ration, as it fits 4X6 prints (think 6" by 4" and you can see it's double the aspect ratio) BUT it's wide enough to look good on today's wide screen monitors.

    Olympus' DSLR shoot 4:3, not 3:2. I think every other DSLR, though, shoots 3:2 natively. Panasonic has recently developed sensors on their digi cams that can shoot 4:3, 3:2, or 16:9 all natively (no cropping). Not sure if it holds true on their DSLR-like G1.
     
  7. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #7
    I shoot at 3:2 because it still crops down nicely for more square images and if you want to go to 16:10 or 16:9 for displays you lose bugger all as well.
     
  8. MacNoobie macrumors 6502a

    MacNoobie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    I'm not sure why the 3:2 ratio exists on SLR's as to where the history comes from on using that aspect ratio but all I know is that it pisses me off when I need to crop things down to 8x10 which is like a ~5:4 ratio.

    Loosing 2" from 8x12 to 8x10 actually really is annoying.

    4x6 - works with 3:2
    5x7 - works for the most part with a .5" crop from 3:2
    8x10 what a bitch if you got details on the edges of the photo you might want to keep or have a nice wide angle (landscape for example) and the 8x10 just doesnt retain the wide feel.
     
  9. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #9
    Agreed - I wish the damn printers would offer more sizes along the lines of a 3:2 ratio, as there are quite a bit of photos where the cropping is very minimal or even non-existent.
     
  10. glennp macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    Oskar Barnack of Leica is the man responsible for the ratio of modern 35mm film from most accounts.

    Now, the stories are that the 3:2 ratio was selected because it is closest to the Golden Rectangle (rectangle that follows the Golden Ratio), believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing. Or, while adapting the prevalent 35mm film used by the movie industry for use in still cameras, he was pleased with the quality of the print, but not quite satisfied with the small size, and came up with a simple solution by doubling the frame into 24x36. Either way, the rest is history.
     
  11. Padaung macrumors 6502

    Padaung

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    I don't know what's on offer with printers in the US, but I'm sure someone must offer similar print sizes to what we can get here in the UK. These guys are an on-line only service. The high street photo shops here offer much the same range in print sizes too. 12x8 is the size you are looking for, only a few pence more than a 10x8:

    http://www.photobox.co.uk/shop/prints/enlargement-prints
     
  12. Padaung macrumors 6502

    Padaung

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    The 3:2 ratio is due to the size of 35mm film, which others have mentioned already, and whose adoption is indeed generally attributed due to the invention of the Leica rangefinder. It's continued use in digi DSLRs is because it was considered a 'nice' ratio to shoot with. This is why the ratio is the same with the cropped sensor DSLRs and (I think) APS film (which could also shoot 16:9 and 4:3 images by cropping into the frame). As others have said, many digi cameras allow the user to shoot in different aspect ratios, enabled by cropping into the sensor. The Nikon D3/D3X allow the user to shoot at 5:4, too.

    The 4:3 ratio is now mostly used in compact cameras, this ratio was probably adopted as someone somewhere correctly figured that not too many people would print their digi photos and mainly view them on their TV/computer - the majority of which at the time were regular aspect ratio TVs and screen (ie old school resolutions for monitors were 640x480, 800x600 etc). Since then widescreen TVs and monitors have become the trend (so images are either stretched or black bars are added at the sides), but this does mean we now have more room at the sides of the computer screen for tools and palettes in Photoshop! The current trend for widescreen digital photo frames is one I don't understand as the screens are small enough anyway, and then you also get black bars at the side where the image doesn't fill the frame. Very bizarre if you ask me. Still, I guess the prospect of a widescreen photo frame looks good in the marketing material for many people...

    There is no reason for digi cameras to stick to any aspect ratio. In the film days they were stuck with whatever the film manufactures made, but the digital sensors can now be shaped however is required. I think tradition plays a large part in this decision making process. Leica is setting the trend again with its S2 by using a larger than 'normal' sensor size (but not medium format size), but the aspect ratio is still 3:2.

    Film medium format cameras could also shoot at 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 (3:2) ratios, and more... I don't know what ratio the sensors in digi MF cameras are.

    Also, the various print paper ratios traditionally matched those of the cameras.
    3:2 (35mm film) - 6x4, 5x7(ish)
    4:3 (medium format 120 roll film) - 16x12, 6x8, 6x4.5 (far more popular now to allow printing full frame from digi compact cameras)
    5:4 (large format sheet film) - 10x8, 20x16

    The paper in processing machines (Fuji Frontiers etc) is supplied as long rolls (80m +) in paper widths of 4", 5", 6", 8" and 10" (yup, inches are still used in the semi-decimalised UK for photo printing. This makes ordering prints in the rest of Europe really confusing as the sizes are in cm - trying to divide by 2.54 in the shop to work out which is which is hard work!). Using these widths it is possible to print any aspect ratio image up to 15" long (as long as the machine is programmed to print that shape and size). The macihnes will normally be set up for the common print sizes. I you do want a 'weird' size then crop it to the correct size at 300dpi in Photoshop and tell the print shop to force the print machine to print at the supplied size, an easy procedure for them (often by default the prints will be made to fill the paper).

    For example, if you wanted a 7x7 print, then it would have to be printed on 8" paper, probably as a 10x8 print because the shop would be unlikely to have a machine setting and specific price for 7x7. You would then have to guillotine the white border off.

    Anything longer than 15" or wider than 10" has to be printed on more specialist kit or wide format inkjets.

    Time to go as I have probably gone way beyond what the OP was asking! I realised I was going on a bit, but then figured I had started so I might as well finish. Sorry if this has been too much...
     
  13. iscripter macrumors member

    iscripter

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #13
    Wow, this post was extremely helpful to me as I just purchased a new Panasonic TZ5. Which has the capability to shoot in 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9. It looks like I will be using the 3:2 mode most often since it appears to be a happy middle ground between 4:3 and 16:9.

    Although I must say I like the idea of having a 16:9 photo that perfectly fits my widescreen HDTV and wide screen computer without any black bars. I will give the 3:2 aspect a try. The one cool thing about the Panasonic TZ5 is that it has a multi-apect shooting mode where it will save 3 images of the same photo. One for each aspect ratio 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. but this could eat up storage space really quickly.
     
  14. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #14
    That is exactly it. In the old days the 35mm format was called "double frame". Movie film travels through the camera vertically and the frame was about 24mm wide. When you turn the film side ways and run it left to right the frame is now 24mm tall and you can make it as wide as you like. Bigger always gives more quality and if yo don't need the width you can crop.

    With a digital camera, I think the ideal sensor would be round. It would have pixels that cover the entire image circle of the lens and then you crop, inside the camera with a selector switch for 9:16, 2:3, 4:5 and 1:1. and an other selector switch for vertical or landscape shots. There should be no reason to ever turn the camers on end. Like I wrote above I'd likely only use 9:16, 1:1 and 5:4.

    BTW, no sensor now or in the furture can ever to more then one format native. Pixels are physical devices. What you see as "native" is really an in-body crop..
     
  15. bking1000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #15
    To split hairs, you are correct about an in body crop, but there is a difference between what Panasonic is doing and what others are doing for 4:3 and 16:9 options. Canon takes a 4:3 image and crops the top and bottom off, changing the angle of view. Panasonic actually takes advantage of the image circle, so when the top and bottom of the 16:9 image are shrunk, they move out left and right for more pixels wide. Better shown in this image: http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/image/103863045.jpg. I'm not sure why Canon hasn't done this yet.
     

Share This Page