I think the 4:3 ratio is 'ideal' for viewing on a standard monitor, most
computer screens are in that ratio. With the advent of DVD playing in
computers, and HDTV the ratio is changing, computers are coming with
'wide-screen' monitors, and TV's are commonly 'wide-screen' or
HDTV-compatible now. This seems to be an arbitrary choice.
Note that the half-frame ratio is 3:4, it is a portrait oriented 4:3 ratio.
If Olympus had made a digital Pen FT, this is the ratio it would be. And the
6 x 4.5 is also a 4:3 ratio, although those "645" medium-format cameras come
in both portrait and landscape orientation. I like the half-frame ratio, my
Canon Dial-35 even has it in 'landscape' orientation.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
on 6/28/03 10:48 AM, Thomas Bryhn at thomas.bryhn@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I've been thinking along the same lines. Making images to fit a certain
> paper size sounds like a pretty silly constraint, something only a
> marketing department could come up with. Shouldn't paper be made to fit the
> images?
> I'm actually amazed there aren't more papers precut to fit the usual modern
> aspect ratios like 2:3, 1:2 or even 1:3 or 2:5.
>
> Thomas
>
> At 18:31 28.06.2003, AG Schnozz wrote:
>> And who says that the 4/3 format is the "ideal" format? Maybe
>> for screen presentation and 8x10s.
>>
>> Anybody ever heard of a "panoramic" photograph?
>>
>> stir, stir, stir...
>>
>> AG
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|