Thomas,
The A series of paper sizes (A0 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6) were created long before
'film' even existed. They are organized in such a way that when cut in half
trough the shortest side they always maintain the same aspect ratio. And,
just by 'coincidence' it follows the rule of the aspect ratio of the golden
section, which is what average people prefer as aspect ratio for a
'rectangle'.
So there is truth in a sensor following the golden section (which would be
roughly 5/3, not 4/3).
There is no big deal in cutting off some extra paper as long as you collect
the waste seperately and it goes into the production of new paper. Oh, and
the sensor will always fit the paper, you'll just have some white zones.
And not printing is always better for the environment then printing :).`
Iwert.
op 29-06-2003 17:52 schreef Thomas Bryhn op thomas.bryhn@xxxxxxxxxx:
> My point was only that it puzzles me to see film manufacturers use one set
> of length/width ratios, paper manufacturers a second set, and now digital
> sensors use a third - and it's largely the same companies. If they REALLY
> wanted to do it right and minimize waste, they'd first make a sensor in the
> aspect ratio people use the most and then make the papers to fit. Instead
> they throw us a line about reducing waste by making the sensor fit the
> century old paper dimensions - without mentioning what ratio people
> actually prefer and use when they print/enlarge - and then the sensor
> doesn't even fit the paper.
> I'm not loosing sleep over this, it's just an observation.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|