Steve'sDigicams

wile_e · Jul 16, 2006, 3:35 PM

I currently have a P/S camera that is 4:3. I've noticed some new cameras now shoot 16:9 widescreen and DSLR's are full-frame. Is the industry making any strides in adopting a standard aspect ratio for digital cameras? Will all cameras, even P/S, be full-frame in the future?

Is it advantagous to switch to 16:9 now for the consumer?

DBB · Jul 16, 2006, 4:34 PM

wile_e wrote:

Quote:

I currently have a P/S camera that is 4:3. I've noticed some new cameras now shoot 16:9 widescreen and DSLR's are full-frame. Is the industry making any strides in adopting a standard aspect ratio for digital cameras? Will all cameras, even P/S, be full-frame in the future?

Is it advantagous to switch to 16:9 now for the consumer?

Everything is up in the air. But the bottom line, is whatever the aspect ratio, the image you take always fills the frame. The concept of "full frame" is a leftover from the arbitrary standards of film, where the market forced the user to choose from arbitrary sizes.

The most important part of this question is that there is no important part of this question. Just get the camera that meets your needs and has the highest quality for the money that you can afford to spend.

Dave

Brent Gair · Jul 17, 2006, 12:16 AM

I would have to agree that the important part of your question is that it's not important.

16x9 widescreen is basically a television concept. Hey, I've got a 16x9 widescreen TV and I've had one for years. Having a standardised format for televsion is necessary. There are a whole lot of entities involved in delivering pictures to your TV set and everything has to work to a common standard.

It's no more an issue with digital still photography than it was with film still photography. It was always perfectly possible for 35mm, 4x5, 2 1/2 square, 8x10, 2 1/4x2 3/4...and any other film formats to coexist.

16x9 is only important in digital photography if you shoot stills for TV or you just like to view your pictures on the tube and want to fill the whole frame.

Otherwise, there is no technical reason or advantage to shooting in 16x9.

I might add, on a personal note, I think 16x9 would be extremely awkward for stills. the 1.78:1 aspect ratio is extremely wide compared to other still formats. Back in the day, there were some medium format cameras that shot 6x9cm images and those were very wide at the time (1.5:1 aspect ratio). 16x9 is wider...just plain freaky wide for use on a regular basis. Might make for some good landscapes but it would be miserable for most other subjects.

ajaynejr · Jul 20, 2006, 7:14 AM

Don't forget that 35mm stills are 1.50:1 for aspect ratio so the prevailing 1.33:1 aspect ratio of digital cameras is a change in the meaning of "full frame" for many of us.

And popular enlargement sizes of 5x7 and 8x10 and 11x14 don't match either of the above exactly.

When you shoot you will want to have the aspect ratio of the finished print, strictly your preference,in mind.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jul 16, 2006, 3:35 PM	#1
wile_e Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 27	I currently have a P/S camera that is 4:3. I've noticed some new cameras now shoot 16:9 widescreen and DSLR's are full-frame. Is the industry making any strides in adopting a standard aspect ratio for digital cameras? Will all cameras, even P/S, be full-frame in the future? Is it advantagous to switch to 16:9 now for the consumer?

Jul 17, 2006, 12:16 AM	#3
Brent Gair Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 185	I would have to agree that the important part of your question is that it's not important. 16x9 widescreen is basically a television concept. Hey, I've got a 16x9 widescreen TV and I've had one for years. Having a standardised format for televsion is necessary. There are a whole lot of entities involved in delivering pictures to your TV set and everything has to work to a common standard. It's no more an issue with digital still photography than it was with film still photography. It was always perfectly possible for 35mm, 4x5, 2 1/2 square, 8x10, 2 1/4x2 3/4...and any other film formats to coexist. 16x9 is only important in digital photography if you shoot stills for TV or you just like to view your pictures on the tube and want to fill the whole frame. Otherwise, there is no technical reason or advantage to shooting in 16x9. I might add, on a personal note, I think 16x9 would be extremely awkward for stills. the 1.78:1 aspect ratio is extremely wide compared to other still formats. Back in the day, there were some medium format cameras that shot 6x9cm images and those were very wide at the time (1.5:1 aspect ratio). 16x9 is wider...just plain freaky wide for use on a regular basis. Might make for some good landscapes but it would be miserable for most other subjects.

Jul 20, 2006, 7:14 AM	#4
ajaynejr Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 91	Don't forget that 35mm stills are 1.50:1 for aspect ratio so the prevailing 1.33:1 aspect ratio of digital cameras is a change in the meaning of "full frame" for many of us. And popular enlargement sizes of 5x7 and 8x10 and 11x14 don't match either of the above exactly. When you shoot you will want to have the aspect ratio of the finished print, strictly your preference,in mind.