| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2006 02:43:45 PM · #1 |
I am building a megapixel/print-size calculator in excel.
I was under the impression that photos were always 4:3 (Width:Height). this had been the case with any P&S cameras I used. But when I look at a NEF file from my D100, I have a file measuring 3008x2000, darn close to 3:2.
Why is this?
And for the sake of expediating this task, does anyone know of a decent chart listing the dimensions (height and width in pixels) for all of the usual sensor resolutions (3.2, 5, 6.2, 8, 10.2, etc.)? |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:48:54 PM · #2 |
Some sensors can be set to capture a 3:2 (traditional 35mm) frame, and fewer can capture in the 16:9 HDTV format as well.
It doesn't matter that much though unless you do a lot of printing straight from the camera card. Aspect ratios for various print sizes are all over the place, so some cropping is almost always necessary.
Some people have pointed out that a square sensor would make the most sense -- the only reason most sensors are 4:3 is that all the early sensors were based on the NTSC video standard (640 x 480 pixels = 900kb uncompressed 24-bit RGB).
Message edited by author 2006-06-30 14:50:01. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:49:37 PM · #3 |
Almost all DSLRs are nominally 3:2. The vast majority of digicams are 4:3 or close to that. Beyond that, there are really no standards as to the horizontal & vertical pixel count. For instance, both your D100 and the Canon 10D are 6 megapixels, but the D100 is 3008x2000 whereas the Canon is 3072x2048.
You could put a pretty good list together for DSLRs by scouring the specification page for each cam at DPReview. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:51:51 PM · #4 |
| Depends on the sensor. Most DSLR's will have a 3:2 sensor to replicate the aspect ratio of a frame of film (36mm x 24mm is 3:2). I know my previous Canon DSLRs were 3:2 and I would almost certainly say that Nikon's are the same. Hope that helps! |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:54:35 PM · #5 |
I find this annoying sometimes as I always compose for my 3:2 sensor, but find it's easiest to print (and frame) in the 8x10 format. The problem comes in that many of my pictures just cannot be satisfactorily cropped to that ratio.
is a good example.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 02:57:34 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find this annoying sometimes as I always compose for my 3:2 sensor, but find it's easiest to print (and frame) in the 8x10 format. The problem comes in that many of my pictures just cannot be satisfactorily cropped to that ratio.
is a good example. |
That's why almost all of my prints have borders -- which can be covered with a mat or trimmed-off later. I crop to the shape I want just smaller than a standard print size, and enlarge the canvas to that size. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 03:01:14 PM · #7 |
Interesting. I had never really clued in to the fact that 4x6" prints weren't cropping any more after I switched from the S1-IS to the D100.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 03:02:39 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find this annoying sometimes as I always compose for my 3:2 sensor, but find it's easiest to print (and frame) in the 8x10 format. The problem comes in that many of my pictures just cannot be satisfactorily cropped to that ratio.
is a good example. |
I have the same issue. I just tried to print this one out last night in an 8x10 format and could not get it all in the frame. (and any time of cropping just looked stupid)
Message edited by author 2006-06-30 15:03:14. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 03:07:03 PM · #9 |
Maybe slowly standard 8x12 or 16x24 frames will becomes available. Would make things cheaper on me.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 04:19:58 PM · #10 |
Panasonic has a model that can take 16:9 for HDTV users.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 06:41:04 AM EDT.
