Wacky Nikon aspect ratios

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by mark_sirota|1, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. Allow me to rant for a moment...
    Why is it that Nikon can't stick to a 3:2 aspect ratio?
    The D200 (3872x2592) has an 121:81 ratio (more square than 3:2, 16 pixels too narrow).
    The D700 (4256x2832) has a 266:177 ratio (less square than 3:2, 8 pixels too wide).
    Would it have been so hard to actually produce files with a 2:3 aspect ratio? I know it's a silly meaningless little thing, but I find it bothersome all the same when I downsize to, say, 600x400 and the resulting image isn't 600x400.
    Thanks for letting me vent.
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    There is a restriction that the number of pixels on each side is divisible by 8. That is why it is difficult to get the aspect ratio to be exactly 2:3.

    However, the D3X has a 6048x4032-pixel sensor, which is precisely 3:2, so if you want a Nikon DSLR that gives you an exact 3:2 aspect ratio, there is this option. :)
  3. Hmmm... I think you`re right... but I`d say the problem is on post processing applications, not in the sensor. I`m continuously missing effective cropping tools on almost all software; I`d like to mask a pic with a previously sized selected frame, I`d like also to know the file size before cropping... etc., etc., etc. Ps has a save for web option, NX2 don´t. Aperture has a good aspect ratio cropping tool, but lack others... nothing is perfect (I wonder if it`s as difficult to provide such tool). Perhaps I`m missing something...
    As you say, 8 pixels on a D700 is lower than 0.2%, meaningless. What it is really useful is an aspect ratio choice, like in the D3. A lot of issues could be solved with, e.g. a 5:4 choice.
  4. The number of pixels, i.e. pixel dimensions, also depends on the software used for processing the RAW file. For example, Bibble 5 makes D3x be 6064x4036 pix (this program also has the ability to employ aspect ratio crops). This is because there is a band of pixels outside the regular frame used for calibration purposes. Some of the programs extract useful information from within that band as well.
  5. "I know it's a silly meaningless little thing,"...
    well, for most perhaps, but not for you obviously.
    is creating a preset that crops the image to your preferred dimension (that you could apply on import, or by default settings in your raw processor) too much of a workaround?
    (not trying to sound like a smartass, only asking because it might be)
  6. I use Capture to resize. I just tell the crop tool to give me a set (by me) standard. i.e. 5:4 or 18:12 or whatever. I then drag the crop tool to the right plaze, and size. This could give you all you need.The aspect ratio you want, and the size of the crop.

    Or am I missing something here?
  7. Mark,
    You've given me yet another opportunity to brag about a software I use for working with my files. Thumbs Plus (www.cerious.com) will allow cropping to various aspect ratios, including 3:2. More often, I'm using 4:3 for screen presentation. Once you've selected the ratio you want, you can then grab a corner handle and crop as you wish, while always maintaining the ratio you selected. Also cool, you can crop to photo sizes or paper sizes. You can download a trial copy at the above link. Be sure to get the Pro version and also download the Digicam Plug-in, which uses Nikon color libraries for your raw files.
    Thumbs Plus isn't a panacea -- I still have to use other software for various things, but for an all-round file re-naming, cataloging, thumbnailing, minor editing, cropping and web page creation tool, it's quite good. Cost is about $90 for the registered pro version.
  8. Roeland,
    I didn't know you can do that in Capture. Thanks!
  9. However, the D3X has a 6048x4032-pixel sensor, which is precisely 3:2, so if you want a Nikon DSLR that gives you an exact 3:2 aspect ratio, there is this option. :)
    Hey, Shun, that's the worst sales talk I've ever heard (read)! (lol)
  10. It is not only Nikon's sensor that drives me crazy, that actually is the smallest error source. Ever cared to get a print that has roughly a 3:2 aspect ratio? Even in film age this was not possible, 13*18 rather than 12*18 (cm, that is), 20*24, even a nice looking 10*15 in reality is something like 9,7*14,8 or whatever.
    Now they offer DIN A 4 prints that have an aspect ratio of 1.4142 (sqrt2 to be precise), so how would you ever get a print that shows what is on the picture without cropping it manually afterwards? Not to mention the usual frames you can buy, all over the place but never ever to fit any camera's frame size.
    I really wonder if that ever gets standardized. My guess is, as long as there is no such thing as paper with a 3:2 aspect ratio, no one in the chain will ever care to provide exact ratios. Nikon with their some pixels off may be just have thought "oh what the f***" and did the sensor as it was convenient.

Share This Page