What's the point of the 4/3?

[donald_choi]

I understand that if you want to look at pretty pictures on a

monitor, a 4/3 ratio image will fill your screen nicely. Correct me

if I'm wrong, but in the printed photography world, is there anything

that is 4/3? The only thing that comes close is an 8x10 picture (5/4

ratio).

 

So my questions are: why introduce 4/3? How many of you actually

print pictures at 4/3? What was wrong with the 3/2 (35mm) format

that needed to be "fixed"?

 

I appreciate your opinions. Thanks.

[charlie_vigue]

In my opinion the genesis of the 4:3 system is mostly a marketing justification for Oly to dump their good as dead film SLR systems and start a new design. As to why pick 4:3, who knows. Hassy like s 1:1, 645 is viable. I have no problem with any of them. I don't think 3:2 is broken any more than I think Hasselblad is stupid. There dosn't have to be one right answer. If anything the euro concept of paper sizes is the closest I've seen to a really logical stab at a similar problem, but I'm not sure a solution to an office supplies issue is widely applicable to the art of photography.

 

It's still an elegant idea though. :-)

[phule]

I believe that the 4:3 system is, at it's very core, a way for companies like Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic and Sigma, to compete against the Nikon and Canon juggernauts.

[donald_choi]

If that's the case, then I believe that 4/3 will be an effective way for Olympus to end their photography business. Period. They seemed to have lumped all their eggs in this basket.

[majid]

4/3 was the original format for movies, as well as the standard format for TVs. Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" was shot for that format, rather than the widescreen formats now common in theaters. With the rise of HDTV, 16/9 TVs are becoming more common, as well as 16/9 monitors on laptops and desktops.

 

As for the Olympus four-thirds format, it was obsoleted by APS-size sensors before it was even delivered...

[leonard_evens]

Fazal has it right. Digital cameras were designed with computer monitors in mind. Computer monitors originally all had the 4:3 aspect ratio. That is because old style TV screens had that format. In turn the TV screens followed the old motion picture format. Originally, that was shot on 35 mm film, and each frame was 18 x 24 mm.

 

Some digital cameras, such as DSLRs now have a 3:2 aspect ratio, like that of 35 mm still cameras. There is a story about that also. 35 mm cameras were designed to take advantage of the availability of 35 mm motion picture film. But 18 x 24 was considered too small, so they used two frames to get a still frame of size 36 x 24.

 

There is nothing magic about any particular format. It is mostly a matter of history why any particular aspect ratio is used.

[donald_choi]

A 16:9 system would make more sense than a 4:3 system.....I guess.

[iwong]

In Olympus' marketing speak, since people view most of their images on the computer screen anyway, there is no need for the extra pixels of the 3:2 format, as those pixels get cropped out. Thus they can design the sensor smaller and hence the lenses to be more compact (or faster). That's why in a similar price point, The E-1 is 5MP and the others are 6MP.

 

This logic of thinking makes sense as long as we are talking about consumer level digicams. (But most consumer digicams are already 4:3, note not "4/3") Olympus made a fatal flaw that ignoring dSLR owners also want to print their images. How are you going to fit a 4:3 image on a standard 4"x6" print? And the 4/3 sensor doesn't have quite enough pixels to make a 8"x10" print at 300dpi either. Note all these wouldn't have mattered if the E-1 was priced in the dRebel range and targeted at advanced amateurs, instead of professionals. But it was not and was doomed to failure from the get go.

 

I might sound a little harsh on Olympus, but they simply overestimated their abilities. If Sony were to try this exercise, they would have the collective financial, technological and marketing muscle to "force" their way through, like how they survived with the Memory Stick thing. Olympus simply lacked on all counts.

[godfrey]

If you're talking about the 4/3 sensor/lens mount standard, that's one thing. It was

originated, I believe, by Kodak, one of the leading sensor design sources in the world now.

Olympus is the only manufacturer to adopt it so far. Despite the catcalls and other

nonsense, they're building a couple of excellent bodies and a superb lens line around it.

Whether Olympus survives, whether the 4/3 sensor/lens mount survives, remains to be

seen, but to disparage it out of hand is just closed-mindedness.

 

If you're talking about the 4:3 proportion format of most digital sensors, well, the roots of

this technology are in the video world, history decreed it so, and that's that. 4:3 is a close

enough match to 4x5, 8x10, 11x14, etc sizing in the photographic industry to work with

minimal wastage. The 2:3 proportion in photography is a historical artifact from 35mm

film, same for the 6x6cm, 6x4.5cm, 6x9cm, 4x5 inch, 5x7 inch, 8x10 inch, etc etc, each

of which has its good and bad side when it comes to wastage and aesthetics.

 

IN other words, format proportions are all somewhat arbitrary and one has to look to what

went before to understand why a given format was adopted in the first place. There's no

rule that says any given photograph must have proportions the same format as the

recording medium anyway.

 

Godfrey

[Troll]

I personally dislike the 2:3 ratio format of 35mm cameras. Printing it on 4x5, 8x10, 11x14, or 16x20 paper is absurd. It took 50 years to get commercial printers to make 3.5x5 and 4x6 prints, and 8x12 enlargments available. Now the digital crew is even screwing that up. Where do they get 8.5x11 or 13x19 or those other unnatural paper sizes (yeah, I know, from books and newspapers).

[don_baccus]

Well, those odd numbers are international standards, i.e. A2 A3 A4 etc...

[jon_austin]

Regardless their histories -- and they all make sense once you learn about them -- all aspect ratios are ultimately arbitrary.

 

When I crop any photo, I ignore all the traditional notions of aspect, and "carve out" the portion of the frame I like best. When printing, I likewise trim off the excess paper as appropriate. If the resulting aspect ratio is significantly different than the conventional standards, I can always have custom frames and mats made to fit.

 

To answer one of Donald's original questions, 8.5x11 and 11x14 both come pretty close to the 4:3 ratio.

[peter_smirnoff]

"...There is nothing magic about any particular format..."

 

The rule of thirds (aka the golden mean) makes 3/2 the most natural, almost God-given format. Hence the A4, A3 metric sizes.

[bobatkins]

4/3 fit computer monitors. Makes it easier to peek at the pixels.

 

Since most "standard" print sizes have different aspect ratios, no fomat matches them all perfectly, but 4/3 generally needs less cropping than 3/2 for larger prints. For 4x6 of course 3/2 is perfect and you have to crop 4/3. Since more 4x6 prints are probably made than all the other print sizes combined, 3/2 would seem to make more sense and 4/3 is a bit of a hard sell.

 

Why such seemingly oddball (and different ratio) sizes as 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 became "standard", I've no idea.

 

I think the main point of the Olympus 4/3 system was probably to be different. They'd have had an even harder time convincing anyone to buy into a 2x sensor with a 3:2 ratio since everyone else has a larger 1.5x or 1.6 sensor in their DSLRs.

[charlie_vigue]

Well, 3:2 fits on my 13x19 paper pretty well .....

[Troll]

Aren't there standardized sizes for prestretched canvas? Maybe that's where it all started, with painters in the 13th century. "Give me a dozen A3 canvases and a goblet of mead, straight up."

[jbq]

That's funny, I thought that 4/3 referred to the size of the sensor (i.e. to the size of the image circle), not to the aspect ratio, and that nothing in the 4/3 standard required a 4:3 aspect ratio.

 

BTW, 5:3 is a better approximation for the golden ratio than 3:2, and 8:5 a much better one (i.e. the "rule of fifths" is better than the "rule of thirds", and the "rule of eighths" is much better).

[GerrySiegel]

Well I print at whatever format the image requires,and let the paper fit the image or fiddle w same,that is moi. And 4:3 works OK for me,so far. Medium Format square was not and is not bad stuff around here ways. Hey,nothing "wrong"!! with 2:3, a partly arbitrary decision a long long time ago related to cine film as we all know,right. <p>(Cinemascope ultra wide had charms. Some directors had trouble composing in a wide format-it is tough,not to oversimplify the subject, others still love panoramas and pay for inconvenience in printing same.)In short: A personal opinion thing. That is how Donald defined the question,thank you.<p> I don't look for what you might call rationality,and choice will cull out the losers. Meaning the market vice photonet posters will decide on Olympus's choice of sensor diameter and the coincidental format size. The market has not leaped,but a new hot camera under a thousand could make a difference,stay tuned sportsfans... I think most buyers care not about this jazz... And that is about the sum of it this Winter.... Now will Sony Blu Ray become the DVD standard or HD-DVD you think?. Nah,never mind.<p>Standards as they exist as in DIN an IEEE are to die for. Too bad many in Fotoland stubbornly WONT standardize the freakin' Li-Ion batteries and the AC input,and the flash connectors, and...etc etc. Talk to aftermarket flash makers for instance. Aloha,GS

[godfrey]

<i>... "That's funny, I thought that 4/3 referred to the size of the sensor (i.e. to the size of

the image circle), not to the aspect ratio, and that nothing in the 4/3 standard required a

4:3 aspect ratio." ...</i>

<br><br>

"4/3" stands for both a sensor size and a format standard. See <a href="http://www.four-

thirds.org/">http://www.four-thirds.org/</a> for that story...

<br><br>

Sensor sizing is ferociously weird. See <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/

Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm" target=new>http://www.dpreview.com/

learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm</a> for the story.

<br><br>

Sizing for a 4/3 sensor is Diagonal: 22.5mm, Width: 18.0mm, Height: 13.5mm. To

determine approximate field of view from different focal length lenses compared to 35mm

film format, multiply by 2; e.g.: the Zuiko 11-22mm zoom is equivalent to a 22-44mm

lens on 135 format.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[h.l.]

4/3 fit computer monitors. Makes it easier to peek at the pixels.

 

This is funny. I noticed that a lot of the newer notebook are using the widescreen format. I guess that this is to make viewing DVD & HDTV easier. Maybe we'll get a 16:9 format soon.

[ryanjoseph]

Man,

 

It would be VERY strange working in 16:9. I would like to see the SLR mirror for that ;-)

[neild]

Hasselblad got it right: a 1:1 ratio (or square format) is best - this way, you never need to turn your camera on it's side! Crop if you need to afterwards...

[GerrySiegel]

Check out,when you get time, specs on the new big pro Mamiya ZD digital camera and the related digital back. I won't spoil the fun by telling the dimensions of the sensor and the aspect ratio. Just had to look it up to see what Mamiya came up with after the RB and RZ ideal formats.

[frank_oddsocks]

The golden mean Φ is one of the roots of the equation Φ^2 = Φ + 1. It is approximately 1.61803 and is important in European art because Pythagoras said it should be.

<p>

A4 paper has an aspect ratio of about 1.4.

<p>

I personally <i>hate</i> the 1.5 aspect ratio, and its prevalence is why I don't have a flash digital SLR. I would guess that most 645 users are also haters of the 1.5 aspect ratio.

Oddly enough, I can live with the 1.6 aspect ratio of modern cinema, though I prefer the classic 1.3 or the Cinemascope 2.2.

<p>

So, to answer one of the original questions, what was wrong with 3/2 is that a lot of people hate it. To answer another one, one of the Japanese makers (I think it was Nikon) made 24mm x 32mm cameras until the market forced them into line. That's 4/3, so, yes, there has been such a thing.

<p>

Gerry, Nicholas Ray did some stupendous Westerns in 2.2.

<p>

Ideally, I'd like 2.2 with an ultrawide and 1 with a short tele. To me the whole idea of an interchangeable-lens digital camera is nonsense. It's not as if there's a piece of film that has to be swapped behind the glass.

[godfrey]

<i>... "To me the whole idea of an interchangeable-lens digital camera is nonsense. It's

not as if there's a piece of film that has to be swapped behind the glass." ...</i>

<br><br>

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Format proportions have little to do with whether you

need the versatility of interchangeable lenses. Sensor size does: small sensors allow high-

ratio zoom lenses with very good quality and speed.

<br><br>

While I use fixed-lens digital cameras more

than the DSLR, due to their light weight, small size and convenience, they're fundamentally

insensitive due to the size of the sensor. Having the DSLR is essential for when I need to

do things that are beyond the optics/sensitivity combination of the fixed lens cameras.

<br><br>

What I fantasize about is the equivalent of my Hassy 903SWC, however. Ultrawide field of

view (diagonal=92 degrees+, horizontal=73 degrees+), extremely well corrected for

rectilinears and falloff, on a sensor, square or not, with at least 3500 pixels vertically (12

Mpixel or greater) and a sensor large enough to work at ISO 400 with very low noise. Kind

of a specialized camera and likely quite pricey, but then so is the SWC.

<br><br>

Godfrey