4:3 ratio???

[rmh159]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me what the origin of the 4:3 ratio is why digital cams use them when traditional film is 2:3. I'm 90% sure I know the answer but I want to verify.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Television screens.

 

[rmh159]

So you're saying they designed the cam to take pics that would only be displayed on a TV screen? You're on the right path...

If what I'm thinking is correct the 4:3 wasn't done by choice as a benefit to consumers.

I don't want to dangle the carrot but if I just say the reason I'm thinking of I don't want people to just agree cuz it sounds good. Not that I don't trust you :greenpbl:

Television screens.

 

[markc]

Most of us can only guess, but I would say that manufacturers figured that people would want to display the images somehow without downloading them, and the TV is perfect for that. It's a selling point, and they wouldn't get support calls asking why there were black bars on the top and bottom.

 

[Big Mike]

If you go back before 35mm film was the norm...there were several different aspect ratios that were prevalent.

The weird thing to me, is that the current "standard" 2:3 ratio does not match standard picture frame sizes like 5x7 and 8x10.

 

[markc]

True. 8x10s used to be made as contact prints from glass plate negatives. 4x5 uses the same ratio. Medium format has 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 (which matches 4x6). It used to annoy me that frame and matte availability never caught up with the intro of 35mm, but then I started getting my stuff made to the print.

 

[mysteryscribe]

in the very early days of digital, shock I actually looked at it early on, almost all cameras came with a tv cord to show them right on the tv maybe that had something to do with it.

Most likely there is no logical reason for it at all. It was probably the size the chip maker decided on. For no good reason other than he had a lot of blanks laying about.

And marc in the very early days of 35mm vs med format struggle nobody took a 35mm photographers serious enough to think him worthy of making precut anything for. We all had to just shoot for 8x10 which always irritated everyone I know.

 

[Torus34]

'Traditional' film is also 6x6cm and a whole host of Kodak dimensions tied to 620 and 127 roll film.

Once you start cutting your own mattes [It's easy!], you can kick the sides out of the box and compose to whatever ratio strikes your fancy.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I have some cameras that originally shot 4x5 roll film and a lot more that shot 3.5 by 5 inch. Kodak has always made and discontinued film to sell cameras. More early Kodaks were obsoleted than worn out. My favorite is the 2.5 by 4.25 odd sized little devil but the lens is perfect for 3x4 cut film adaptations

 

[rmh159]

Alright I'll kill the suspense (haha assuming anyone even cares at this point).

What I had heard was that the sensors used to make the first digital cameras were so expensive (Wikipedia.com says the first digital cam was around $20,000 and I beleive around 75% of the cost of the camera is the sensor) that companies pulled the sensors from video cameras since original digitals were basically video cameras that could capture still images. Video was shot at 4:3 to fit on standard size screens.

I would assume if that's correct that the logic would still hold true because it would be too costly (and unnecessary) for a company to produce sensors that capture different ratios.

 

[mysteryscribe]

makes perfect sense, and I had a sony mavarica (sp) or whatever that was a still video camera .

Note this quote from above lol

Most likely there is no logical reason for it at all. It was probably the size the chip maker decided on. For no good reason other than he had a lot of blanks laying about.

a pretty close guess....

 

[rmh159]

Hahaha true true. I read as well that the cost of sensors is dropping a bit so companies can start to make dSLR's with an electronic viewfinder (like the P&S cams) by using a high MP for the sensor that takes the pic and a low MP sensor that the mirror reflects onto that would be tied to the LCD. Interesting stuff.

 

[Philip Weir]

Based on the answers, it seems the logical reaon for the 4:3 format is to match television screens. That was prior to widescreen. Film sizes are a different kettle of fish. As photography developed initially in Europe, they used metric measurements i.e 35mm, 645, 67 etc. I believe it was the British [long live the Queen] who came up with what is known as "plate" sizes 1/4 plate, 1/2 plate, full plate. I believe a "full plate" was about 6"x4" [a little bigger from memory, not that I was around then] The 5"x4" came in with the Speed/Crown Graphics in the U.S.

Just a bit of background that I trust is correct, though what it's got to do with the original question escapes me.

If anyone can correct any of my statements, please do, I'm no authority,just been around a while. Philip.

www.philipweirphotography.com

 

[mysteryscribe]

Unless I am mistaken and I probably am kodak was manufacturing their film in inches until they went to 35mm.. the very, very early kodak were a conglomeration of different films as they tried to obsolete or improve if you will the portability of cameras. The smaller and easier the camera the more likely it was to make a huge profit from it.

I think kodak made some plate cameras but not many the primo plate comes to mind but im not even sure if it was a real plate or just a name. Except for the graflex kodak stayed with roll film. the other us manufacturers tried to straddle the line.

European roll film was pretty much 120 or 6cm wide by whatever length they wanted. While americans were all over the place. instead of the 2 1/4 that was 120 Kodak had a bunch all the way from 4 inches wide on a roll down to 828 which was 35mm without holes. closer to 40 mm i think.

Anyway they made a 3 1/4 by 5 1/2 i think it was for the kodak 3a which was the first widely used newspaper camera gaining wide acceptance during the san fransciso earth quake of 1906 (I think)

So there was parallel film production going on. Now this is so far off topic i am going to shut up.

 

[Digital Matt]

TVs yes, but I'm sure the digital image was computer bound from it's inception, and common monitor resolutions are also 4:3, ie 800x600, 1024x768, etc....