Beginner Aspect ratios - why are compacts 4:3 and DSLR's 3:2 ?

I think you should go an work for Canon in the technical department and push to harmonies the two.
 
Sensors and their shape.

Micro four thirds have a sensor that is in 4:3, APSC and 35mm have a 3:2 format.

Don't like the aspect ratio of your sensor, buy a camera with a different one.
 
Last edited:
Not all compacts are 4:3, not all DSLRs are 3:2.

What do you want to do about it? Why do you feel there's a need to do anything about it?
 
Take your Photo with plenty of space around the subject and then Crop to what you want. Easy.
 
Have to admit that if I'm a bit rushed, that's the approach I use these days. When I've got a bit more time I just allow for a little space off the short edge so I can crop down from 3:2 to 1.41:1 (A series paper size) when I go large. I have my compacts and CSCs set to record at the ratio I'm used to - 3:2.
 
Because early digital compacts took pictures designed to be viewed on a computer screen (they used to be 5:4 before we all went widescreen).

The 3:2 of DSLRs comes from the movie film some European camera makers decided to utilise in their 'compact' form cameras.

There have always been competing aspect ratios though, and there always will be. I've no idea what the current digital MF cameras use, but when I shot MF the choice was:
6x4.5
6x6
6x7
6x9
6x17 (yes, you read that right a 17cm long panoramic negative)

Of course large frame cameras tend to be 5:4 ratio, which is why the std frame sizes are 5:4.
 
Compact digital sensors were designed without the constraints of existing film proportions, unlike DSLRs which attempted to preserve the 35mm film 3:2 ratio even with various sensor sizes.
Without a constrained ratio the compact sensor designers could use a ratio which was still oblong and pleasing (i.e.couln't be square) but made more efficient use of lens image circles (than 3:2).

(I believe the coincidence with 4:3 digital monitor screens was simply coincidence.)
 
Phil V said:
Because early digital compacts took pictures designed to be viewed on a computer screen (they used to be 5:4 before we all went widescreen).

The 3:2 of DSLRs comes from the movie film some European camera makers decided to utilise in their 'compact' form cameras.
Click to expand...
Ah, but *why* were early computer monitors 4:3 [sic]? And *why* were film cameras 3:2? You haven't really answered the OP's question....
:)
 
StewartR said:
Ah, but *why* were early computer monitors 4:3 [sic]? And *why* were film cameras 3:2? You haven't really answered the OP's question....
:)
Click to expand...

Probably its simply a question of 2 Blokes chatting during Designing the 1st Monitor and deciding that it pleasing to the eye!!!
 
4:3 is pretty close to the angles of human vision and was also the early standard ratio for 35mm movie frames. Old CRT TVs (old as in C20th!) were built to show that format so it made sense to use that format for computer monitors as well. In fact many of the early "personal computers" (BBC B, Sinclair etc.) would be plugged into TVs rather than their own dedicated monitors. When miniature still photography turned to using short lengths of cine film (35mm/135), the film was turned sideways and so the height of the frame was the same as the width had been in the early days of moving pictures - 24mm. Since the pitch of the perforations in cine film meant that each frame was 4 perforations (sprocket holes) tall, someone (presumably Oskar Barnak) decided to use double that as the width of a still frame so a 4:3 frame doubled up keeps the 4 part the same but gives us 6 wide - 2:3, rotated 90° to end up as 3:2.
While the group that developed the four thirds system claim that it has nothing to do with the old monitor/TV ratio, I think it's too much of a coincidence BUT the format does have a precedent in the film world - 6cm x 4.5cm.
 
Nod said:
4:3 is pretty close to the angles of human vision and was also the early standard ratio for 35mm movie frames. Old CRT TVs (old as in C20th!) were built to show that format so it made sense to use that format for computer monitors as well. In fact many of the early "personal computers" (BBC B, Sinclair etc.) would be plugged into TVs rather than their own dedicated monitors. When miniature still photography turned to using short lengths of cine film (35mm/135), the film was turned sideways and so the height of the frame was the same as the width had been in the early days of moving pictures - 24mm. Since the pitch of the perforations in cine film meant that each frame was 4 perforations (sprocket holes) tall, someone (presumably Oskar Barnak) decided to use double that as the width of a still frame so a 4:3 frame doubled up keeps the 4 part the same but gives us 6 wide - 2:3, rotated 90° to end up as 3:2.
While the group that developed the four thirds system claim that it has nothing to do with the old monitor/TV ratio, I think it's too much of a coincidence BUT the format does have a precedent in the film world - 6cm x 4.5cm.
Click to expand...


Knew it would be a simple explanation!!
 
It would be in a face to face situation with a roll of 35mm film in front of us!!! Like much in the world of photography, it's pretty much based on tradition rather than logic. ;)
 
Nod said:
4:3 is pretty close to the angles of human vision and was also the early standard ratio for 35mm movie frames. Old CRT TVs (old as in C20th!) were built to show that format so it made sense to use that format for computer monitors as well. In fact many of the early "personal computers" (BBC B, Sinclair etc.) would be plugged into TVs rather than their own dedicated monitors. When miniature still photography turned to using short lengths of cine film (35mm/135), the film was turned sideways and so the height of the frame was the same as the width had been in the early days of moving pictures - 24mm. Since the pitch of the perforations in cine film meant that each frame was 4 perforations (sprocket holes) tall, someone (presumably Oskar Barnak) decided to use double that as the width of a still frame so a 4:3 frame doubled up keeps the 4 part the same but gives us 6 wide - 2:3, rotated 90° to end up as 3:2.
While the group that developed the four thirds system claim that it has nothing to do with the old monitor/TV ratio, I think it's too much of a coincidence BUT the format does have a precedent in the film world - 6cm x 4.5cm.
Click to expand...

There was also a precedent with 35mm film. Half frame was 18mm x 24mm which is also 3:4
 
what can be concluded from this thread is that there is no perfect aspect ratio.
 
mortimerhill said:
There was also a precedent with 35mm film. Half frame was 18mm x 24mm which is also 3:4
Click to expand...

Not to mention all the plate sizes and other now all but obsolete film formats (110 etc..)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top