Aspect ratio of 10x8 and 5x4?

[Alan Klein]

Well, I don;t think we even started to discuss regular print paper ratios and how they differ from TV;s monitors and cameras. Then there film vs. digital sensor camera sizes. We could go on for another 12 pages.

[alt.kafka]

My Nikon D800 had 5:4 aspect ratio crop available.

I sold that camera, perhaps other Nikons have it, my D750 does not and I miss it.

Why DSLR's don't allow you to predefine your own aspect ratios is beyond me. Or at least, have every conceivable normal aspect ratio. It's not like there's any actual technology to it. Yes, you can do it manually. But the entire point of a digital camera is convenience.

[Tin Can]

Good points Alan!

Paper IS odd sized

Plate sizes are actually derived from some distant standard that I have read, but have forgotten, in my old age, which is relative, some are old when young

Some Forum members expect all to research every aspect before speaking/writing

Not so social...however at least obvious anger/hatred is almost gone...

I get snide comments for posting TOO MUCH, but also get PM's that like what I do

YMMV

Well, I don;t think we even started to discuss regular print paper ratios and how they differ from TV;s monitors and cameras. Then there film vs. digital sensor camera sizes. We could go on for another 12 pages.

[DonJ]

Why DSLR's don't allow you to predefine your own aspect ratios is beyond me. Or at least, have every conceivable normal aspect ratio. It's not like there's any actual technology to it. Yes, you can do it manually. But the entire point of a digital camera is convenience.

"Every conceivable" ratio would be quite a list. My DSLR gives me a choice of four that are fairly useful: 3:2 (the aspect ratio of the full sensor), 4:3, 16:9, and 1:1. They should add 5:4.

[Alan Klein]

Why DSLR's don't allow you to predefine your own aspect ratios is beyond me. Or at least, have every conceivable normal aspect ratio. It's not like there's any actual technology to it. Yes, you can do it manually. But the entire point of a digital camera is convenience.

Actually it is important to shoot the format you intend to use later in the camera rather than just relying on cropping to the format in post. Determining the best crop and framing is easier to see in the camera. You won't cut off heads and limbs.

For example, I often shoot 16:9 because I make slide shows to match the 16:9 ratio of the TV. I use to shoot 4:3. But then found I was getting wrong perspectives when cropping to 16:9. Aesthetic consideration went out the window. So I bit the bullet and set my camera to 16:9. At first, it was a little weird to compose to 16:9. But after a one outing, composing to 16:9 became natural, no less so to anyone who uses a cell phone set to full display. The brain automatically adjust to set the best aesthetic regardless of the format. Another advantage was the 16:9 stills match the 16:9 video clips format as well. It allows you to fill up the screen for monitors and cellphones as well as TV's as well.

These were all shot in 16:9. There was some subsequent cropping in post with a few of them. But the original 16:9 view in the camera determined the best capture of the scene for each picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM&t=77s

[Jim Jones]

Most of my 20,000 Kodachromes were composed in 3:2 format for projection. A few were composed in more pleasing formats for prints. Fortunately, after acquiring a darkroom, I began allowing for some cropping in B&W negatives for the diverse aspect ratios of prints. It is presumptuous to assume as we snap the shutter that we may never present that image in any other format. Of course we can precisely compose in the camera for what seems to be the ideal format at the moment, and take an additional shot with looser cropping for the unforeseen future.

[Tin Can]

Does any software offer fake irregular rebates from fake LF holders?

My real rebates are often lopsided and I seldom include them, making not 4x5 or 8X10...exactly...

I'm sure a PS whiz can make a template/mask/layer, no thank you

Rubylith is not fake...

[alt.kafka]

Actually it is important to shoot the format you intend to use later in the camera rather than just relying on cropping to the format in post. Determining the best crop and framing is easier to see in the camera. You won't cut off heads and limbs.

For example, I often shoot 16:9 because I make slide shows to match the 16:9 ratio of the TV. I use to shoot 4:3. But then found I was getting wrong perspectives when cropping to 16:9. Aesthetic consideration went out the window. So I bit the bullet and set my camera to 16:9. At first, it was a little weird to compose to 16:9. But after a one outing, composing to 16:9 became natural, no less so to anyone who uses a cell phone set to full display. The brain automatically adjust to set the best aesthetic regardless of the format. Another advantage was the 16:9 stills match the 16:9 video clips format as well. It allows you to fill up the screen for monitors and cellphones as well as TV's as well.

These were all shot in 16:9. There was some subsequent cropping in post with a few of them. But the original 16:9 view in the camera determined the best capture of the scene for each picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM&t=77s

I do this all the time, where I can. The less I have to do later, the better. There's one moment of creation, where I'm there, responding to the environment, making a judgement about the framing, thinking about how I want to show it. Even if I intend on doing processing later, like HDR or whatever, I can't really previsualize a crop very well. I'll always try to make the picture look right through the viewfinder.

I suspect, though, that's just kind of an old habit of shooting. Really, with digital, you almost don't need a zoom lens. Just shoot wide and plan on cropping. Heck, bracket everything by 1/3 stop, while we're at it. But still, I wish the feature were more flexible. It wouldn't kill Nikon to give me the just the most common aspect ratios.

[Alan Klein]

I do this all the time, where I can. The less I have to do later, the better. There's one moment of creation, where I'm there, responding to the environment, making a judgement about the framing, thinking about how I want to show it. Even if I intend on doing processing later, like HDR or whatever, I can't really previsualize a crop very well. I'll always try to make the picture look right through the viewfinder.

I suspect, though, that's just kind of an old habit of shooting. Really, with digital, you almost don't need a zoom lens. Just shoot wide and plan on cropping. Heck, bracket everything by 1/3 stop, while we're at it. But still, I wish the feature were more flexible. It wouldn't kill Nikon to give me the just the most common aspect ratios.

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. Why? On the one hand you say "...I can;t really previsualize a crop very well..." I agree. If I'm shooting 4:3, and just try to get everything in there for later cropping to 16:9, it often won;t work. Tops and bottoms get cut off and suddenly I find my subject without shoes. Sure you can shoot wide angle to catch more of the scene so it can be cropped properly later. But wide angle has its own distortions. Additionally, I tend to just take the first shot figuring I caught everything I need for later adjustments. Then I find I was standing in the wrong place. That I caught stuff I didn't want or from the wrong angle, problems that you would have noticed if you shot at the format you intend to use later. Trust yourself. Getting it right in the camera, is the right approach.

Nikon should give us these alternative aspect ratios in the camera for another reason. Why should a camera company make software companies richer? Why give them the edge? Why cede technology to the Adobes of the world? Leica has a B/W digital camera that only shoots BW. I believe they;re coming out with another BW only with around 46mb or more. They're not ceding to the PS's who can change color shots to BW. They're charging $5000+ for a BW camera only and people are lining up for it. Damn the software companies is their motto.

[Nigel Smith]

Think about it...

Reminds me of something that happened many years ago.. like about 25! I was racing sprint karts and a mate and I were standing near the grid observing nothing in particular and chatting. A young bloke comes over and asks if we could give him a push (this was back in the days when that was how you started your kart which was difficult by yourself and frowned upon on the grid on race day). We say no worries. We saunter over and get behind the kart ready to give him a shove. My mate gives me a nudge and points to this kids rear sprocket which is covered in grease all the way to the axle (you need to lubricate the chain every time you take it on the track). My mate asks the kid why he's got all the grease on he sprocket, and he replies "think about it". He didn't give us his theory but we had a laugh about it for many years, mainly due to the delivery of the answer. We very much doubted that what he was probably trying to achieve, having the grease work it's way to the chain would have worked, and in reality it would have fung it all off the moment the kart took off.