About aspect ratios


Status
Not open for further replies.

pop

New Member
Jun 10, 2002
387
0
0
Visit site
#1
By default, the dc captures in 4:3 right? But when sent for digital processing, say 4R, it gets cropped because they print in the 3:2 ratio? To avoid this, we can choose the setting to capture in 3:2. But, asking a silly question, this means the cam catpures a smaller area than in 4:3 right?

Does the shop print in 4:3 then? But then the resulting print won't fit into most typical photo albums since they cater to 3:2 size?

I'm quite confused. Thanks.
 

P

Phildate

Guest
#2
Most 'Point and Shoot' digital cameras do take pictures with an aspect ratio of 4:3 compared to SLRs and DSLRs which use an aspect ratio of 3:2.

A normal 4R print is 6" x 4" and therefore prints from DSLRs will be uncropped but if you print at 4R from a PnS, the photo will be cropped (top and bottom) or you could ask to 'fit' in and you will have white strips at the side.

However, many print labs do a S4R which is 6" x 4.5", which is in the ratio 4:3. But you will still have a problem with albums.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#3
pop said:
By default, the dc captures in 4:3 right? But when sent for digital processing, say 4R, it gets cropped because they print in the 3:2 ratio? To avoid this, we can choose the setting to capture in 3:2. But, asking a silly question, this means the cam catpures a smaller area than in 4:3 right?

Does the shop print in 4:3 then? But then the resulting print won't fit into most typical photo albums since they cater to 3:2 size?

I'm quite confused. Thanks.
Ask for 4R DSC, ratio is 4:3, mini album for 4R DSC also available.

If the demand is high, big slot in type refillable page album for 4R DSC should be available soon.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#4
i believe shops still charge a small premium for printing 4:3 pictures (aka S4R) over normal 4R. If the end result is going to be 4R prints in a 4R album, it's better to shoot in 3:2 mode even though the picture is cropped. It saves a lot of time and effort.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#5
ST1100 said:
i believe shops still charge a small premium for printing 4:3 pictures (aka S4R) over normal 4R. If the end result is going to be 4R prints in a 4R album, it's better to shoot in 3:2 mode even though the picture is cropped. It saves a lot of time and effort.
The situation may change in future...if the demand of 3:2 is high, 4:3 will become minority, maybe only apply on small size prints.
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#7
catchlights said:
The situation may change in future...if the demand of 3:2 is high, 4:3 will become minority, maybe only apply on small size prints.
3:2 aspect used to be the staple of film negatives, but nevertheless "standard" print sizes came in all kinds of aspect ratios (3:2, 3:4, 4:5 etc). A long time ago, when photographic paper was sold mainly in pre-cut sheet form and exposed by projection from a negative, it was understandable that there were some compromises to be made. But nowadays the paper comes mostly in roll form, gets exposed line-by-line by lasers, and is cut only after printing. I would hope commercial printers would simply print in the aspect ratio defined by the negative/file, charging based on the total size of the resulting image. It can't be that difficult to get modern digital print machines to do it, can it?

There are more issues. Most common image file formats specify how big the image is supposed to be, so having to specify a certain print size when ordering should be redundant. Alas, this metadata is ignored by virtually all printers for whatever reason. Even then, I think finishers should standardise on a simple, human- and computer-readable "print job description" file format specifying how a bunch of pictures should be printed (number of copies, surface finish, size, borders, colour corrections, etc.). This would give people more control over the result and make ordering much less troublesome and prone to misunderstandings. The finisher, in return, could concentrate on producing the best prints according to the customer's specifications, rather than second-guessing what the specifications are.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#8
LittleWolf said:
3:2 aspect ........................................................................................second-guessing what the specifications are.
Yes, only the large format printing and the professional lab charge by per sq in.

But I foresee the increase number of people owning compact digital cameras (3:4 ratio), the price for 4R DSC will be very comparable to 4R print, this is apply to digital mini lab.


Nowadays, due to low demand of 3R size prints, some labs are charging same price as 4R.
 

solarii

New Member
Oct 20, 2005
1,354
0
0
Bt. Timah
#9
catchlights said:
Ask for 4R DSC, ratio is 4:3, mini album for 4R DSC also available.

If the demand is high, big slot in type refillable page album for 4R DSC should be available soon.
You could also use self-adhesive albums...though it may be difficult to remove your photos later. I prefer the layout and I usually use the extra room to add trinkets like use tickets, stamps etc from the trip.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#10
I have a few cameras, but I don't have any compact digital camera, and I have not try any 4R DSC print yet.

But from what I see from the popularity of 3:4 format, can foresee soon will have refillable page type of album for 4R DSC prints.
 

hwchoy

Senior Member
Jul 16, 2003
1,899
0
0
55
Tampines, Singapore.
www.hexazona.com
#11
LittleWolf said:
There are more issues. Most common image file formats specify how big the image is supposed to be, so having to specify a certain print size when ordering should be redundant. Alas, this metadata is ignored by virtually all printers for whatever reason.

actually the JPEG file does not specify the print size. what it does specify is the number of pixels (vertical and horizontal) plus the DPI. I think even this DPI is optional. The "print-size" is calculated based on the numbers of vertical and horizontal pixels and the DPI.

So if you have a JPEG file of 3000×2000 and 300 DPI. You will get printed with 10×6-2/3 inch output. however this DPI can be changed which will effectively cause the print engine to resize the output. For very serious printing, you may not want the print engine to mess with your image (e.g. it may have a lousy anti-aliasing or resampling algorithm). What you can do is to find out the native print resolution of the printer (say 1200 dpi) and set it into the image, and use a high-quality tool (e.g. PSCS) to resize the image so the printed output with have the correct physical dimension when printed at the printer's native resolution.
 

Apr 12, 2005
1,767
0
0
#12
hwchoy said:
actually the JPEG file does not specify the print size. what it does specify is the number of pixels (vertical and horizontal) plus the DPI. I think even this DPI is optional. The "print-size" is calculated based on the numbers of vertical and horizontal pixels and the DPI.

So if you have a JPEG file of 3000×2000 and 300 DPI. You will get printed with 10×6-2/3 inch output. however this DPI can be changed which will effectively cause the print engine to resize the output. For very serious printing, you may not want the print engine to mess with your image (e.g. it may have a lousy anti-aliasing or resampling algorithm). What you can do is to find out the native print resolution of the printer (say 1200 dpi) and set it into the image, and use a high-quality tool (e.g. PSCS) to resize the image so the printed output with have the correct physical dimension when printed at the printer's native resolution.
hwchoy said:
actually the JPEG file does not specify the print size. what it does specify is the number of pixels (vertical and horizontal) plus the DPI. I think even this DPI is optional. The "print-size" is calculated based on the numbers of vertical and horizontal pixels and the DPI.

So if you have a JPEG file of 3000×2000 and 300 DPI. You will get printed with 10×6-2/3 inch output. however this DPI can be changed which will effectively cause the print engine to resize the output. For very serious printing, you may not want the print engine to mess with your image (e.g. it may have a lousy anti-aliasing or resampling algorithm). What you can do is to find out the native print resolution of the printer (say 1200 dpi) and set it into the image, and use a high-quality tool (e.g. PSCS) to resize the image so the printed output with have the correct physical dimension when printed at the printer's native resolution.
I think LittleWolf refers to sending the images to a photo lab shop for printing and that they should use the pixel dimensions of the image and the PPI setting data contained in the file to print out each picture and cut into exactly the size that we want, without any need to crop. In that way, we don't have to tell them what sizes nor have to worry about our pictures getting cropped just because their aspect ratios don't comform to the usual format. Currently, the photo lab ignores the PPI data in the files and print at whatever DPI to get the photo sizes they're told verbally. Inadvertently, many unusual sized photos are cropped.

Printing using home/consumer printer is a separate story.

In any case, the DPI specification of a home/consumer printer doesn't mean that same thing as the pixel per inch (PPI) specified of the image because the printer uses one of the basic colours (e.g. one of CMYKB) to print each dot and each pixel is printed by a combination of the basic colours to make the picture to be perceived by the eyes to be of the colours which the original picture is in. So 1 dot doesn't necessarily correspond to 1 pixel. To avoid the image being resized by a home/consumer printer, you just need to make sure that the pixel resolution when divided by the PPI in the image is exactly the size in inches you want. For e.g. If PPI is 300 and you want 6" x 4", then make your image's pixel resolution as 1800 x 1200. This refers to you print yourself with your home/consumer printer.
 

Dec 27, 2005
335
0
0
#13
pop said:
By default, the dc captures in 4:3 right? But when sent for digital processing, say 4R, it gets cropped because they print in the 3:2 ratio? To avoid this, we can choose the setting to capture in 3:2. But, asking a silly question, this means the cam catpures a smaller area than in 4:3 right?

Does the shop print in 4:3 then? But then the resulting print won't fit into most typical photo albums since they cater to 3:2 size?

I'm quite confused. Thanks.
6R prints are 6" by 8" if I'm not wrong so no cropping should be needed. But 6R prints are expensive. Just for added info.
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#14
hwchoy said:
actually the JPEG file does not specify the print size. what it does specify is the number of pixels (vertical and horizontal) plus the DPI.
To be more precise, JFIF files may the horizontal and vertical resolution. Which, when multiplied with the size of the picture in pixels, unambiguously specifies the printout size of the image.

however this DPI can be changed which will effectively cause the print engine to resize the output.
It can be changed in the file, effectively resizing the picture without resampling it. This would actually be the mathematically best procedure to change image size, without having to specify it separately when ordering the prints. What most labs do, however, is to ignore this data.

For very serious printing, you may not want the print engine to mess with your image (e.g. it may have a lousy anti-aliasing or resampling algorithm). What you can do is to find out the native print resolution of the printer (say 1200 dpi) and set it into the image, and use a high-quality tool (e.g. PSCS) to resize the image so the printed output with have the correct physical dimension when printed at the printer's native resolution.
This is certainly an option - but this would not be prevented by obeying the instructions clearly given within the image file. If you resample your image to 1200 dpi, you still can specify this resolution in the image file, and the lab should stick to it.
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#15
Clockunder said:
I think LittleWolf refers to sending the images to a photo lab shop for printing and that they should use the pixel dimensions of the image and the PPI setting data contained in the file to print out each picture and cut into exactly the size that we want, without any need to crop. In that way, we don't have to tell them what sizes nor have to worry about our pictures getting cropped just because their aspect ratios don't comform to the usual format. Currently, the photo lab ignores the PPI data in the files and print at whatever DPI to get the photo sizes they're told verbally. Inadvertently, many unusual sized photos are cropped.
Thank you for explaining what I meant better than I could do it! :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom