Spam Catcher <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote:
>I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio
>instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?
>
>I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that
>photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
You are assuming that all digital cameras have the same aspect ratio. That
is simply not so. I personally wish for a frame with a ratio of 1.5 to match
my dSLR.
However, you are right that the general trend is towards a wide screen
ration of 1.8. This has been discussed before without any conclusion.
One theory was that wide screen format originated in movies moved on to TVs
and as computers were used to display them computer monitors followed that
trend and now photo frames follow computer monitors.
Another theory suggests that wide screen computer monitors developed
independantly of tv formats just because people liked to see two documents
side by side on their monitor.
To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether it's
for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For stills, it's
really ridiculous to use this format.
"Spam Catcher" <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5174E7597EEusenethoneypotrogers@127.0.0. 1...
>I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio
> instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?
>
> I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that
> photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
Spam Catcher wrote:
> I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio
> instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?
>
> I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that
> photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
>
>
>
>
Sure. The bottom line is that they mostly use CHEAP, low resolution,
displays made for DVD players, and THEY are 16:9 which is the most
common aspect ratio for movies these days.
Ali wrote:
> Maybe because they play video clips too?
>
> To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether
> it's for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For
> stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format.
>
>
> "Spam Catcher" <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A5174E7597EEusenethoneypotrogers@127.0.0. 1...
>> I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio
>> instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?
>>
>> I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so
>> that
>> photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
>
I agree. It is unesthetic, and very difficult to make use of. There is
inadequate vertical space for good composition, and excessive width for
good balance, and one must move his eyes to take in all the frame. BAD,
BAD, BAD!
> Ali wrote:
>> Maybe because they play video clips too?
>>
>> To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether
>> it's for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For
>> stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format.
>>
>>
>> "Spam Catcher" <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A5174E7597EEusenethoneypotrogers@127.0.0. 1...
>>> I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9
>>> ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?
>>>
>>> I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so
>>> that
>>> photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
>>
> I agree. It is unesthetic, and very difficult to make use of. There is
> inadequate vertical space for good composition, and excessive width for
> good balance, and one must move his eyes to take in all the frame. BAD,
> BAD, BAD!
I'm a TV cameraman. Here in the days of transition between 4:3 and 16:9,
sometimes we'll have 16:9 in our viewfinders, but it will also have a 4:3
reticule marked electronically, and we'll have to compose for 4:3 but make
sure our 16:9 isn't shooting off the set or picking up a crewmember
standing a little too close to the action. Kind of a pain in the butt.
And, of course, if and when they use the wide format, the action will be
limited to the middle of the screen, because we had to keep it there so
it was 4:3 safe.
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net>], who wrote in article <5cadnUc5P5-5Y1janZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@giganews.com>:
> Sure. The bottom line is that they mostly use CHEAP, low resolution,
> displays made for DVD players, and THEY are 16:9 which is the most
> common aspect ratio for movies these days.
Except that it is not. (Unless you count TV shows as movies...)
Blinky the Shark wrote:
[]
> I'm a TV cameraman. Here in the days of transition between 4:3 and
> 16:9, sometimes we'll have 16:9 in our viewfinders, but it will also
> have a 4:3 reticule marked electronically, and we'll have to compose
> for 4:3 but make sure our 16:9 isn't shooting off the set or picking
> up a crewmember standing a little too close to the action. Kind of a
> pain in the butt. And, of course, if and when they use the wide
> format, the action will be limited to the middle of the screen,
> because we had to keep it there so it was 4:3 safe.
FYI: in the UK most of the current broadcast output is now 16:9 format.
Yes, there are sometimes stray folk just on the edges of shots, as you
mentioned, and I also see images with poorer resolution which look like
4:3 images cropped at top and bottom to produce 16:9 (or perhaps 14:9) and
then resampled to full height.
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Ali wrote:
>>> Maybe because they play video clips too?
>>>
>>> To be honest, I don't like 16:9. Never have and never will, whether
>>> it's for films/movies or anything else. What a stupid format. For
>>> stills, it's really ridiculous to use this format.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Spam Catcher" <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A5174E7597EEusenethoneypotrogers@127.0.0. 1...
>>>> I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9
>>>> ratio instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?
>>>>
>>>> I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so
>>>> that
>>>> photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
>> I agree. It is unesthetic, and very difficult to make use of. There is
>> inadequate vertical space for good composition, and excessive width for
>> good balance, and one must move his eyes to take in all the frame. BAD,
>> BAD, BAD!
>
> I'm a TV cameraman. Here in the days of transition between 4:3 and 16:9,
> sometimes we'll have 16:9 in our viewfinders, but it will also have a 4:3
> reticule marked electronically, and we'll have to compose for 4:3 but make
> sure our 16:9 isn't shooting off the set or picking up a crewmember
> standing a little too close to the action. Kind of a pain in the butt.
> And, of course, if and when they use the wide format, the action will be
> limited to the middle of the screen, because we had to keep it there so
> it was 4:3 safe.
>
>
Not to mention the difficulty of keeping heads from being cut off in the
16:9 format when you try to get close. SUCKS!
Spam Catcher wrote:
> I noticed lately that more and more digital photo frames are 16:9 ratio
> instead of 4:3. Anyone know why?
>
> I wish manufacturers would make more 4:3 frames (especially Kodak) so that
> photos can be dumped from a camera onto a frame without any cropping.
>
>
>
>
Don't knock 16:9. My first camera, 67 years ago, was a box camera that
took 616 film. 616 and its thicker-spool cousin 116 had an image size of
2.5" by 4.25", which is fairly close to 16:9. That size was excellent fo
many landscapes, pictures of large family groups, and, as a vertical,
pictures of one or two standing people. No one size is ideal, but that
ratio is good for many things; otherwise, it wouldn't have become the
movie standard. Also, it's the best thing that has happened (after
color)for televised sports, such as football and basketball.
Allen
Digital Photo Frames - 16:9 Why? 
Linear Mode
