# Aspect Ratios



## Trigger (Aug 12, 2009)

I can't understand why there isn't some level of standardization when it comes to aspect ratios. It seems that my camera settings don't correlate to print sizes and various screen sizes. Can someone complete this for me, or at least shed some light on this viper's nest of confusion:


Print Size - Camera Setting - 800x Size


2.5x2 = ? = 800x640

3x5 = ? = 800x480

4x6 = 3:2 = 800x533

5x7 = ? = 800x572

8x10 = ? = 800x640

8x12 = 3:2 = 800x533

11x14 = ? = 800x629

16x20 = ? = 800x640

? = 16:9 = 800x451

? = 4:3 = 800x600


PS: My Camera has 3:2, 4:3, and 16:9 as available settings.

Thanks


----------



## Moglex (Aug 12, 2009)

Deleted.

Too complicated!


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 12, 2009)

There are just too many influences for there to be a few standard sizes.  

2:3 is the ratio of 35mm film, which was the most widely used film for a long time.  There are a few common ratios used in medium and large format photography.  

As for print sizes, I don't know the history or reasoning of 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 etc.'

But, it is what it is.  It's extremely easy to crop digital images to fit your intended final ratio.  Sometimes you just have to keep that in mind when shooting, so that yo leave room for cropping.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 12, 2009)

5x7, methinks, is with headshots in mind. It works nicely to cut-off some of the empty space above a person's head.


----------



## KmH (Aug 12, 2009)

Trigger said:


> I can't understand why there isn't some level of standardization when it comes to aspect ratios. It seems that my camera settings don't correlate to print sizes and various screen sizes. Can someone complete this for me, or at least shed some light on this viper's nest of confusion:
> 
> 
> Print Size - Camera Setting - 800x Size
> ...


What kind of camera is that, Olympus?

There are other camera formats beside 35 mm out there. Consider large and medium camera formats. Then add in the motion picture formats and the it's easy to decern how the zoo got populated.


----------



## Trigger (Aug 12, 2009)

Panasonic FZ18.


----------



## Trigger (Aug 12, 2009)

Thanks KmH.  Are you saying that higher-end cameras have these 5:3 / 7:5 / 5:4 / 14:11  aspect ratio settings?


----------



## Moglex (Aug 12, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> 5x7, methinks, is with headshots in mind. It works nicely to cut-off some of the empty space above a person's head.



It's a possibility but I think that it was introduced when bordered prints were de-rigeur and 7x5 with a 1/4 inch boarder come out a 6.5*4.5 which is as near as damnit to 1:1.5 as makes no odds to a mass photo finisher.


----------



## Plato (Aug 12, 2009)

The really wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!


----------



## KmH (Aug 12, 2009)

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Higher end cameras don't have aspect ratio settings. Photographers just crop the image to the desired aspect ratio in image editing software. As mentioned by Mike, the photographer has to allow for that when framing each image. 

Notice that the majority of DSLRs capture images in a size very close to the 3:2 aspect ratio because that is the approximate dimensions of 135 film 36x24 mm (aka 35mm film). That would cover print sizes of 2x3, 4x6, 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, 24x36.

To get the in between sizes the image has to be crop to the desired aspect ratio in image editing software.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 12, 2009)

> Thanks KmH. Are you saying that higher-end cameras have these 5:3 / 7:5 / 5:4 / 14:11 aspect ratio settings?


Actually, it's usually only mid/lower end digital cameras that give you the option to choose the ratio.  High end cameras shoot at their maximum size/ratio and leave it up to you to do the cropping later.


----------



## Trigger (Aug 12, 2009)

KmH said:


> Notice that the majority of DSLRs capture images in a size very close to the 3:2 aspect ratio because that is the approximate dimensions of 135 film 36x24 mm (aka 35mm film). That would cover print sizes of 2x3, 4x6, 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, 24x36.



Thanks.  Yes, I knew that the 3:2 was the old standard for 35mm.  So, I'm still wondering why print sizes haven't evolved to correlate with the 3:2 size?


----------



## Moglex (Aug 12, 2009)

Trigger said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Notice that the majority of DSLRs capture images in a size very close to the 3:2 aspect ratio because that is the approximate dimensions of 135 film 36x24 mm (aka 35mm film). That would cover print sizes of 2x3, 4x6, 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, 24x36.
> ...



It's not often the most aesthetically pleasing ratio.

It is also frequently inappropriate for the subject, often by a considerable margin.

Squarer shapes tend to be closer to more subject's requirements.


----------



## Plato (Aug 12, 2009)

Trigger said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Notice that the majority of DSLRs capture images in a size very close to the 3:2 aspect ratio because that is the approximate dimensions of 135 film 36x24 mm (aka 35mm film). That would cover print sizes of 2x3, 4x6, 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, 24x36.
> ...



It has.  That's why 4X6 paper was introduced.  Previously, 35mm prints were made on 3.5X5 paper.  Also, 20X30 is a standard poster-sized print.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 13, 2009)

If anything wouldn't a 1:1.65 ratio be most suited? This is afterall the golden ratio in art. Heck why did we even get a 3x2 ratio? The 120 film had a lovely 1:1 square ratio.


To put it simply, life doesn't fit into 3:2. On Tuesday I ordered a 32"x15" print. Actually I "ordered" a 32"x20" print because that's their 3:2 printer prints, but I had to fill the rest with white space. Unfortunately the image would look like crap if I included even more sky or water, or cropped the edges.

This is why we have all these ratios. Each one suits something perfectly. Don't like it then either crop, fill with white space and cut, or find a printer who will print the non-standard size for you.


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 13, 2009)

Isn't it more important to end up with a finished picture whose AR best complements it? AR adjustment is nothing more than another [and often neglected] phase of post-processing.

With this as a premise, the 'starting' AR is, unless extreme, of no concern whatever. Print as required and, if not exactly what you want, matte the finished print to frame [crop] your print as desired. Goodness knows matte cutters are cheap enough and it's a simple skill to master. Don't let a film/sensor format AR limit your control over your product.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 13, 2009)

Eugh. Printing non-standard sizes sucks. Most of the time they just charge a very pretty penny to print on larger paper and then cut-off the white space.


----------

