p.1 #1 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
Since 4/3 cameras are formatted to match computer screens, T V screens, and even standard photo enlargement formats(8x10,etc), is it correct to say that 4/3 cameras utilize all the pixels they record/capture, while full format film and digital 35mm cameras, formatted at 3:2 actually discard and therefore waste recorded data?
If I'm correct, by my calculations, a full format 35mm camera discards 1/6, or 16.7% of its pixels whenever you display the pictures on the internet or print at standard sizes.(4X6,8X10, etc).
So an 18.1M pixel camera,for example, actually discards slightly more than 3 pixels, making it in effect a 15.1M pixel image.
If true, this brings 4/3 cameras like the Olympus 4/3, with 12.3M pixels, much closer to the big boys than first thought.
p.1 #2 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
Just a niggle,
Internet display doesn't mandate any sort of aspect ratio, and you can print howevand matte...but I see what you're saying and will be interested as well
As far as standard print sizes... 3:2 aspect ratio...
p.1 #3 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
Modern screens are often 16:9 ratio, so that would throw it the other way around. But how often do you find images at full resolution on the web? They are mostly very much smaller than any computer screen.
As for printing, you are right if you will be printing at the maximum size that the printer allows. But then of course pixel count doesn't say very much about sharpness or even real resolution. At smaller sizes, just print on a larger paper and crop the empty borders instead.
Edit: I think I just brainfarted with the printing. It depends on what direction the paper goes in the printer.
p.1 #4 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
h00ligan wrote:
Just a niggle,
Internet display doesn't mandate any sort of aspect ratio, and you can print howevand matte...but I see what you're saying and will be interested as well
As far as standard print sizes... 3:2 aspect ratio...
4x6
8x12
12x18
20x30
These are not uncommon.
Agreed, and I almost always print 8X12 instead of 8X10 from my MF cameras.
But the drug store prints 8X10 and can't do 8X12.
Thanks for the insights everyone. I'm mostly interested in printing and got out of my element with internet and TV discussions.
p.1 #10 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
h00ligan wrote:
Just a niggle,
Internet display doesn't mandate any sort of aspect ratio, and you can print howevand matte...but I see what you're saying and will be interested as well
As far as standard print sizes... 3:2 aspect ratio...
4x6
8x12
12x18
20x30
These are not uncommon.
Have you ever tried to find a frame for an 8x12 or 12x18? Short of paying to have one custom made there aren't many options. I say this because I actually hate that aspect ratio, I prefer 3:2 or square.
p.1 #11 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
eSchwab wrote:
Have you ever tried to find a frame for an 8x12 or 12x18? Short of paying to have one custom made there aren't many options. I say this because I actually hate that aspect ratio, I prefer 3:2 or square.
p.1 #12 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
Yes, I have a source for larger, irregular frames.Lots of suppliers actually--just Google it.
I print 8X12 frequently to preserve the 6X9 negatives I shoot for landscapes and occupational portraits. Been shooting close up portraits in landscape format with an Auto Up attachment for my Fujica 690 100AE. It allows me to get within a couple of feet of my subject and I often overflow the edges of an 8X10 format.
p.1 #13 · 4/3 Pixel Efficiency VS Standard Format Cameras
eSchwab wrote:
Have you ever tried to find a frame for an 8x12 or 12x18? Short of paying to have one custom made there aren't many options. I say this because I actually hate that aspect ratio, I prefer 3:2 or square.
Documounts - custom cut mat sizes $1 each order 20. Custom size frame down to 1/16" for $28.
