Help.. problem with aspect ratio of pictures

Big Bad Bill wrote in post #12357704
the image on the left is how my photos appear to me now on my screen.. the one on the right has been scaled to D1/DV PAL (1.09) to make it look right

The image on the left looks good. The right one does not.

Big Bad Bill wrote in post #12357732
my PC screen resolution is 1360 by 768 if that helps anyway.

What screen is that? A TV?
Run your monitor at it's native resolution!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #12357865
It means that the document is in a different RGB colour space than your working space.

No. That would be if the asteriks was inside the brackets

tzalman wrote in post #12358060
I don't understand why you have gotten tangled up in this, but I do know that every camera I've had (five of them) has had non-square pixels and I'd be willing to bet that applies to every Canon EOS. I have never heard of anybody scaling to square pixels in ten years experience with digital photography and I think that it is an absolutely illogical thig to do. It stands to reason that the native capture from the camera is the dimensionally accurate version and any rescaling can only distort it.

Do you have any documentation indicating the Pixel shape is anything other than square in any of the Canon EOS DSLR's?
Why is the default in PS Square?

The CMOS is rectangular shape with a 3:2 aspect ratio, but as far as I am aware the individual pixels are square.
E.g. The pixels size on the EOS 50D is 4.7µm x 4.7µm

http://www.sphoto.com …lrsensors/dslrs​ensors.htm
Quote:
"The 1Ds Mark II's 16.7 megapixel sensor is 'full frame' (same size as 35mm film) at 24X36mm. The sensor is about 1.41 inches wide with resolution of 4992 x 3328 pixels. Dividing the width resolution by the width of the sensor in inches shows us that we have about 3540 ppi (Pixels Per linear Inch) on this camera's sensor. Canon's DSLR cameras produce pixels with an equal height and width, square pixels."

I think at this point you may want to provide one of the offending files for download (i.e., post the raw to a FTP site) so that we can examine what is going on and determine whether the file format is triggering the problem or your set up is messed.

Kirk

I think Elie made a typo
Nikon had non-square (rectangular) pixels on the D1x sensor, but the (image) pixels coming out of the camera / raw converter are square. (as are all pixels in digital still images)

http://www.larryjordan​.biz/articles/lj_non-square.html

OK, my bad. I was thinking of the fact that the pixel resolution on the sensor is different for the height and width, from which I infer that the physical sensels are not square, but I should not have thought that meant that the digital pixels are similarly shaped.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Hmm, the difference in resolution according to axis could be due to different spacings between square sensels. Time for me to shut up.

René Damkot wrote in post #12358439
No. That would be if the asteriks was inside the brackets

This asteriks means the image isn't saved.

Oops. Should have looked better!

kirkt wrote in post #12358749
I think at this point you may want to provide one of the offending files for download (i.e., post the raw to a FTP site) so that we can examine what is going on and determine whether the file format is triggering the problem or your set up is messed.

Kirk

http://dl.dropbox.com …200/Sunset%20at​Temple.jpg
I changed the file from tiff to jpg to make it smaller but they both look the same on my PC.. a bit squashed in the width

also i am using a 32" Hannspree LCD TV as my PC display.. it is using the recommended resolution 1360 by 768 I live in N. Ireland so our TV,s are all PAL

Here also is one of the three files i used for the HDR Pic
http://dl.dropbox.com/​u/22309200/_MG_1057.CR​2 it's 8.92MB
they too look wrong at the moment

Big Bad Bill wrote in post #12361490
http://dl.dropbox.com …200/Sunset%20at​Temple.jpg
I changed the file from tiff to jpg to make it smaller but they both look the same on my PC.. a bit squashed in the width

also i am using a 32" Hannspree LCD TV as my PC display.. it is using the recommended resolution 1360 by 768 I live in N. Ireland so our TV,s are all PAL

I just opened both this jpeg and the Raw into CS5 and they looked fine to me. The Processing of the jpeg looks a little over saturated but otherwise the aspect ratio looks fine. But not being able to see the actual temple to compare to I can't say for sure if it is right or wrong.
Looking at the embedded Raw Data I didn't see anything out of the ordinary.

Are you changing the pixel aspect ratio in CS5 from anything other than square because your TV/monitor is PAL?
If you are, and then the picture looks right to you, it's your TV/Monitor?

Yeah. I too think it's the TV that's distorting the images.

Easy test: Rotate the image 90 degrees. Does the "distortion" stay the same, or does the image appear stretched in the same (screen) direction?