why do most compacts churn images that are 4:3, instead of 3:2?

just curious. 3:2 would be my favorite since i often print 4"x6"..

other than the LX3, i don't really know of other compacts which offer 3:2 aspect ratio while shooting. why is that so?

tradition

When digital got started, computer screens were 4:3 ratio. SLRs are 3:2 because film was 3:2.

It should be mentioned that 3:2 was somewhat arbitrary - none of the MF or LF films have that aspect ratio.

i see. then is it technically hard to allow a change in aspect ratios while shooting in-camera?

des34415 wrote in post #9772123
just curious. 3:2 would be my favorite since i often print 4"x6"..

other than the LX3, i don't really know of other compacts which offer 3:2 aspect ratio while shooting. why is that so?

Because that's the size that sony makes their P&S image sensors in. And sony makes image sensors for most of the P&S cameras made: sony, nikon and Canon.

toxic wrote in post #9773054
It should be mentioned that 3:2 was somewhat arbitrary - none of the MF or LF films have that aspect ratio.

I seem to remember a Fujica with 6 X 9 cm format - ah yes, here it is: http://www.camerapedia​.org/wiki/Fujica_G690

35mm(3x2) was developed from movie film.
Hence the size, ½ of 70mm

Original 35mm film for movie usage too the 70mm width, slit that in half, spliced the two halves together, and then the sprocket holes were added...Mr. William Dickson of Thomas Edison's lab defined that. That defined the 24mm dimension. But the first movie use was 18mm x 24mm, with the 18mm defined by the movie film transport of 4 sprocket holes; that was later made into the still camera format by doubling the spocket hole count to 8 holes, which led to the 36mm dimension of the frame. The first camera to take full frame 24x36 mm exposures seems to be the Simplex, introduced in the U.S. in 1914. But 36mm itself is rather arbitrary, as many other formats based upon the 24mm width were defined! Leica popularized the 24 x 36mm format size.

number six wrote in post #9775933
I seem to remember a Fujica with 6 X 9 cm format - ah yes, here it is: http://www.camerapedia​.org/wiki/Fujica_G690

Huh. Ok, I was wrong about that.

DAMphyne wrote in post #9776007
35mm(3x2) was developed from movie film.
Hence the size, ½ of 70mm

35mm came from 35mm movie film, but that only defined one side (24mm after the sprockets).

des34415 wrote in post #9773154
i see. then is it technically hard to allow a change in aspect ratios while shooting in-camera?

Not really. All you need is a sensor slightly larger than necessary and vary which pixels are used, which is mostly a software thing. This is what the LX3 does. http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/panasonicdmc​lx3/

Maybe it has something to do with making the sensor more square, therefore having more surface area then a rectangle (which would be cheaper to produce), and being able to claim maximum amount of megapixels on the smaller sized sensor.

des34415 wrote in post #9773154
i see. then is it technically hard to allow a change in aspect ratios while shooting in-camera?

You don't have to let the camera do it - you can do it in post. Lightroom has a predefined set of ratios, as well as allowing you to fix tilted horizons in an instant, but you can define crop lengths in Photoshop.

des34415 wrote in post #9773154
i see. then is it technically hard to allow a change in aspect ratios while shooting in-camera?

No. Every compact camera I have owned other than Canons has has a 3:2 mode. It makes sense to use it because generally compact cameras are used for the 4x6 snaps for the photo album. Who wants to bulk edit 200 vacation prints to make sure you didn't cut off grandma's head by cropping to 4x6?

honestly, my wife stopped using her Canon SD1100 because it didn't have a 3:2 mode and she got tired of printing 4:3. We got a panasonic for her that allows 3:2, 16:9 and 4:3 in camera.

4:3 was the dominant aspect ratio of monitors and TVs when digital sensors came into being. 3:2 was the dominant format aspect ratio, fostered in the adoption of the 135 film format which evolved into the dSLR aspect ratio. The formats are founded in historical dominance of two different aspects of visualization, one electronic and the other film based. Interestingly, the 16:9 format of our widescreen PC monitors and HDTV matches neither.

tkbslc wrote in post #9779733
No. Every compact camera I have owned other than Canons has has a 3:2 mode. It makes sense to use it because generally compact cameras are used for the 4x6 snaps for the photo album. Who wants to bulk edit 200 vacation prints to make sure you didn't cut off grandma's head by cropping to 4x6?

honestly, my wife stopped using her Canon SD1100 because it didn't have a 3:2 mode and she got tired of printing 4:3. We got a panasonic for her that allows 3:2, 16:9 and 4:3 in camera.

that's weird. all the compacts i owned ( except LX3 ) only had 4:3 ..

tkbslc wrote in post #9779733
No. Every compact camera I have owned other than Canons has has a 3:2 mode. It makes sense to use it because generally compact cameras are used for the 4x6 snaps for the photo album. Who wants to bulk edit 200 vacation prints to make sure you didn't cut off grandma's head by cropping to 4x6?

honestly, my wife stopped using her Canon SD1100 because it didn't have a 3:2 mode and she got tired of printing 4:3. We got a panasonic for her that allows 3:2, 16:9 and 4:3 in camera.

And that still seems to be true. Every camera in my store has a "3:2" quality mode; I just saw a customer's S90 earlier this week, and there was no such mode to be found!

Everyone should take a look around their local/online printers. My chain has been doing 6"x8" prints for a little over a year. It's the 4:3 ratio, and a nice big size that either mats nicely into an 8x10 frame, or is great to look at in a photo album (the latter of which I've been doing since the summer).