Going from the 4:3 to 3:2 aspect ratio

MrGreen wrote in post #9907066
You'd think there'd be more 2:3 frames around because of the 35mm film format being around for a long time.

Historically, people haven't used frames for their snap shots nearly as much as they used frames for pro shots such as the kids school pictures and those photographers were not using 35mm.

Even though DSLRs have taken over so much of the industry, grandma still expects to get an 8x10 or 5x7.

jetcode wrote in post #9910835
Someone correct me but I believe 35mm was derived by cutting 70mm film in half which changed the format from 4:3 to 2:3. Thought I read that somewhere.

I heard that on the History of Photography podcast if I'm not mistaken.

PacAce wrote in post #9909458
OK, fair enough. I should have said they shared the same sensor maker as the digital camcorders.

They still do. Sony makes the vast majority of compact-format P&S sensors for the majority of camera brands.

You know compact-format sensors. They're the tiny little sensors whose sizes are measured in terms of the external diameters of equivalent Vidicon tubes (valves). This is, of course, a really useful and informative way of indicating sensor size, not intended to fool the public into thinking their sensor is bigger than it actually is.

jetcode wrote in post #9910835
Someone correct me but I believe 35mm was derived by cutting 70mm film in half which changed the format from 4:3 to 2:3. Thought I read that somewhere.

No, it was not. It was a standard in it's own right, developed for cinematography. 35mm cine film used nominal 24×18mm images.

Still camera manufacturers decided to use the same 35mm film in their cameras because it was plentiful and cheap. They increased the nominal frame size to 36×24mm because that made a better resolution image, and the film was run through the camera sideways compared to a cine camera.

The 24mm dimension was across the width of the film, in the 26mm clear space between the sprocket holes. The 36mm dimension we are used to was arbitrary, and certainly not a standard at first.

Common 35mm still image formats were:

21×14mm, often called 35mm mini or 35mm cine still (this was a common cine image size, allowing cine and still cameras to share parts)
24×18mm, often called 35mm half-frame (cameras often shot portrait images when held normally and landscape images when rotated)
23×24mm
24×24mm, or 35mm square (in imitation of 6×6 medium-format cameras, whose images are actually 54×54mm)
32×21mm
34×24mm
36×24mm, or 35mm full-frame
56×24mm, or Panoramic 56
64×24mm, or Panoramic 64

With cine film, the long dimension of the image was only 24mm in the earliest days, in the silent-movie era. It was reduced to add a soundtrack along the length of the film. And reduced again when stereo was introduced. Sometimes they reduced the height of the image as well, and sometimes they didn't.

20droger wrote in post #9909038
Where do you find 4:3 [1:1.33] frames?

All I can find are 3½×5 [1:1.43], 4×6 [1:1.5 or 3:2], 5×7 [1:1.4], 8×10 [1:1.25], 8½×11 [1:1.29], and 11×14 [1:1.27] standard frames, none of which are 4:3.

Metric frames, such as the A4 size, all have a 1:1.41 ratio.

With the exception of the 4×6 frames, all of the above standard sizes require cropping of a standard 2:3 DSLR image. All, without exception, require cropping of a standard 4:3 P&S image.

Knowing how to crop is a requirement, and always has been.

I can find 4x6 frames easily, but I rarely print that small. If i print, it's usually an 8x12 or 12x18, neither of which I can find frames for. What I do is print my image in such a way that I have black bars down the side for my portrait 12x18s, which I don't mind at all, and then they fit into the "standard" frame sizes.

While you're right they majority of frames aren't exact 4:3 I was just generalizing, meaning they're certainly not suited for DSLR sensors whatsoever.

Yes, I can crop my images, but I frame my shot fairly precisely and use the whole frame so if I have to crop something at the top and bottom it usually ruins my compositions.

MrGreen wrote in post #9913704
While you're right they majority of frames aren't exact 4:3 I was just generalizing, meaning they're certainly not suited for DSLR sensors whatsoever.

Neither are they suited for P&S sensors. They all require cropping.

Next time, try saying what you mean instead of making the reader guess.

Learn to frame your picture with the requisite cropping in mind. Then you lose nothing.

20droger wrote in post #9911365
No, it was not. It was a standard in it's own right, developed for cinematography. 35mm cine film used nominal 24×18mm images..

70mm wide rollfilm was slit in half and sprocketed to make movie film. Four sprockets per frame of movie. That was doubled to eight sprocket frames for an early first still camera to use that sprocketed film, but that camera did not catch on. A number of other frame sizes were used by other still photo cameras using the same sprocketed film. It took another camera, coming years later, to popularize the still format that became our standard format for 135.

20droger wrote in post #9915323
Neither are they suited for P&S sensors. They all require cropping.

Next time, try saying what you mean instead of making the reader guess.


Learn to frame your picture with the requisite cropping in mind. Then you lose nothing.

Right, that makes complete sense! The sensor is shaped a specific size, and intend to use all of the available space. I happen to like the 2:3 format a lot better, and if I framed my shots to print out at the crappy cropped format then they wouldn't look as good.

The size of standard frames out there make absolutely no sense to me. They don't fit any sensor's size output so why the hell do they make them?

MrGreen wrote in post #9916290
The size of standard frames out there make absolutely no sense to me. They don't fit any sensor's size output so why the hell do they make them?

I know, totally frustrating. I have to custom order 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, blah blah

I refuse to crop a composition to fit a frame. Frames/mats will be made for my photo, not the other way around.

MrGreen wrote in post #9916290
The size of standard frames out there make absolutely no sense to me. They don't fit any sensor's size output so why the hell do they make them?

History at work. Originally sheet film came about in 8x10, 5x7, and 4x5 sizes, and the sizes became adopted for contact print papers, and persisted for projection printing (enlargment) paper sizes, too.

Wilt wrote in post #9917271
History at work. Originally sheet film came about in 8x10, 5x7, and 4x5 sizes, and the sizes became adopted for contact print papers, and persisted for projection printing (enlargment) paper sizes, too.

Oh, ok now that makes sense. Thanks for explaining that.

Makes me wonder though if the available frame sizes out there will change to meet the new standards or not since probably 1% of 1% of photographers shoot those older film formats.

MrGreen wrote in post #9936488
Makes me wonder though if the available frame sizes out there will change to meet the new standards or not since probably 1% of 1% of photographers shoot those older film formats.

'new standards' hardly new at all...135 format has been very popular for over 50 years, yet it took probably about 25 years before the 8x12 format and 4x6 print formats even were offered widely by photofinishing services. And it is necessary to overcome even computer printer manufacturers and paper manufacturers (not just the companies making light sensitive emulsion papers)...our desktop printers with 11x8.5" or 19 x 13" paper sizes, which don't even comform to the 3:2 or 4:3 formats of digital cameras!

The hot dog bun manufacturers can't even get in sync with the hot dog manufacturers, and they have been at it for about a century! (a sausage on a roll has been around 1.5 centuries!)

Thanks to everyone for all the information. I'm glad I brought up this subject. I have learned a lot.

Let's just universalize the metric paper standards. All sensors would have a 1:1.4 format, and would fit perfectly on any A# or B# paper. Problem solved.

Hell, I'm used to making my documents A4 instead of letter size. It's easy.