Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2005-11-09 by steveh0607
Last question of on this topic. Maybe this is just a rhetorical question, but, since the aspect ratio of 33mm and dslr's is 2: 3, why don't pre-cut mats follow this ratio? Is is because medium and large format cameras have different aspect ratios? Is it because the art community (painters) have traditionally used the sizes provided? The guys at the local frame shop didn't have an answer. Thanks again, Steve
2005-11-09 by Mark Savoia
not all are that Mark
On Nov 9, 2005, at 7:09 AM, steveh0607 wrote: > and dslr's is 2: > 3
2005-11-09 by ann clancy
perhaps one reason is that 35mm film came along after standard papers were made to be used with LF film.
Full frame 35mm images can be made at 6x9 or 8 x12.
Pre-cut windows can be purchased in the 6x9 sizes , and they are salon hung, or otherwise known as being bottom weighted.
There are several companies that custom cut windows fairly cheaply, especially if you order at least 12 at a time. These are 8 ply windows, which are difficult to hand cut . 4 ply windows will be cheaper. try redimat.com
16x20 windows, 12 all cut the same direction run about 7.96 a piece.
steveh0607 <steveh060758@...> wrote:
Last question of on this topic.
Maybe this is just a rhetorical question, but, since the aspect ratio of 33mm and dslr's is 2:
3, why don't pre-cut mats follow this ratio?
Is is because medium and large format cameras have different aspect ratios? Is it because
the art community (painters) have traditionally used the sizes provided?
The guys at the local frame shop didn't have an answer.
Thanks again,
Steve
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
SPONSORED LINKS
Digital wedding photography Learn digital photography Digital photography college Digital photography Digital photography web site Digital photography course
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2005-11-09 by Adam Maas
steveh0607 wrote: > Last question of on this topic. > > Maybe this is just a rhetorical question, but, since the aspect ratio > of 33mm and dslr's is 2: > 3, why don't pre-cut mats follow this ratio? > > Is is because medium and large format cameras have different aspect > ratios? Is it because > the art community (painters) have traditionally used the sizes provided? > > The guys at the local frame shop didn't have an answer. > > Thanks again, > > Steve > Standard Print sizes long predate the dominance of 35mm, it's only from the 1960's to the 1990's that 35mm was the dominant format. Most larger print sizes either match a Sheet Film size or are an easy enlargement from a sheet film size. -Adam
2005-11-09 by Clayton Jones
Hello Adam, >Standard Print sizes long predate the dominance of 35mm, it's only >from the 1960's to the 1990's that 35mm was the dominant format. >Most larger print sizes either match a Sheet Film size or are an >easy enlargement from a sheet film size. My understanding is that 35mm is/was originally motion picture film, so I suppose that aspect was for theater screens. I have never liked the 2:3 ratio for photos, it always seemed too long. My favorite camera for years was a Pentax 6x7 which was closer to the ratio of photo papers. With 35mm I always had to compose while remembering how much would have to be cropped. But I also often felt that the 8x10 ratio was a bit too fat. I have really come to love the 3:4 ratio of digicams. It's right in between the two extremes. I don't know how the industry decided on 3:4 for digicams but I'm glad they did. The photos look great and they fit nicely on 8.5x11 paper. Unfortunately, standard frame and mat sizes are still 8x10/11x14, so framing at 8.5x11 is still a custom job. I like to reduce the various ratios to a single aspect number, derived by dividing the short side by the long. It makes it easier to mentally sort them. Here they are in order, for various films and papers: Size A# ---------------------- 35mm/DSLR 2:3-----.66 4x6---------------.66 13x19-------------.68 5x7---------------.71 645 (41x56mm)-----.73 (image size from a Mamiya 645 contact sheet) digicams 3:4------.75 8.5x11------------.77 11x14-------------.78 6x7 (55x70mm)-----.78 (image size from a Pentax 67 contact sheet) 8x10/4x5----------.80 6x6--------------1.00 Regards, Clayton Info on black and white digital printing at http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
2005-11-09 by dannysoar
Clayton Jones wrote: > > My understanding is that 35mm is/was originally motion picture film, > so I suppose that aspect was for theater screens. Barnak(sp) turned the 35mm movie film sideways. I imagine the fact that the frame needed to be a whole number of spocket holes determined the width. That we still use this format seem very historical and English, like the yard being the distance to the Kings nose. Kodak rationalized the 8mm movie film derived from split 16mm 8mm movie film, with smaller sprocket holes as super 8. I don't think anyone had the nerve to do this with 35mm camera film. party on David
2005-11-09 by Adam Maas
I'm not sure of the exact origin of 35mm (I seem to recall it coming from 120 cut in half, which may be from 70mm), but 2:3 isn't used for motion pictures. The stock may be originally of MP origin, but the frame size certainly isn't. 4:3 is the standard ratio for TV, Motion Pictures use 16x9. Digicams get their ratio from Computer Monitors, which inherited it from TV. -Adam Clayton Jones wrote:
> Hello Adam, > > >Standard Print sizes long predate the dominance of 35mm, it's only > >from the 1960's to the 1990's that 35mm was the dominant format. > >Most larger print sizes either match a Sheet Film size or are an > >easy enlargement from a sheet film size. > > My understanding is that 35mm is/was originally motion picture film, > so I suppose that aspect was for theater screens. I have never liked > the 2:3 ratio for photos, it always seemed too long. My favorite > camera for years was a Pentax 6x7 which was closer to the ratio of > photo papers. With 35mm I always had to compose while remembering how > much would have to be cropped. But I also often felt that the 8x10 > ratio was a bit too fat. > > I have really come to love the 3:4 ratio of digicams. It's right in > between the two extremes. I don't know how the industry decided on > 3:4 for digicams but I'm glad they did. The photos look great and > they fit nicely on 8.5x11 paper. Unfortunately, standard frame and > mat sizes are still 8x10/11x14, so framing at 8.5x11 is still a custom > job. > > I like to reduce the various ratios to a single aspect number, derived > by dividing the short side by the long. It makes it easier to > mentally sort them. Here they are in order, for various films and papers: > > Size A# > ---------------------- > 35mm/DSLR 2:3-----.66 > 4x6---------------.66 > 13x19-------------.68 > 5x7---------------.71 > 645 (41x56mm)-----.73 (image size from a Mamiya 645 contact sheet) > digicams 3:4------.75 > 8.5x11------------.77 > 11x14-------------.78 > 6x7 (55x70mm)-----.78 (image size from a Pentax 67 contact sheet) > 8x10/4x5----------.80 > 6x6--------------1.00 > > > Regards, > Clayton > > > Info on black and white digital printing at > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources > as they are often being updated. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this > same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to > keep them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the > membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed > from the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner > and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files > section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND > \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO > YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR > EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF > PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE > \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE > OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; > (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE > PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on > the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
2005-11-09 by hogarth@snappydsl.net
Adam Maas wrote: >I'm not sure of the exact origin of 35mm (I seem to recall it coming >from 120 cut in half, which may be from 70mm), but 2:3 isn't used for >motion pictures. The stock may be originally of MP origin, but the frame >size certainly isn't. > >4:3 is the standard ratio for TV, Motion Pictures use 16x9. Digicams get >their ratio from Computer Monitors, which inherited it from TV. > >-Adam > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_film http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/Aspect.html Why guess when you can look it up? -- Bruce Watson
2005-11-09 by Steve Kale
Perhaps old-fashioned tv. Europe is rapidly moving to 16:9 with most new material and many channels already broadcast in this aspect ratio. This is also now the aspect ratio of choice for new computer displays. BTW motion pictures are rarely 16:9.
> From: Adam Maas <mykroft@...> > > 4:3 is the standard ratio for TV, Motion Pictures use 16x9. Digicams get > their ratio from Computer Monitors, which inherited it from TV. > > -Adam >
2005-11-09 by Adam Maas
Computer Displays are often 16x10 rather than 16x9. And all TV is headed towards 16x9. -Adam Steve Kale wrote:
> Perhaps old-fashioned tv. Europe is rapidly moving to 16:9 with most new > material and many channels already broadcast in this aspect ratio. This is > also now the aspect ratio of choice for new computer displays. BTW motion > pictures are rarely 16:9. > > > > > > From: Adam Maas <mykroft@...> > > > > > 4:3 is the standard ratio for TV, Motion Pictures use 16x9. Digicams get > > their ratio from Computer Monitors, which inherited it from TV. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources > as they are often being updated. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this > same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to > keep them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the > membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed > from the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner > and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files > section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND > \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO > YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR > EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF > PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE > \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE > OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; > (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE > PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on > the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
2005-11-09 by Bob Frost
Clayton, Just guessing, but the 4/3 format means a chip (and therefore the lenses) can be smaller (MP for MP) than a 3/2 chip. Olympus makes a 4/3 digital SLR, and are promoting the FourThirds format along with some other manufacturers http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/E-1_dslr_7045.htm Bob Frost.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> I have really come to love the 3:4 ratio of digicams. It's right in between the two extremes. I don't know how the industry decided on 3:4 for digicams but I'm glad they did. The photos look great and they fit nicely on 8.5x11 paper. Unfortunately, standard frame and mat sizes are still 8x10/11x14, so framing at 8.5x11 is still a custom job.
2005-11-12 by luckyned22
Silent film images were 1" by 0.75", 16 per foot, with an aspect
ratio of 4:3. The film ran vertically through the camera and
projector.
When movie film was adapted for use in still cameras ("minicams"),
the space for two movie images was allocated to each still image,
and the film strip was oriented horizontally in the camera. This
resulted in still images of 1.5"(2 x 0.75) by 1", 8 per foot, with
an aspect ratio of 3:2. (Actual metric image dimensions are slightly
smaller, 36mm by 24mm, to avoid the sprocket holes and frame overlap.)
"Half-frame" cameras of the 1960s necessarily reverted to the 4:3
ratio of their cinema roots.
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
>
> Hello Adam,
>
> >Standard Print sizes long predate the dominance of 35mm, it's only
> >from the 1960's to the 1990's that 35mm was the dominant format.
> >Most larger print sizes either match a Sheet Film size or are an
> >easy enlargement from a sheet film size.
>
> My understanding is that 35mm is/was originally motion picture film,
> so I suppose that aspect was for theater screens. I have never
liked
> the 2:3 ratio for photos, it always seemed too long. My favorite
> camera for years was a Pentax 6x7 which was closer to the ratio of
> photo papers. With 35mm I always had to compose while remembering
how
> much would have to be cropped. But I also often felt that the 8x10
> ratio was a bit too fat.
>
> I have really come to love the 3:4 ratio of digicams. It's right in
> between the two extremes. I don't know how the industry decided on
> 3:4 for digicams but I'm glad they did. The photos look great and
> they fit nicely on 8.5x11 paper. Unfortunately, standard frame and
> mat sizes are still 8x10/11x14, so framing at 8.5x11 is still a
custom
> job.
>
> I like to reduce the various ratios to a single aspect number,
derived
> by dividing the short side by the long. It makes it easier to
> mentally sort them. Here they are in order, for various films and
papers:> > Size A# > ---------------------- > 35mm/DSLR 2:3-----.66 > 4x6---------------.66 > 13x19-------------.68 > 5x7---------------.71 > 645 (41x56mm)-----.73 (image size from a Mamiya 645 contact sheet) > digicams 3:4------.75 > 8.5x11------------.77 > 11x14-------------.78 > 6x7 (55x70mm)-----.78 (image size from a Pentax 67 contact sheet) > 8x10/4x5----------.80 > 6x6--------------1.00 > > > Regards, > Clayton > > > Info on black and white digital printing at > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm >
2005-11-12 by steveh0607
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, ann clancy <jaclancy1937@y...> wrote: >Thank You Ann. I'll look up redimat.com > perhaps one reason is that 35mm film came along after standard papers were made to be used with LF film. > > Full frame 35mm images can be made at 6x9 or 8 x12. > > Pre-cut windows can be purchased in the 6x9 sizes , and they are salon hung, or otherwise known as being bottom weighted. > > There are several companies that custom cut windows fairly cheaply, especially if you order at least 12 at a time. These are 8 ply windows, which are difficult to hand cut . 4 ply windows will be cheaper. try redimat.com > > 16x20 windows, 12 all cut the same direction run about 7.96 a piece. > > steveh0607 <steveh060758@m...> wrote: > Last question of on this topic. > > Maybe this is just a rhetorical question, but, since the aspect ratio of 33mm and dslr's is 2: > 3, why don't pre-cut mats follow this ratio? > > Is is because medium and large format cameras have different aspect ratios? Is it because > the art community (painters) have traditionally used the sizes provided? > > The guys at the local frame shop didn't have an answer. > > Thanks again, > > Steve > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Digital wedding photography Learn digital photography Digital photography college Digital photography Digital photography web site Digital photography course
> > --------------------------------- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
2005-11-13 by Clayton Jones
>Silent film images were 1" by 0.75", 16 per foot, with an aspect
>ratio of 4:3. The film ran vertically through the camera and
>projector.
>
>When movie film was adapted for use in still cameras ("minicams"),
>the space for two movie images was allocated to each still image,
>and the film strip was oriented horizontally in the camera. This
>resulted in still images of 1.5"(2 x 0.75) by 1", 8 per foot, with
>an aspect ratio of 3:2. (Actual metric image dimensions are
>slightly smaller, 36mm by 24mm, to avoid the sprocket holes and
>frame overlap.)
Thanks for the info, it all very interesting. I didn't realize until
this thread that movies are 4:3.
Regards,
Clayton
Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm2005-11-13 by James Parker
Pardon me for jumping in here. Film hasn't been shot with sound on the picture for sixty years... Most MP sound is captured with a separate sound recorder and synced using various methods -- that's what the traditional slate was for. The clapper sound matched the visual on the film so that the sound track and the film could be synced during the edit stage. Nowadays, the sync is done with a digital slate and timecode recorded on the film and sound track, but it can still be done the old fashioned way. Sound is still re-recorded on an optical track for many projection systems, however, such as 16mmm and 35mm. Consumer Super8 was capable of using a magnetic stripe to record sync sound, thereby avoiding the dual system hassles inherent in 16mm and 35mm film work. Film has several aspect ratios that are more common than the traditional "Academy" 4:3 ratio, including 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (Cinemascope or anamorphic widescreen). Some of you may recall Cinerama or Techniscope... Anton Wilson's book, Cinema Workshop has a very good detailed chapter on film formats and their history, for those who might be interested. Jim -- parkerparker :: design | photography http://www.parkerparker.net On 11/13/05 7:24 AM, "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Framing again - Aspect Ratios > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Brown" > <baffin@c...> wrote: >> >> Not all films have the ratio 4:3. Don't you remember when you were > young and >> movie theaters would open the drapes to reveal the screen. The > trailers were >> shown in one ratio, then as the feature started the drapes would > open wider >> for the "wide screen" film. Also when you see a film advertised as > 70mm the >> image is only 65mm with the additional 5mm for the sound. When you > see an >> Imax film, it is shot in a way that each frame is 70mm square, with > the >> sound on a separate machine. >> >> Gary >> > > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html > > Lately Kodak has been pushing the super 16 size as a good low end > HDTV size since the ratio is approximately the same, and you can get > enough pixels out of the scan. As long as you can get timecode on the > frame, sound actually on the film no longer matters.