|
|
NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
This week's poll discusses the concept of formats and digital photography. We are used to 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 5x4in formats for example, but in the digital world enthusiasts are using cameras in which the differences are much less pronounced. It's not just the shape of our pictures that are changing, but the size of the recording area - which has an impact on way our images look.
Do you think the concept of format will disappear as digital photography takes hold, or will the old formats make a come-back?
Go to the Home Page to let us know what you think.
Thanks all
damien
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
This week's poll discusses the concept of formats and digital photography. We are used to 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 5x4in formats for example, but in the digital world enthusiasts are using cameras in which the differences are much less pronounced. It's not just the shape of our pictures that are changing, but the size of the recording area - which has an impact on way our images look.
Do you think the concept of format will disappear as digital photography takes hold, or will the old formats make a come-back?
Go to the Home Page to let us know what you think.
Thanks all
damien
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
I simply can't understand how anyone can say that it will never better the quality you get from film. IMVHO it will certainly exceed the quality of film, it's just a matter of time, and the only reason for it not to would be if digital itself were superceded by another technology.
It's easy to forget that we've had accessable digital technolgy for little more than ten years. Give it another ten and then see whther it will beat the 'quality' of film.
|
TheFatControlleR
|
|
(L'éminence Grise, Devil's Advocate & AP Fanboy!)
|
|
17/03/2008 12:49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
I think in terms of formats we'll see more 'free-form' cropping of images. But I suspect, in the main, that cropping will roughly equate (give or take a few pixels) to the formats we're used to in film as they have proved to be pleasing on the eye.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
It's not just the shape of our pictures that are changing, but the size of the recording area - which has an impact on way our images look.
damien
What I do think is that the different sizes and aspect ratios of digital sensors need clarification. There are at least 12 sizes I've counted and the the way they are currently referred to their relative size is by no means clear. Which is the larger 1/3.6 or 1/1.8 for example?
Here is and interesting page.
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
17/03/2008 12:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Don't think the use of multiple formats will die that easily... After all we already have 4/3rds and 3:2 in common usage plus various MF format backs. Add to that the fact that many pictures turn out to suit one format even if the sensor/film is in a different format. After all 10x8, 20x16 and even square used to be popular with 35mm darkroom workers despite being formats significantly different to the original negative. I see no reason to assume that this will change in any way just because the film frame has gone electronic...
|
|
Fen
|
|
(BAD WOLF)
|
|
17/03/2008 13:02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
Errr it's not a question about Film vs Digital.
It's a question about the different sizes of prints and formats
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
I voted NO because I think there will have to be rationalization of format sizes to rationalize lens offerings. At present a 'standard' lens is 50 mm for full frame, 33 mm for APS-C, and 25 mm for four thirds. This must impact prices.
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Whilst there are a huge range of formats and aspect ratios around, paper sizes and format ratios have seen very few changes and on printing out, I'm not aware of a film/digital format that actually matches those used by paper manufacturers. For various reasons, I think we will see a more varied range of image sizes and formats.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Why must digital sensors have a rectangular format?
The area covered by a lens is circular and a circular image in the camera would give the greatest flexibility to the photographer when choosing how to display that image subsequently.
I assume that there are issues about the economies of chip production, but these might be less critical as chip founding costs fall.
Body camera size issues would also arise, but they might be worth the benefit?
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
Do you think that the Earth is flat too? 
|
|
Fen
|
|
(BAD WOLF)
|
|
17/03/2008 14:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
This week's poll discusses the concept of formats and digital photography.
You know... I'm sure this was discussed in the Lounge some months ago. If I get time later I'll have a search for it.
|
|
Hotblack
|
|
(Dead Horse Flogger)
|
|
17/03/2008 15:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
Do you think the concept of format will disappear as digital photography takes hold, or will the old formats make a come-back?
No. As has already been pointed out there are a range of formats already on offer from digital. This will continue. In what forms? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
More to the point - should we be asking whether compacts and bridge cameras should have the same aspect ratio as DLRS? We had this with 35mm and it was easy to mix and match shots from different camera types but with digital we are forced to crop to produce images with a consistent format.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
roughly equate (give or take a few pixels) to the formats we're used to in film as they have proved to be pleasing on the eye.
I've never thought of 35mm (3:2) as being a pleasing proportion 1:1.414 (square root of 2) seems much more appealing.
As for quality, it depends what is meant. Some may like the quality of, say, a dageurotype. But you can get al sorts of effects in PS. Others may seek a high resolution picture. Bearing in mind that you can get 416MP large format backs, (arguably equivalent to 1664MP on a Bayer as each pixel is full colour like a Foveon), I'd be hard pushed to argue that film will never be as good as digital.
Sorry Fen, that's digressing. I'd like there to be a rationalisation of proportion. It's a darn nuisance that if you take out a compact and a dSLR you end up with different proportions and have a mess in the album. I don't hold out much hope though.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
I'd like there to be a rationalisation of proportion. It's a darn nuisance that if you take out a compact and a dSLR you end up with different proportions and have a mess in the album.
I wouldn't. I love using different formats, always have. For film I've used quite a few different formats, from square to panoramic, and I wish I could do the same with digital. There's not yet enough choice for me, although there are some compacts appearing now with a vaguely panoramic format, which is a start.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
Do you think that the Earth is flat too?
You mean it is`nt? 
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
roughly equate (give or take a few pixels) to the formats we're used to in film as they have proved to be pleasing on the eye.
I've never thought of 35mm (3:2) as being a pleasing proportion 1:1.414 (square root of 2) seems much more appealing.
I beleive the ancient Greeks determined that the Golden Ratio, 1:1.6180339887498948482..., was the most appealing aspect ratio. See here.
|
|
Nod
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
17/03/2008 16:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Wasn't it nature that decided that?
|
|
Zou
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
17/03/2008 17:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
Don't think the use of multiple formats will die that easily... After all we already have 4/3rds and 3:2 in common usage plus various MF format backs. Add to that the fact that many pictures turn out to suit one format even if the sensor/film is in a different format. After all 10x8, 20x16 and even square used to be popular with 35mm darkroom workers despite being formats significantly different to the original negative. I see no reason to assume that this will change in any way just because the film frame has gone electronic...
What he said. I couldn't put it better myself.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
The square aspect ratio has a number of benefits in that the user then has the freedom to decide if to apply the Portrait or Landscape mode to the image. In this respect (although this is going off on a tangent) it's about time digital projectors output 1:1 so that those showing Portrait orientated images, have to be smaller on the screen.
There does seem to have been in the past, much preferred aspect ratios, employed by people who don't like applying any image-cropping. However, how many people actually output their images Digitally, exactly 'As Is' from the camera, without any form of cropping?
To that question, I suspect the answer is very few, especially with prints, as paper sizes don't match any of the aspect ratios used on Digital or film cameras.
|
|
TheFatControlleR
|
|
(L'éminence Grise, Devil's Advocate & AP Fanboy!)
|
|
17/03/2008 19:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
In respect to a single/universal sensor format (as opposed to print/display formats (RE my previous post)) I'm inclined to think that the 1:1 format is perhaps the best for general purposes. Personally, I think it would be easier to shoot in 1:1 then crop to say 3:2 (portrait/landscape), if required.
Also, as live view seems to be de rigueur, the software could, perhaps, show the scene in the users preferred format and record accordingly (with 1:1 being the default via the viewfinder, where available). Just sayin'. 
|
|
Zou
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
17/03/2008 19:58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
The square aspect ratio has a number of benefits in that the user then has the freedom to decide if to apply the Portrait or Landscape mode to the image. In this respect (although this is going off on a tangent) it's about time digital projectors output 1:1 so that those showing Portrait orientated images, have to be smaller on the screen.
There does seem to have been in the past, much preferred aspect ratios, employed by people who don't like applying any image-cropping. However, how many people actually output their images Digitally, exactly 'As Is' from the camera, without any form of cropping?
To that question, I suspect the answer is very few, especially with prints, as paper sizes don't match any of the aspect ratios used on Digital or film cameras.
I put the bold underlining in to highlight something I thought was wrong. What about 8x10 paper and 4x5 film? Or even 8x10 film? I'd go along with most of what you said though
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
The 5:4 aspect ratio papers are also a pretty good match for some 6x7 formats, as are the 6:5 ones - bear in mind that the designations are only approximate, and also that conventional printing generally involves a border where the paper is held down by the leaves of the enlarging easel anyway. 16"x12" is also a decent enough match for 645 formats, and not even all that far off 35mm proportions when you've allowed for that border. The worst case is 6x6, which involves more trimming of the paper than any other format that I've printed, but even then it's not a question of wasted paper - the trimmed section gives me my supply of test strips. (The same would hold of course for panoramic compositions, though I rarely do those.)
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
18/03/2008 09:13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
However, how many people actually output their images Digitally, exactly 'As Is' from the camera, without any form of cropping?
Er.............me........
Not all the time I grant but quite often, probably something to do with all those years of slide use where you alway try to get it right in camera - I never really got the hang of masking and besides which all too often it looks like an attempt to make a silk purse from a sows ear...
Even when I do crop it's often to the 3:2 format because either something has appeared on the edge of the image that wasn't in the finder or I didn't have quite enough lens available at the time...
On the other hand I do like playing about with images as sometimes a shot that seemed to work in 3:2 looks even better in 5:4 or whatever........
|
|
Monobod
|
|
('Phantom' of the forum!)
|
|
18/03/2008 15:32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
One ruling limitation is the aspect ratio of digital projectors. Our club uses a Sony with image size of 1024x768. My K10D images, when resized have to be padded out with a black canvas, but my Nikon Coolpix 5400 is in this ratio already.
As most of us crop our images to get the best 'proportion and layout' I do not really think that format matters at all really. If I crop to a leeterbox for a landscape, I simply adjust the resolution etc. so it fits onto an A3 page with a suitable margin. What it was originally has little influence.
|
|
Wheelu
|
|
(member)
|
|
19/03/2008 07:05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
To date the responses have concerned themselves exclusively with format, but the question asks about both format and size.
From what I have seen size matters both in terms of film and digital photography.
Improvements in sensor technology impact at all levels and the larger sensors continue to get better and maintain their advantage over the smaller. However for many people's requirements - a given print size - the smaller formats are becoming more acceptable, e.g. Nikon 300, Canon 40D; they will do what many amateurs want.
I can't see the current situation changing much in the foreseeable future. Happy snappers will use small and convenient PS cameras, most amateurs will use crop factor DSLRS, while most pros will use larger digital formats.
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
Happy snappers will use small and convenient PS cameras, most amateurs will use crop factor DSLRS, while most pros will use larger digital formats.
Well there seems to be a clear drift to full frame format DSLRs - there is no real size/weight advantage with APS-C/DX format, and the high ISO/low noise potential of full frame format is undoubtedly real. FF suits sports & news pros as well. I feel the real dischotomy is between FF and 4/3 - if Oly et al stick to what works (E4xx & E5xx) they deserve to prosper. I honestly feel it may be APS-C/DX which is eventually squeezed out between small/light & quality.
As for landscape & other hi res pictorial work ... well, the bigger the better...
|
|
Monobod
|
|
('Phantom' of the forum!)
|
|
19/03/2008 17:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
I still really love Fugichrome Provia 100F transparency film. But I do not like the lack of post capture information from my Z1-P compared to my K10D. I have grown used to looking at the result and taking it again if I'm not happy with it. I really hate the wait until the film comes back from the Lab. But I do love those clear crisp colours and the exquisite detail. Lets be honest with ourselves, it does take some beating. And that's comng from a totally dediated digital fan!
Perhaps the K20D will finally put my concerns to rest......??
|
|
mike_j
|
|
(nobbut a beginner)
|
|
19/03/2008 18:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
In respect to a single/universal sensor format (as opposed to print/display formats (RE my previous post)) I'm inclined to think that the 1:1 format is perhaps the best for general purposes. Personally, I think it would be easier to shoot in 1:1 then crop to say 3:2 (portrait/landscape), if required. Just sayin'.
Great!!! Bring on the full frame TLRs 
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
Never say never... CCD and CMOS sensor technologies seem to be progressing at a faster rate than even film did. We've come a long way since the 640x480 Apple Quicktake in 1994.
|
|
Burgy
|
|
(Grateful not to have one)
|
|
23/03/2008 02:36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
We've come a long way since the 640x480 Apple Quicktake in 1994.
Took a long time to get there from the Sony Mavica in 1981 with 570 x 490 censor
|
|
Learning
|
|
(Ethelred the Ill-Named)
|
|
23/03/2008 17:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
I said no because the professional and serious amateaur using interchangeable lenses must both know the format of the media so they can select the lens. I don't want to seem arrogant but most users of compacts are already oblivious to format; all that matters is end result. They have a point.
|
|
RogerMac
|
|
(Hotshoe Shuffler)
|
|
23/03/2008 18:54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Happy snappers will use small and convenient PS cameras, most amateurs will use crop factor DSLRS, while most pros will use larger digital formats.
Well there seems to be a clear drift to full frame format DSLRs - there is no real size/weight advantage with APS-C/DX format, and the high ISO/low noise potential of full frame format is undoubtedly real. FF suits sports & news pros as well. I feel the real dischotomy is between FF and 4/3 - if Oly et al stick to what works (E4xx & E5xx) they deserve to prosper. I honestly feel it may be APS-C/DX which is eventually squeezed out between small/light & quality.
As for landscape & other hi res pictorial work ... well, the bigger the better...
I'll second that
|
|
Iloca
|
|
(Unregistered at user's request)
|
|
23/03/2008 18:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
More to the point - should we be asking whether compacts and bridge cameras should have the same aspect ratio as DLRS? We had this with 35mm and it was easy to mix and match shots from different camera types but with digital we are forced to crop to produce images with a consistent format.
No you should be asking why we're (some of us anyway) still being dictated to by a format of convienience conceived over 100 years ago. Forget 3/2, enbrace 4/3. 
|
|
|
|
Re: NEW POLL - digital formats
|
|
Quote:
No you should be asking why we're (some of us anyway) still being dictated to by a format of convienience conceived over 100 years ago. Forget 3/2, enbrace 4/3.
The ideal shape of the sensor is round - you can crop to any aspect ratio with minimum loss of pixels. This also makes best use of the circular illumination of the lens.
4:3 aspect ratio falls uncomfortably between "near square" paper sizes which are 5:4 and "natural" rectanglar format which has been pointed out is (sqrt(5)+1):2 i.e. 1.6180339:1 (the Golden Ratio: remove a square and the remaining rectangular portion is the same aspect ratio).
|
