Showing posts with label camera. Show all posts
Showing posts with label camera. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Aspect Ratio


...or why can't I print a full frame image on standard paper sizes

Aspect Ratio is the ratio of the short size of an image to the long side of the image. We talk about it all the time without realizing it. When you get a 4x6 inch print you are describing the aspect ratio of that print: 4x6 (or 2x3, or 1x1.5). The length long side of the image is 1.5 times the length of the short size.

This happens to be the aspect ratio of most digital SLR cameras. These cameras evolved from 35mm film SLR cameras. 35mm film actually measures 24mm x 36mm (do the math, that translates to 2x3 or 1x1.5). Hence a 4x6 print can show the entire frame from a 35mm slide/negative or from most dSLR cameras. I say most because Olympus has SLR cameras with a 3:4 ratio, and most compact digital cameras are also in the 3:4 ratio. But that is not typical for dSLR cameras. I will talk about 3:4 ratio at the end of this post.

So, what happens when you want to make an enlargement from your dSLR image? If you make an 8x12 enlargement you will get the full frame. Everything you originally saw in the image. But, you might be saying, most frames are available in 5x7 or 8x10 sizes. What happens when I make a 5x7 or 8x10 print? What happens is that you either have to crop off parts of the original image, or you have to print with uneven borders (the borders on the long dimension will be wider than those on the short sides. The physical dimensions/aspect ratio of the image and the frame are not the same. Something has to go.

Here is an illustration:


The red line indicates the full 1x1.5 ratio of the dSLR original file. The other lines show the area of the image that will be included in various size prints.
The green lines shows the crop for an 8x10 or 16x20 (1x1.25 aspect ratio). Notice that a relatively large section of the original will be cropped out to make an 8x10 print.
The blue lines show the crop area ofor a 5x7 print (almost the full frame).
The yellow lines show the approximate crop area for an 8.5x11 or 11x14 print.

As mentioned above, there is an alternate way to print. You can have uneven borders, as shown here:


Here you are printing the full image frame (shown by the green lines) on 8x10 paper (red outline) at a size of about 6.67 inches by 10 inches, leaving a wide white border along the long dimensions of the print. I would never deliver a print that showed the uneven borders. I would have it mounted in a mat cut to the appropriate size and shape to display the full frame image and hide those white borders behind the mat.


Here (above) the red frame shows the full image as captured by the camera. The green frame shows the part of the image that can be printed as an 8x10 inch print. Of course that green frame can be moved left or right in the image for the best composition.

Another way to think about this is to divide the long dimension of your original image by the short dimension and then divide the long/short dimension of your frame size and see if they match up. For example, take your original image that is 2:3 ratio. Divide 2 into 3 and you get 1.5. Now take your frame size. First we will try an 8x12 frame. 12 divided by 8 equals 1.5. The number is the same. The original image will scale to 8x12 with no cropping necessary. Second we will try an 8x10 frame. 10 divided by 8 equals 1.25. This does not match the original 1.5, so the image cannot be scaled to 8x10 without cropping.

One more illustration:


Note the black diagonal line from corner to corner of the image. That shows various crops within the image that will maintain the 1:1.5 aspect ratio. The green border and diagonal line indicate the available 8x10 (1:1.25) crops available from this image. Any rectangle who's corners fall on the diagonal green line can be a 8x10 crop from the image.

Here are the some common aspect ratios and print sizes:
Aspect RatioSample Print sizes (no cropping required)
1:1.52x3, 4x6, 8x12, 16x24, 20x30, 32x48
1:1.254x5, 8x10, 16x20, 24x 30, 32x50
1:1.311x14
1:1.45x7

Of course, you can use standard frame sizes and cut custom mats to allow your prints to have a slightly different aspect ratio than the frame. How much different they can be is a personal choice.

3:4 Ratio -- or the 4/3 systemTraditionally, televisions and personal computers have had screens with a 4:3 (width to height) aspect ratio. Computer screens have come in 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, etc. As compact digital cameras were being developed the 4:3 ratio was adopted by most manufacturers. This way digital camera images fit the computer screens. But they don't fit traditional photographic printing paper sizes.

Here is a 4:3 aspect ratio image with 8x10 (green) and 5x7 (blue) crop guides on it.


The 4:3 aspect ratio translates to 1:33333 and gives you uncropped print sizes like 10.5x14, 9.6x12.8, 
9x12, 7.5x10, or 4.5x6. Not your typical print sizes. But these do work well for online, full-screen presentation.


This is a re-run of an article I originally posted on my web site about 4 years ago.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Depth of Field

Wow, this is a tough subject. So many people get so confused by this subject.

While researching to try to write up my own thoughts on it I ran across a site by Paul va Walree that already had all the answers. You can find it here.

Paul brings in things other sites overlook, such as print size or projected size and viewing distance (see the Visual Acuit section). He demonstrates how depth of field (DOF) does not normally vary with focal length (see the Background Blur section). I say normally because the construction of some lenses (symetrical, retro focus, telephoto, etc.) can have a little effect. Many folks are surprised to learn that some longer focal length macro lenses sometimes offer more depth of field than a shorter focal length lens. He also talks about why DOF scales on lenses are inadequate (see the Hyperfocal distance section).

For more on DOF scales and DOF tables I suggest reading some things from Harold M. Merklinger. Start with his Depth of Field Revisited article. Then you can follow it up by reading Merklinger's book The Ins and Outs of Focus (available as a PDF file).

Going back to Paul van Walree, he has a few other articles online that are going to save me from doing a lot of writing. I highly recommend these to all serious photographers interested in the technical side of things:

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics.html
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/misconceptions.html
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html

If you want to go even deeper into diagrams and math you can check out Norman Korens article on Depth of Field. A couple of summaries from that site:

"DOF is much more closely related to magnification and f-stop; DOF expressed in distance is nearly independent of focal length."

"Those who use depth of field scales, tables, and formulas (e. g. for hyperfocal settings), restrict themselves – most probably without knowing why – to the image quality potential of an average pre-World-War-II emulsion."
(above is actually a quote from Carl Zeiss Camera Lens News at http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN01e/$File/CLN1.pdf (PDF File))

I hope the above referenced web sites help bring things into focus!