msbarnes
Well-known
Instead of 3:2?
Did panasonic/olympus/somone just decide on it randomly or was there a more philosophical/technical reason for doing so.
Did panasonic/olympus/somone just decide on it randomly or was there a more philosophical/technical reason for doing so.
28mm
Established
Back before Apple computers had their resurgence, common aspect ratios on computers were 4:3 (e.g. 640x480, 1024x780, 1600x1200, etc.). As a result, many digital cameras were built with this sensor size. I assume Olympus and Panasonic just followed suit. Also, since 4:3 is closer to a 1:1 aspect ratio than 3:2 (it's more "square"), it uses more of the lens than 3:2 would.
gavinlg
Mentor
Lens coverage on the sensor is easier, being closer to square - allowing lenses to be smaller and with less vignetting, sharpness falloff and chromatic aberration. One of the goals of the original 4/3 system was telecentric lenses that were optically excellent, and m4/3 followed suit.
willie_901
Mentor
The choice was likely made as a marketing ploy. Using this aspect ratio differentiates the m4/3 system from the APS-C market segment.
In the beginning, gaining market share from compact P&S cameras was a valid strategy. At that time most compact cameras used a 4:3 aspect ratio. Of course Smart Phones ended up with the majority of the P&S market share.
In the beginning, gaining market share from compact P&S cameras was a valid strategy. At that time most compact cameras used a 4:3 aspect ratio. Of course Smart Phones ended up with the majority of the P&S market share.
Mcary
Well-known
The choice was likely made due to that fact that most traditional prints sizes such as 8x10 or 11x14 are much closer in aspect ratio to 4x3 then to 3x2.
Reason companies such as Leica, Canon and Nikon went with the 3x2 ratio is digital camera's are simply a progression of their film camera line up.
Also unlike companies such at Leica, Canon and Nikon that went into digital with extensive lines of lenses most Micro 4/3 companies were starting from scratches so they could use pretty much any format they wanted.
Reason companies such as Leica, Canon and Nikon went with the 3x2 ratio is digital camera's are simply a progression of their film camera line up.
Also unlike companies such at Leica, Canon and Nikon that went into digital with extensive lines of lenses most Micro 4/3 companies were starting from scratches so they could use pretty much any format they wanted.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The FourThirds format was the result of extensive research by Kodak and the other consortium members. It was designed to maximize quality with the digital sensor as well as manage the best bang for the buck in the manufacturing process. The format proportion fits perfectly with most image use in the marketplace as well as maximizing yield in manufacture, fits a lens' image circle better than the more oblong 2:3 format, etc etc.
All FourThirds SLR and Micro-FourThirds systems started from a blank sheet of paper, the SLRs first, in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Olympus E-1 was the first FourThirds format camera on the market in late 2003. It is still a brilliant piece of equipment...
G
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
So, going even further back into ancient tech history, can anyone explain why computer monitors were 4:3?
I would assume it's because, at least in the US, the NTSC broadcast television standard was 4:3 (as was the PAL format), and therefore CRT monitors of that aspect ratio were readily available to be used as computer displays.
And why was the NTSC standard decided to be 4:3? That I can only speculate about, but I do recall that many early films (prior to the wider screen formats - there were a handful of them), especially older B/W movies, were 4:3.
Perhaps someone with a better grasp of tech history than I can fill in the missing details, but it would be interesting to know where our 4:3 aspect ratio format originated from.
BTW, this reminds me of the story of where the British railway gauge standard came from. As I've heard it, early railways cars were gauged to fit existing carriages and carts, which were gauged to fit the existing roads, the oldest of which were Roman-built roads that were gauged to fit the standard Roman chariot gauge. And so the next time you see a huge freight train wending its way across the vast reaches of the American west, you have the ancient Romans to thank.
~Joe
I would assume it's because, at least in the US, the NTSC broadcast television standard was 4:3 (as was the PAL format), and therefore CRT monitors of that aspect ratio were readily available to be used as computer displays.
And why was the NTSC standard decided to be 4:3? That I can only speculate about, but I do recall that many early films (prior to the wider screen formats - there were a handful of them), especially older B/W movies, were 4:3.
Perhaps someone with a better grasp of tech history than I can fill in the missing details, but it would be interesting to know where our 4:3 aspect ratio format originated from.
BTW, this reminds me of the story of where the British railway gauge standard came from. As I've heard it, early railways cars were gauged to fit existing carriages and carts, which were gauged to fit the existing roads, the oldest of which were Roman-built roads that were gauged to fit the standard Roman chariot gauge. And so the next time you see a huge freight train wending its way across the vast reaches of the American west, you have the ancient Romans to thank.
~Joe
alfredian
Well-known
Movies were 4:3
Movies were 4:3
The movie industry standardized on the 4:3 aspect ratio, earlyish-on, along with the fps (frames-per-second) for theater projectors. When television came along they stuck with that, in large part because other than live programming they were using filmed-footage for their "content". This wasn't only Hollywood flicks shown as such, but their news feeds were 16mm as well, often from the old spring-wound Bolexes, etc.
Odd note, but the onset of the Telly as a competitive medium set Hollywood on the path to Something Bigger, Something Better, ie-Panavision/wide-screen, in a final effort to fill/re-fill theater seats.
Movies were 4:3
The movie industry standardized on the 4:3 aspect ratio, earlyish-on, along with the fps (frames-per-second) for theater projectors. When television came along they stuck with that, in large part because other than live programming they were using filmed-footage for their "content". This wasn't only Hollywood flicks shown as such, but their news feeds were 16mm as well, often from the old spring-wound Bolexes, etc.
Odd note, but the onset of the Telly as a competitive medium set Hollywood on the path to Something Bigger, Something Better, ie-Panavision/wide-screen, in a final effort to fill/re-fill theater seats.
Addy101
Well-known
You may want to take look at this wikipedia page about aspect ratio's. 4:3 was already around at the time there were no talkies yet. It was the TV format straight from the 1940's and 1950's until recently. But read for yourself.
Why do you wonder about 4/3's and not 'bout 3:2, 16:9 and 16:10?
Why do you wonder about 4/3's and not 'bout 3:2, 16:9 and 16:10?
Pablito
coco frío
Of all the common formats, 3:2 is closest to the golden ratio...
msbarnes
Well-known
Why do you wonder about 4/3's and not 'bout 3:2, 16:9 and 16:10?
Because I just got an m43 hahah. I didn't realize that it wasn't 3:2 until researching into the cameras and I was originally going to just shoot it at 3:2 but then I thought that I should just learn 4:3 composition. (not that it really makes a difference to me
).3:2 just seemed standard in photography.
1:1 (6x6) made sense because you don't need to crop and then 645/6x7 made sense too dealing with the number of frames...I didn't think that the ratios had any particular meaning.
I didn't think about printing paper, tv's, movies, and etc. I guess other ratios probably existed beforehand and do exist for other reasons.
Pablito
coco frío
Only since 35mm became the standard issue for photojournalism in the 60s or so. To this day it has not affected the paper sizes of silver gelatin papers which are still sold as if the standard ratio were 4x5.
msbarnes
Well-known
yeah I know.
I am aware that large format predecessed small format (35mm) and that the standard ratio for paper is 4x5 and all but when I think photography, I think 3:2.
I am aware that large format predecessed small format (35mm) and that the standard ratio for paper is 4x5 and all but when I think photography, I think 3:2.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
One of my first cameras was a Kodak Brownie Starmite which made 4x4 cm exposures on 127 roll film. A little later, the Instamatic 300 made 28x28 mm exposures on 126 cartridge load film. After that, a Minolta 16-Ps (12x17 mm, a near-3:4 ratio) and then Rolleiflex TLR with 6x6 cm. Only after that did I start shooting 35mm with 2:3 ratio format for the majority of the time. It always seemed weird—too oblong—to me, so I often crop it to 3:4 or square. Or go more extreme to 9:16 for a wide screen look.
I still prefer square to 3:4 format most of the time.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
This is how I've always thought about the 1.33 ratio...it was more or less dictated by standard paper sizes. When the 6/4.5 format was introduced, paper size was indicated as one of the reasons for this shift (at least this is what I was told). I suppose 4/3 was initially developed with similar benefits in mind.
Addy101
Well-known
I just realized that this is very strange argument. In the rest of the world the popular sizes are 10x15cm, 13x18cm (why not 12x18cm??) and 20x30cm. Also, 2:3 is reasonably close to A standard paper-formats. So, I think it is unlikely that the American paper sizes were of great importance....
zuiko85
Mentor
And let's not forget folks, Olympus was famous for their 35mm half frame cameras which has, drum roll please, a ratio of 3:4
I've had and shot with Olympus half frame cameras since 1972 and the 3:4 aspect ratio seems 'normal' to me.
I've had and shot with Olympus half frame cameras since 1972 and the 3:4 aspect ratio seems 'normal' to me.
kuzano
Mentor
How about???
How about???
Simply because I say it's best.
As my dad always told me.
How about???
Simply because I say it's best.
As my dad always told me.
The main reason why I can't get on with m4/3... I'm pretty much a 2:3 fan and am stuck in that rut (happily).
zuiko85
Mentor
@jsrockit
".....and am stuck in that rut (happily)."
A rut is a grave with the ends kicked out.
".....and am stuck in that rut (happily)."
A rut is a grave with the ends kicked out.