Bobby Gonzalez

Blog EntryTechnical Rant: The Problem With Aspect RatiosNov 21, '06 5:08 AM
for everyone
Aspect ratio. Most people don't even know what it is. I am talking about the ratio between the width and the height of the video screen of a TV or computer. Everything used to be so simple. When buying a TV or PC, there was only one aspect ratio to consider, namely 4:3. This is the aspect ratio of standard TV sets, computers and digital compact cameras. Common display resolutions with the standard 4:3 aspect ratio are 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768. Virtually all CRT monitors have this 4:3 aspect ratio. But lately, other aspect ratios have appeared, which have resulted to some unwelcome complexity. Worse, the TV and the PC have gone their separate ways with regard to the aspect ratios they support.
 
One of the early culprits of this terrible aspect ratio quandary is the LCD monitor. Things were fine at first with the release of 15-inch LCD monitors that have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Then 17-inch LCD monitors appeared and that is where the problem started. Almost all 17-inch and 19-inch LCD monitors have a non-standard aspect ratio of 5:4, usually with a native display resolution of 1280x1024. Interestingly enough, 20-inch and bigger LCD monitors usually have the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. Now, what possessed the monitor manufacturers to use a non-standard aspect ratio for 17-inch and 19-inch LCD monitors when they already use the standard 4:3 aspect ratio for all other monitors?
 
The situation gets even more confusing in the case of widescreen displays. The HDTV (High Definition Television) widescreen aspect ratio is 16:9. In contrast, the widescreen LCD monitor aspect ratio is 16:10. Why can't they even agree on one common widescreen aspect ratio?
 
So how does this profusion of aspect ratios create a problem? Here's one example. All game software applications support the 4:3 aspect ratio. But not all of them support the other aspect ratios. Running a game on an unsupported aspect ratio would usually cause images to be stretched to fill the screen. This would distort the images on the screen. For example, "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" does not support widescreen aspect ratios. So when you run that game on a widescreen monitor, the game characters would all look fat on the screen.
 
This plethora of aspect ratios also causes problems with computer desktop wallpapers. In the past, wallpaper creators only need to create 4:3 wallpapers. Now, they also need to create versions for other aspect ratios. The computer user also cannot just use any wallpaper. To prevent the wallpaper from looking distorted, the user must exert some extra effort to ensure that the wallpaper's aspect ratio matches the monitor's aspect ratio.
 
I'm still trying to find some rational explanation as to why the computer industry chose to introduce these 5:4 and 16:10 aspect ratios. I think the industry should have just stuck with 4:3 for regular monitors and should have adopted 16:9 for widescreen monitors. Somebody made a mess and everybody is paying for it.

7 Comments
tinapay0224 wrote on Nov 21, '06
In geeky camera terms, I find it confusing that the regular point-and-shoot goes by 1024 x 768 and the digital SLR goes by 1024 x 680. *sigh*
jargonz wrote on Nov 21, '06
In geeky camera terms, I find it confusing that the regular point-and-shoot goes by 1024 x 768 and the digital SLR goes by 1024 x 680. *sigh*
That's because digital SLR cameras mimic the old film (non-digital) cameras. Those old cameras produce pictures with a 3:2 aspect ratio. That's where you get those 6x4 prints.
tinapay0224 wrote on Nov 21, '06
jargonz said
That's because digital SLR cameras mimic the old film (non-digital) cameras. Those old cameras produce pictures with a 3:2 aspect ratio. That's where you get those 6x4 prints.
Not really, because I still find myself cropping out the sides of the SLR pics to fit the "film" dimensions.
jargonz wrote on Nov 21, '06
Not really, because I still find myself cropping out the sides of the SLR pics to fit the "film" dimensions.
Well, 1024x680 is not exactly 3:2 though it's close enough. 1020x680 is 3:2. So you still have 4 columns of pixels to crop out. ;-)
rvdizon wrote on Jan 8
not A BIG DEAL for me.....
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
jargonz wrote on Apr 22
Famous photographer Ken Rockwell also ranted about aspect ratios at:

Quotes from Ken Rockwell:

P/S Strengths


...

Correct professional aspect ratio. Almost all p/s shoot in 4:3 (1.33:1) aspect ratio, the same shape as almost every TV and computer screen and closest to professional film and paper formats. You can fill an entire laptop or monitor screen or project the images with no loss or cropping. Even vertical compositions on a projector are far bigger than the skinnier images from a DSLR. When printing on standard sized paper you can use your entire image and all the pixels you paid for without having to chop off the sides to fit on an 8 x 10. The reason this shape is popular professionally is simply because the majority of horizontal and vertical subjects fit into it well with a minimum of cropping. Of course every shot is different, and this shape, taller than the skinnier shape of the DSLRs, makes the best overall use of image area.


...

DSLR Weaknesses


...

Obsolete too-skinny aspect ratio. The DSLRs blindly copy the obsolete 3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio of 35mm film. The longer, skinnier 3:2 shape is a throwback to 1913 when an asthmatic hiker who couldn't carry a real camera developed a way to jam 35mm movie film into a still camera and chose an elongated format to allow a little more film area to be used with the tiny film. (See the history of the Leica camera to learn more.) Using a DSLR with its outdated 3:2 aspect ratio means every time you do a digital slide show you'll have black bands across the top and bottom of your screen, or even worse, have even bigger sidebars for verticals compared to the same images made with a p/s. That's right: if your main use for digital images is for computer presentation you get more resolution from a cheap p/s since you can fill your whole screen without cropping. Your screen has less than a megapixel; you ought to use all of them that you can. On the other hand, if you main distribution channel is a website then the longer ratio is fine, since the biggest safe area of a standard target browser screen is 700 x 400 pixels, or 1.75:1. This is all artistic preference of course, and it just turns out that most things most people photograph and paint fit better into a squarer shape than the long skinny one that 35mm film used to use. It makes better use of your limited resolution to have a squarer shape, since you less often need to throw away the sides of your image for printing on standard paper sizes or screens. Few subjects are as elongated as 1.5:1. The Olympus E-1 and its brothers in the 4:3 system fix this.



Add a Comment
   
© 2008 Multiply, Inc.    About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · Corp Info · Contact Us · Help