Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:

> > Hello !
> >
> > I understand why systematically fixing the camera aspect ratio to the image
> > pixel ratio is bad, because one might want to render images for non-squares
> > pixel display (or one might just want to experiment).
> >
> > But shouldn't the default value be set to the ratio of the image's pixels ?
> > Squared pixels, if not omnipresent, are at least more common than non-suared
> > pixels (especially with non-cathodics screens), and the current "4/3" default
> > ratio pretty much sounds like a magic number to me anyway.
> >
> > Then again, there might be reasons I am not aware of ; please be indulgent :)
> >
> >
> >
> 4/3 is not magic. It's the effective aspect ratio of just about all CRT
> monitors. It have been almost universal since the mid 70's, at least for
> the PC.
>
> Only with the introduction of LCDs this has changed. You now commonly
> have displays with 5:4 (1280 x 1024) and 16:9 aspect ratio.

4:3 is the oldest film standard (from silent films), and it pretty close to
Academy Ratio (which was the standard for talking pictures until the widescreen
formats started showing up in the 50s).

Cheers,
Edouard.

Post a reply to this message