I think Olympus just saw an opportunity to reduce the cost of lenses by
getting rid of "irrational" aspect ratios. As a lens designer you'd
very much like a square but as a sensor designer you really wouldn't
want to fill in the extra pixels to square up a rectangle. Of course,
they explained it as matching the aspect ratios of TV's and monitors at
a time when the world's display screens are moving to 16:9 for HDTV
Chuck Norcutt
Andrew Fildes wrote:
> It's still closer and you know it, you dreadful recalcitrant. And
> then there is that rather handy command 'Resize to fit media'.
> 8x10? Call it what it really is - Full Plate.
> Actually I have a nostaligic fondness for Octavo and some of the big
> size names. But the metric system is extremely rational, as usual. If
> the main manufacturers of sensors were French or German rather than
> murkin inspired Japanese, the output sizes would match, you bet.
>
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 08/05/2008, at 8:03 AM, Moose wrote:
>
>> 4/3 sensor 1.33
>> A4 1.41
>> FF, APS-C&N 1.50
>> 8x10 1.25
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|