The 5x4 Project Size

[Barry Beckham]

I wonder if you have the wrong end of the stick here, because I am not referring to the shooting of images. I shoot at 3:2 format with my SLR and Infra-Red cameras and with my snappy I use 4:3 because its the largest pixel size. Its not the shooting of images that I care a toss about.  I don't have 42 cameras, but wouldn't know what to do with them all if I did.

This is an AV forum, so prints don't come into the argument. I just don't think it makes any sense to make a 5:4 slide show when every screen its likely to be viewed on is 16:9. The default of PTE-9 now reflects that too. If you want to use 5:4 go ahead, but I reserve the right to view slide shows at that format as dated. Yes, of course I am biased by my own experiences, aren't we all?  And I have a fair bit of experience !!

[Lin Evans]

Let me give you an example of why professional photographers making a show for a client are not about to make it in 16:9 format. Let's say the show is being created by a wedding photographer who has just finished carefully editing, batching, whatever about 800 pictures of which he will use about 200 of in the client's slideshow.

Do you really think he is going to crop 200 images to show the client in the slideshow from 3:2 or 4:5 or 4:3  or whichever aspect ratio the show was shot at to 16:9 for the show?  That takes way too much time for which he will not be reimbursed and the images in the show won't match the images he delivers to his client in their normal format for printing.

Likewise for an event photographer who is making a show which consists of perhaps 800 images which may well be being shown live at the event while the event is still going? The ability to do this is already possible with the competition and Igor is planning to include it as a PTE feature.

The only people who are going to crop the output from the capture resolution to 16:9 are perhaps photographers who are preparing a show for a presentation at a competition, or perhaps in some locations at a camera club assuming that they will be presented on a projector. That represents a tiny proportion of  PTE users today and perhaps even a smaller proportion of them in the future. The vast majority of people who will eventually buy this product will not be professional AVI workers - actually, the vast majority of present PTE owners and users are not AVI workers or people who have any interest in competition or displaying the shows via a projector. Large screen television and large displays are less expensive than projectors and produce much higher resolutions. Most users regardless of the fact that they may have a 16:9 display at home will not be cropping the thousands of captures made at other aspect ratios to 16:9. It simply takes too long and they won't do it even though the new PTE features allow non destructive cropping within the show. They will set the aspect ratio to the aspect ratio of their captures and not be concerned whether or not there is a black border. That's the reality. 

Best regards,

Lin

[Barry Beckham]

Lin

OK, your right. Long live 5:4 I now understand why its so popular. If only I had seen one in the past 5 years  

 

[davegee]

Lin, 

I seriously think that you need to stop and regroup.

The photographer can use ANY Aspect Ratio the he/she chooses straight out of camera. But the Aspect Ratio of the show that he/she chooses to present those images is likely to depend on the method of presentation I.e. projector or TV.

So we are back to 4x3 or 16x9.

It doesn't matter if an image floating in and out of view is 3x2, 4x3, 5x4 or 16x9 (video) etc - it is likely to be a mixture - the project AR (NOT THE IMAGE AR) is going to be 4x3 or 16x9 to fill the screen.

5x4 projectors/TVs are uncommon and the customer is unlikely to have one.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Dave, 

You're missing my point. Your point is predicated on "filling the screen." My point is that "filling the screen is irrelevant." 

With someone displaying their "show" to a club or in a competition, you are correct. My point is that the vast majority of "shows" made by photographers using PTE will be "displayed" at the aspect ratio of the image (the project aspect ratio will be identical to the photo aspect ratio) and whether or not it "fills the screen" is totally irrelevant.  The majority of shows will not be displayed on a projector or on a TV but displayed on home computer systems with numerous different aspect ratios. When you go to a movie at a theater, the "screen" may or may not be filled by the aspect ratio of the movie being shown. Nobody asks for a refund if the screen isn't filled. Where I live it often is not.

Now back to your original question. Those who shoot in 5:4 will, in all probability, create their shows in a 5:4 aspect ratio and there are a reasonable number of professionals who shoot at 5:4 so they can compose as they want the final image to look during the shoot rather than crop later. So whether to create "styles" at 5:4 is a decision only the user of PTE can decide based on his or her expected audience.

It's obvious we all have our own opinions on this most probably based on our own experiences... I think we've about exhausted the realm of those points - LOL

Best regards,

Lin

[Barry Beckham]

I'm not done yet

Re professional wedding photographer - Do you really think he is going to crop 200 images to show the client in the slideshow from 3:2 or 4:5 or 4:3  or whichever aspect ratio the show was shot at to 16:9 for the show?  That takes way too much time for which he will not be reimbursed and the images in the show won't match the images he delivers to his client in their normal format for printing.

Point 1.

My Canon SLR shoots video - Its 16:9

My Snappy camera shoots video - Its 16:9

YouTube videos are - 16:9

My PC screens are - 16:9

My laptop is 16:9

My TV is 16:9 

PTE defaults now to 16:9

Anyone buying a PC projector of home cinema - 16:9

Yet your suggesting a professional would create a 5:4 slide show for the customer? and you call this person professional? 

Point 2.

If the "Professional" is not going to be reimbursed for the slide show, then don't make one. Don't bleat about how hard pressed for time you are. Either produce a good product or not, but I am the customer and don't give a toss how pushed for time you are.

Point 3.

There is no need to crop 200 images because with a bit of pre-planning, use of a template and PTE slide styles you can use the 3:2 images from the camera in a 16:9 project. I know this because I have done it

Point 4.

In Lightroom or Photoshop you can batch process 200 images from high resolution from a typical SLR to 1920*1280 in under 5 minutes automatically. In Photoshop its the image processor. I did 870 images in 15 minutes. Just walk away and make your coffee while its doing it. 

Point 5.

If you did decide to crop 200 images manually it takes about 10 minutes. Open 20 at a time and by using a preset crop in Photoshop,  apply it - commit the crop and then saving the image and removing the image from screen ready for the next one. A simple action will do this, one minute to set up and once done its done. It took me around a minute to do 20 images so 10 minutes for the 200, but lets say 20 minutes even. No time at all and if the "Professional" cannot spare that time, they are in the wrong profession

Point 5.

The stressed Professional, being so hard pressed for time he delivers a 5:4 slide show to the client. The family all sit down in front of the large flat screen TV to watch this and see almost square images covering only a fraction of their screen. Professional? Give me a break . Soon to be unemployed if you ask me 

[Lin Evans]

I'm not done yet

Re professional wedding photographer - Do you really think he is going to crop 200 images to show the client in the slideshow from 3:2 or 4:5 or 4:3  or whichever aspect ratio the show was shot at to 16:9 for the show?  That takes way too much time for which he will not be reimbursed and the images in the show won't match the images he delivers to his client in their normal format for printing.

Point 1.

My Canon SLR shoots video - Its 16:9

My Snappy camera shoots video - Its 16:9

YouTube videos are - 16:9

YouTube uses 16:9 players but will play your video at the aspect ratio you upload...

My PC screens are - 16:9

So?  My PC Screens are 4:3, 5:4, and 16:10 

My laptop is 16:9

I have three laptops, none of which are 16:9

My TV is 16:9 

My TV is 16:10

PTE defaults now to 16:9

So, ever heard of templates? My copy of PTE 9.0 beta defaults to 3:2

Anyone buying a PC projector of home cinema - 16:9

Yet your suggesting a professional would create a 5:4 slide show for the customer? and you call this person professional? 

Yes, as well as 4:3 and 3:2 - I'm not "suggesting" that, I'm telling you that's what my professional photographer friends as well as myself,  who has worked as a professional photographer for many, many years does. 

Point 2.

If the "Professional" is not going to be reimbursed for the slide show, then don't make one. Don't bleat about how hard pressed for time you are. Either produce a good product or not, but I am the customer and don't give a toss how pushed for time you are.

Read more carefully Barry. I said the Professional is not going to be reimbursed for the additional time it would take to change the aspect ratio of a couple hundred 3:2 images to 16:9 for the slideshow, especially since they now will not match the aspect ratio of delivered images to the client which were categorically NOT shot in 16:9 aspect ratio. 

Point 3.

There is no need to crop 200 images because with a bit of pre-planning, use of a template and PTE slide styles you can use the 3:2 images from the camera in a 16:9 project. I know this because I have done it

The images will NOT appear as they do when delivered to the client at the original aspect ratio whether you use one or a thousand "templates" unless you're talking about greatly reducing the size of a 3:2 image and displaying it with other "gingerbread": or multiple images displayed simultaneously. If that's your show style, go for it. My clients are not interested it that type of BS just to present a "fill the screen" image at 16:9 aspect ratio.

Point 4.

In Lightroom or Photoshop you can batch process 200 images from high resolution from a typical SLR to 1920*1280 in under 5 minutes automatically. In Photoshop its the image processor. I did 870 images in 15 minutes. Just walk away and make your coffee while its doing it.

If that's your idea of a "professional" show then go for it. A professional who does his cropping the way he intends the image to look when he composes has no interest in some automatic batch prossing algorithm which has no way of knowing where an image is to be cropped for best results of the subject as the photographer framed the shot. What the client then gets, as I've said before, is NOT what they will get from the original images as delivered by the photographer. How many 16:9 images have you printed Barry? How did that work out for you? 16:9 aspect ratio is a compromise to the video industry. I don't know a single professional who shoots at 16:9 unless it's video.

Point 5.

If you did decide to crop 200 images manually it takes about 10 minutes. Open 20 at a time and by using a preset crop in Photoshop,  apply it - commit the crop and then saving the image and removing the image from screen ready for the next one. A simple action will do this, one minute to set up and once done its done. It took me around a minute to do 20 images so 10 minutes for the 200, but lets say 20 minutes even. No time at all and if the "Professional" cannot spare that time, they are in the wrong profession.

You seem to miss the point that we are not interested in cropping the original image - it's already composed exactly as desired. 16:9 is a video aspect ratio. Not a single professional camera uses it for anything else, period. On the other hand, all Nikon professional cameras have a 5:4 aspect ratio available for the professional. Perhaps you should write to them and explain why YOU don't think it's professional to use that aspect ratio. You can perhaps persuade them with your vast marketing experience of professional body cameras to the professional photography market. By the way just in case you are not aware - SQUARE is a popular format among professionals - it's found on many MF professional backs...

The stressed Professional, being so hard pressed for time he delivers a 5:4 slide show to the client. The family all sit down in front of the large flat screen TV to watch this and see almost square images covering only a fraction of their screen. Professional? Give me a break . Soon to be unemployed if you ask me 

Soon to be unemployed? Really? Nobody asked you and if you don't like 5:4 don't use it. Nobody really cares whether you like it or not Barry, is that so difficult for you to understand? 

[Barry Beckham]

I think we have to agree to differ, big time. No change there then. :-)

[JudyKay]

Lin makes a solid case for 5:4.  Leave it be.  

[Ken Cox]

IN THE OLD DAYS, to watch Barry's show's he recommend you change the graphic card setting, but if you read his webpage, no change was required, everything fell in to place

ken

[jkb]

All very exciting - a good debate we should sell tickets!  

Couple if points - why cant the professional just hit control D and slap all his images into whatever size output he chooses. Yes he will have black at the sides but Lin is happy to accept that and every part of the proffesionals superb image will be shown be it on a TV projector Youtube or even magic lantern!

The other point - I wonder how many proffesional wedding snappers/videographers there are that are actually  current PTE users?

We were promised that in America they would be queueing up to purchase the product once V8 with its  slide styles came out. .... Maybe Igor can tell us if that happened?

I assume at least that all Lin's proffesional colleages are Pte users?!!

I await the next round with interest

John

[jkb]

Oops I have changed into Jill who has been using my phone on the forum - o bgr!

Is me John posting unless I get picked on at the next playtime - if so it was Jill!

[Barry Beckham]

why cant the professional just hit control D and slap all his images into whatever size output he chooses. Yes he will have black at the sides but Lin is happy to accept that

Of course the wedding photographer making a slide show could do that, but this debate is not about what Lin or I personally like. Its clear that Lin,  probably others too,  would accept exactly what you suggest. All I am saying is that I doubt that the majority of those employing a wedding photographer with what they charge would accept 5:4 in a 16:9 world. I think we are far enough into 16:9  for the customer to expect that.

Am I unique when I flick channels on TV these days and find something that sounds interesting and it pops up on screen in the old TV format. Almost square like 5:4. The first thing through my mind is wow, this must be quite old. Rightly or wrongly it is immediately dated.

If I were to be a wedding photographer I would want first to try and provide something that the competition doesn't and if I couldn't do that, do it better. I just think any thought of a 5:4 slide show for a customer now is like throwing in the towel. And on top of all that,  its easy to achieve with PTE. It's not a long job

[landsberger]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:57 AM, Ken Cox said:

Going thru my records, DaveG and I looked this up Oct 30 2009 and same was discussed on the forum at that time+-

we searched on the net and got this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

so we few that used square format camera's were familiar with 5/4

I think Roliflex  made a slide projector -- I tried to buy one from a customer in Sarnia ---

and there was an Engineer at Dow that had one -- they were as scarce as hen's teeth, boy a 2 1/4" slide show was something to see!!

 

also see

https://www.bing.com/search?q=rolleiflex+camera&form=EDGNTC&qs=SC&cvid=5289bf759b644b738d2d15fdf08d17dc&pq=roliflex&elv=ACO8GBsNcTHslKxG90BKgeD9YIcNbyG2OC*FU81gpiBu

 

ken

Hi Ken

Rollei made more than one 6x6 projector:

Rollei Universal P11 (6x6 or 2 1/4" &35mm) twin magazine channels

P66

P66S

Rolleivision 66

Rolleivision 66 Dual P (6x6 & 35mm)  

As you say a show on one or more of these is/was something to see and then of course there was the Hasselblad PCP 80 (at a price!) 

John

[Urmas]

On 1.11.2016 at 3:06 PM, davegee said:

Help required.

Does anyone here still use the 5x4 Project Size to Create Slide Shows??

DG

As for artistic purpose, one can use aspect ratio he/she likes or considers suitable for particular project. With 4K displays coming, there is little penalty for resolution etc.There is no such rule, like the image must use all display pixels.

Projectors are still a playing a little catch up with displays in terms of resolution. 4K projectors are still very expensive. When projectors had low resolution their aspect ratio started to dictate image presentation ratio also - we simply did not want to waste image details.

16:9 screen ratio is "native" for video. However, I personally dislike photos cropped to 16:9 ratio. Therefore, I make and project slideshows using 16:10 ratio. Most photos look decent when cropped to 16:10. After all, 16:10 is very close to golden ratio. If I want to project whole 3:2 image, only little is wasted at the edges.

Sadly, vertical shots are penalized but i do not see a good alternative to wide aspect ratio projection. In theory the best option would be say 4000x4000 pixels (1:1 ratio) projector, but fitting such screens in the auditorium would be sometimes difficult or impractical. Room height might be restrictive and still human vision is normally more wide than vertical.

[JudyKay]

For all of us Hasselblad enthusiasts, the new H6D-100C has a 5:4 sensor.  

(Don't I wish I had one!)

 

 

 

[davegee]

Me too. It would, possibly, change my mind about 5x4

Except that the output resolution (according to B&H) is 4x3.

DG

[Ken Cox]

In my day I had a 500/80 and a SWC

-- what a joy to use

- both taking picts and darkroom!

 

KEN

 

[michaelr108]

Hi Ken

My guess is most people using PTE would have to be told what a darkroom was used for , for myself I remember with my dads help putting a photographic paper and a negative in a wooden frame and leaving out in the sun . Whow that makes me feel old .

Mike

[Ken Cox]

 

KEN

[Barry Beckham]

Only 4:3, my Canon snappy camera can do that