The mysterious 10:4 crop ratio

Shay Stephens

Of all the mysteries of photography, none are perhaps more secret and hidden than the 10:4 crop ratio. Some suspect (David_S85?) that some multinational organization works feverishly to keep it secret knowledge, maybe even more secret than UFOs. But regardless of what you believe about this elusive creature that even Bigfoot seldom sees, it does exist. I have discovered the shocking truth and I am ready to reveal it...right after the break!

psstpsstpsst

Whats that...this isn't TV? Oh right, ok lets get right to it then (clears throat)

Many are familiar with the standard TV and computer monitor. It is kind of squarish, a little wider than it is tall. In fact if measured you would find it to be 4 units of measure wide and three units tall. In shorthand that would be a crop ratio of 4:3.

An SLR camera and 4x6 prints measure different dimensions than a computer monitor. They are 3 units on the long side and 2 units on the short side. If your unit is two inches, that long side is going to be 6 inches, and the short side will be 4 inches, the standard 4x6 print.

Think of another standard crop and frame size, the 8x10. An actors favorite especially when glossy. It has an aspect ratio of 4 units on the short side and 5 units on the long side. If your unit of measure is 2 inches, then you have an 8x10 print as a result. If instead you want a larger print, and you change the unit to 4 inches, you would get a 16x20 print to hang on the wall (4x4=16 and 4x5=20).

Taking that knowledge of ratios, we can apply it to the mysterious hieroglyphics of the "10:4 crop" that has been vexing our thoughts lo these many months.

If one were to crop their image to those proportions (10 units by 4 units), it would look long and skinny compared to a more commonly seen 4x6 print. If a 3000x2000 pixel image were so cropped the resulting dimensions would 3000x1200. If you wanted your selection tool to make a properly sized 10:4 selection, you would set it to use a fixed aspect ratio and enter 10 into the width and 4 into the height. Then no matter how big the selection gets it will have the correct aspect ratio.

You can buy standard 10:4 frames and mats at the store (or multiples of 10:4 like 20:8). So this size photo is widely usable by nearly anyone. The results look interesting on the right photo, and including it in your visual toolbox will only serve to increase your versatility as a photographer.



This example photo measure 488x195 pixels (488 X .4 = 195 pixels)
A photo 640 pixels wide would be 256 tall (640 x .4 = 256 pixels)
A photo 800 pixel wide would be 320 tall (800 x .4 = 320 pixels)

LiquidAir

Ah, click! Er, !

I get it. The magic of 10:4 is you can print them 2-up on 8x10 or 16x20 paper. I have made good use of the Smugmug 2:1 print sizes, but for the most part that is as wide as I go in the pano direction. I'll have to browse through my 2:1 cropped images to see if any of them look better in 10:4.

Another thought: I don't think Lightroom lets me search on crop. Keywording my shots on aspect ratio is another good idea.

SDJames

I do like that crop ratio...great info, thanks! How's this...


Although, mathmatically speaking...wouldn't it be a 5:2 instead of a 10:4?

LiquidAir

Ok, I'll play. Here's a shot from this weekend that I just re-cropped from 2:1 to 10:4.

Shay Stephens

Beautiful!!!

Shay Stephens

SDJames wrote:

Although, mathmatically speaking...wouldn't it be a 5:2 instead of a 10:4?

Yes indeed you are correct, but I have a hard enough time getting 10:4 for gel with people hehehe. So I just use the smallest common frame size as a descriptor similar to using 4x6 as a crop size descriptor. Not as accurate as using 5:2 but I hope it works anyway.

Greensquared

Shay Stephens wrote:

Yes indeed you are correct, but I have a hard enough time getting 10:4 for gel with people hehehe. So I just use the smallest common frame size as a descriptor similar to using 4x6 as a crop size descriptor. Not as accurate as using 5:2 but I hope it works anyway.

Thanks so much for that info. I feel enlightened!
Emily

Dee

8.5 x 11
I don't use 8 x 10 paper, using letter size photo paper instead. So sometimes my aspect ratio is 8.5 x 11 and then my crop will fit perfectly on my lettersize photo paper.

I learned ratios for cropping to fit paper (ugh! math!) a while back as an easy way to get the best crop for a certain size print, and discovered (yes, I can be a little dense, or a lot dense when it comes to math) you can type in the paper size into the ratio box, and by clicking the little arrow symbol in photoshop, reverse it to vertical, or to horizontal with the click of a mouse. How cool is that? So if you aren't a math purist, just type in the final dimensions you need and the marquee box will fit your paper size (or frame size, or whatever) no matter how big or how small you make your marquee selection.

No more memorizing ratio aspects for me, If I want a 4 x 6 print, I don't mess around with 2:3, I just type in 4 and 6. Same with 8 x 10, type in 8 x 10 and don't worry about 4:5, .

Anyone else watching "Who's smarter than a 5th grader" and stumbling on all those triangle questions?

jdryan3

Shay Stephens wrote:

Yes indeed you are correct, but I have a hard enough time getting 10:4 for gel with people hehehe. So I just use the smallest common frame size as a descriptor similar to using 4x6 as a crop size descriptor. Not as accurate as using 5:2 but I hope it works anyway.

Funny you should post this today. I was looking at the panos I did at the North Rim and Zion and was wondering if there is a 'standard' pano ratio for cropping and framing. So the 10:4 / 5:2 is it? Yea, I know I can actually make it as long as I want, but sometimes that looks a little ridiculous.

I was thinking it would be like 6:2 or 9:2, double or triple the length of the regular 3:2. Is there an optical reason (from the viewer's perspective) 5:2 works best?

DavidTO

I think we're trained. Cinemascope is 1:2.39, which is 4x 9.56, close to 10.

jdryan3

DavidTO wrote:

I think we're trained. Cinemascope is 1:2.39, which is 4x 9.56, close to 10.

But is that 'panoramic'? I think of that as more wide screen. Cinemascope does appear to replicate the 'normal' FOV. Or am I equating the two and shouldn't be?

DavidTO

Well, in motion picture terms, widescreen is 1:1.85.

But, yes, I think that scope films are panoramic, although there appears to be no precise definition of panoramic.

wikipedia.org wrote:

Panoramic photography is a style of photography that aims to create images with exceptionally wide fields of view, but has also come to refer to any photograph that is cropped to a relatively wide aspect ratio (see Panoramic format) While there is no formal definition for the point at which "wide-angle" leaves off and "panoramic" begins, truly panoramic image are thought to capture a field of view comparable to, or greater than, that of the human eye - about 160° by 75° - and should do so while maintaining detail across the entire picture. The resulting images are panoramic, in that they offer an unobstructed or complete view of an area - often, but not necessarily, taking the form of a wide strip. A panoramic photograph is really defined by whether the image gives the viewer the appearance of a "panorama," regardless of any arbitrary technical definition.
Photo-finishers and manufacturers of Advanced Photo System (APS) cameras also use the word "panoramic" to refer to any print format with a wide aspect ratio, not necessarily photos that encompass a large field of view. In fact, a typical APS camera in its panoramic mode, where its zoom lens is at its shortest focal length of around 24 mm, has a field of view of only 65°, which many photographers would only classify as wide angle, not panoramic. Cameras with an aspect ratio of 2:1 or greater (where the width is 2 times its height) can generally be classified as being "panoramic."

seastack

DavidTO wrote:

I think we're trained. Cinemascope is 1:2.39, which is 4x 9.56, close to 10.

Ahhh, I was wondering about that! And then there is 16:9 for high-def (1:1.78) which is in demand for screensavers I'm told.

colourbox

There is no standard aspect ratio for anything, and certainly no standard for movies. Aspect ratio is often determined by manufacturing, technology, and economics of the day.

DavidTO

colourbox wrote:

There is no standard aspect ratio for anything, and certainly no standard for movies. Aspect ratio is often determined by manufacturing, technology, and economics of the day.

There is no one standard, true. There are standards. Scope is a standard, defined as 1:2.39.

Shay Stephens

colourbox wrote:

There is no standard aspect ratio for anything, and certainly no standard for movies. Aspect ratio is often determined by manufacturing, technology, and economics of the day.

So there is no standard aspect ratio for an 8x10?...hmm

Nikolai

DavidTO wrote:

There is no one standard, true. There are standards. Scope is a standard, defined as 1:2.39.

Yep

StevenV

I use 16x9 much of the time, even have a preset in the crop tool for it.

btw, "GruntMedia" Craig has a good explanation of why 16x9 was adopted for those curious.

jdryan3

StevenV wrote:

I use 16x9 much of the time, even have a preset in the crop tool for it.

btw, "GruntMedia" Craig has a good explanation of why 16x9 was adopted for those curious.

Very interesting on the VideoGrunt podcasts. Can't wait for episode #6

SDJames

DavidTO wrote:

I think we're trained. Cinemascope is 1:2.39, which is 4x 9.56, close to 10.

Excellent observation...I love audio/visual and theater...I should have thought about that. Nice.

z_28

From this point we are very close to the top

http://www.panavision.com/aspect_ratio.php