Aspect ratio
Jan 27, 2018 18:07:50 #
JPL wrote:
Basically, if you plan to mainly view your pictures on your TV you shoot in 16:9 format to make them fit the TV and save work in post processing. Other formats you use according to what pleases your eyes or purposes of photography.
I shot 3:2 Kodachrome slides for years. Even when I scan square negatives from my earliest cameras, I fond that something close to 3:2 works the best for me.
Jan 27, 2018 23:25:18 #
HarryBinNC
Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns, No.Carolina, USA
[quote=dylee8]Yes the lineage of dslr traces to 35mm cameras and inherits the 3x2 aspect (not exact, varies by manufacturer, but close enough). Mirrorless, at 4x3, is better suited for todays wider format. As an example, a 24 mp camera, at 4x3 sensor, yields a maximum of 20.25 mp for 16x9. While the same megapixel camera with 3x2 only yields a maximum of 18mp.
You have your 16:9 cropped sensor sizes swapped - the 24 mp 4/3 sensor cropped to 16:9 would have about 18mp and the cropped 3:2 would have the 20+ mp. And, since there aren't any 24 mp 4/3 cameras as yet, the best 16:9 you could get from the current 20 mp 4/3 sensors would be 15mp. However, the mythical 24mp 4/3 sensors would have the advantage when the more squarish crops come into.play, but still lose to the 3:2 at 20mp.
You have your 16:9 cropped sensor sizes swapped - the 24 mp 4/3 sensor cropped to 16:9 would have about 18mp and the cropped 3:2 would have the 20+ mp. And, since there aren't any 24 mp 4/3 cameras as yet, the best 16:9 you could get from the current 20 mp 4/3 sensors would be 15mp. However, the mythical 24mp 4/3 sensors would have the advantage when the more squarish crops come into.play, but still lose to the 3:2 at 20mp.
Jan 28, 2018 00:41:35 #
The 16:9 ratio is very close to 2:1 (16:8) and AFAIK is the one with the widest shape currently in common use. Unless the native sensor size is 16:9 (is there one?), achieving that aspect ratio is going to require cropping pixels from the top and/or the bottom, no matter what the sensor shape is. Of all the common sensor shapes, the 3:2 ratio comes the closest to 16:9 and requires the least elimination of picture information to achieve that desired aspect ratio.
Jan 28, 2018 02:32:30 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
John_F wrote:
May I extend this subject by asking what are the aspect ratios of the most common and not so common image display. Such as 4x6 prints and others. I would tend to think the capture aspect ratio should match the dispkay aspect. When composing a scene does the aspect ratio of the box it is in have anyrhing to do with thr nuances of the composition. This is a really screwed up way of asking a question I must not understand well.
I think I understand what you are asking. With my E-M1 mrII, when I change ratios, lines appear in the viewfinder that show what will be captured by that ratio. That way, if I need only a 16:9 ratio photo, I have to have all the elements for that image between those lines. Otherwise, the elements outside those lines will not be in the image. And for that longer 16:9 ratio, displaying that ratio can be an advantage by preventing you from having to crop something out of the picture for that ratio that you need to keep in the image. Most of the other ratios when using a 4/3rds camera only cuts a little off the image. So if one just adds a little room to the edges, one can get away with just shooting a full 4/3rds frame and just crop off the necessary sides to achieve the necessary ratio.
Jan 28, 2018 02:45:50 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
burkphoto wrote:
On most digital cameras with selectable aspect rat... (show quote)
I have to check to see if that is true for my E-M1 mrII, RAW is a full file and the JPEG is the ratio file, but I suspect what you say is true. That gives one a distinct advantage for using a ratioed image for its full image value later on.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.