Resolution differences based on aspect ratio chosen- Sony DSC-RXIII or DSC-RXIV: I've been shooting with the Sony DSC-RXIII bridge camera for some time now. It has various settings for...

tonybear

I've been shooting with the Sony DSC-RXIII bridge camera for some time now. It has various settings for aspect ratio. What I hadn't been paying attention to was the variation of resolution (MP) versus the various aspect ratio modes chosen. I used to use 16x9, simply because I prefer wide screen formatted images, but I noticed that the resolution was only 16MP. If I shot in another aspect mode, say 4x3 or 2x3, the total resolution was higher, as much as 20MP. I was wondering if those of you Hoggers who use the DSC-RX whatever, WHICH aspect ratio you choose, and why? Thanks in advance.

bleirer

I think all cameras throw away pixels when using non native aspect ratios. You might as well crop, since there is no advantage to doing it in camera.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Your question is important for any camera brand. If you want to use all the pixels, you must shoot in the native aspect ratio. For bridge cameras and M4/3, this is often 4:3, and for dslr's it is 3:2.

Try a controlled test where you shoot a subject in both 16:9 and 4:3. Now crop the 4:3 so it matches your 16:9 composition. Do you see any difference in image quality when you enlarge and examine on your computer screen? If you are not printing, you may find it perfectly acceptable to simply stay with the 16:9.

I have one of my M4/3 cameras set to 3:2 because that is how I like to compose landscapes. I am losing a "few" pixels but for my purposes that is not important.

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

Your not losing any pixels, what it is doing is blocking the upper and lower portion of the sensor to get the 16:9 aspect ratio. Same thing happens when you crop a photo, you've trimmed away some of pixels from the original image, but pixels are always the same size no matter what ratio you choose. On your camera they are specified to be an area of 5.76 micro meters squared. The photo sites or sensor pixel if you want to call them that, do not physically disappear and it's impossible to physically change their size. The reason the Megapixel size goes down is fewer of them are being used.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

James56 wrote:

You're not losing any pixels.

Ok, true in the sense they not lost forever and ever, just unused until you change the aspect back to native

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

Linda From Maine wrote:

Ok, true in the sense they not lost forever and ever, just unused until you change the aspect back to native

But the pixels on your image are the size no matter what ratio you use. Your essentially cropping in camera which is no different than cropping with software. You do not lose resolution of the image and many mistakenly think.

bleirer

James56 wrote:

But the pixels on your image are the size no matter what ratio you use. Your essentially cropping in camera which is no different than cropping with software. You do not lose resolution of the image.

Pixels in a file are unitless. They have no size. Cropping in camera the image has fewer of them, as you said, the same as cropping in post. But if you change your mind cropping in post you can get the pixels back. I figure I paid for my pixels, I'm going to use as many of them as I can!.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

James56 wrote:

But the pixels on your image are the size no matter what ratio you use. Your essentially cropping in camera which is no different than cropping with software. You do not lose resolution of the image and many mistakenly think.

Here is a chart with pixel numbers as related to aspect ratio at time of shooting and related to printing sizes. The chart uses the term resolution in the way I believe the OP intends:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

I'm not sure what you mean by "you do not lose resolution of the image" in this context. If you crop significantly in-camera or in pp, you end up with a file that won't produce a large print of the quality you would get if using all 20 MP, right?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

(deleted)

bleirer

Linda From Maine wrote:

Here is a chart with pixel numbers as related to aspect ratio at time of shooting and related to printing sizes. The chart uses the term resolution in the way I believe the OP intends:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

I'm not sure what you mean by "you do not lose resolution of the image" in this context.

The way I see it I agree with you, if I want a picture of a whole house that fills the entire frame, i have to walk closer or zoom more with the native format than I do with the crop ratio, so in a way that is lost resolution with the crop format since I get more pixels per window pane with the full format. And if I want to print larger the fewer pixels will have to stretch farther, so that is lost resolution too. The OP still has plenty of pixels even with cropping, though, so it's all good.
.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

bleirer wrote:

The way I see it I agree with you, if I want a pic... (show quote)

"Resolution" has so many meanings and applications, we can go down a deep black hole quickly

But it's good you are reminding the OP of how many pixels are available, and James has confirmed he uses that aspect ratio with that camera to his satisfaction.

I still like the idea of a controlled test to compare (EDIT - James's newest comments, with his easy to visualize example of trimming a print, have convinced me that the result of a controlled test would be "no difference"

)

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

Pixels or photosites have physical size, they are bigger or smaller depending on the sensor. What your doing Linda is essentially enlarging the photo by cropping. Of course the image degrades doing that. You can crop to the point to where you see only pixels. I'm not talking about printing. What I am talking about is answering the OP's resolution question. His images at 4:3 will have the same resolution (clearness) that his 16:9 images have. By resolution, I mean the size of photosites. Think of it this way. Print a photo, then trim the top and bottom to get a 16:9 ratio. Does the clearness or resolution of the photo get worse. No, and that's what happens when you change aspect ratios in camera. Sure you trimmed the top and bottom, and that's why MP size changes. But the clearness (resolution) remains the same.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

James56 wrote:

Pixels or photosites have physical size, they are ... (show quote)

OK, that is a very clear picture - so to speak

Many thanks, James!

Bill_de Loc: US

James56 wrote:

Pixels or photosites have physical size, they are ... (show quote)

I said something like this way back and was told I was wrong. Somehow resolution has come to mean total number of pixels. Makes no sense to me, but what do I know?

"The term resolution is often considered equivalent to pixel count in digital imaging ..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution

--

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Linda From Maine wrote:

Your question is important for any camera brand. I... (show quote)