Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 4:3 or 16:9?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    4:3 or 16:9?


    Hmmm. Since I view most of my photos on my TV, I offen use 16:9. Is this the best option?
    In some time I'm going on a 4 week trip to the West Coast of USA and plan to make a video with still photos and movieshots. Is 16:9 still right when I also plan to make a photo book of the trip?

    What do you do? And why?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    4,334
    Thanks
    3,123
    Thanked 1,229 Times in 531 Posts
    Real Name
    Jim


    Here's my take on it- I can crop from 3:2 to 16:9 and not lose much except sky. I can crop from 4:3 to 16:9 and not lose much. Trying to crop from 16:9 to either 4:3 or 3:2 I'm going to be throwing away a very large part of the pic.

    Have you ever seen a 16:9 ratio book?
    lumen capere… because it's fleeting

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NoCal, USA
    Posts
    595
    Thanks
    1,264
    Thanked 397 Times in 115 Posts
    Real Name
    Brian



    I agree with Jim, I always use the native aspect ratio (3:2 for NEX) when taking pictures, and crop later.

    Another factor, is whether you're using landscape or portrait orientation. For portrait orientation, it definitively does not make sense to use your TV aspect ratio. 16:9 would be too skinny and tall. In fact, I often crop my portrait orientation pictures from 3:2 to 4:3.

    On some Panasonic GH and LX cameras, there's a nice multi-aspect-ratio feature. The sensor is slightly larger, that at picture taking time, you can pick 4:3, 3:2, or 16:9, without loosing anything.
    Sony NEX 5N * 2; Sony Alpha A7
    Having fun with adapted manual focus lenses ...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    2,218
    Thanks
    183
    Thanked 696 Times in 303 Posts


    Yep, if you shoot 16:9 JPEG, the camera will crop out pixels because the sensor itself has a 3:2 aspect ratio, so it doesn't really make sense to use 16:9 (except if you shoot RAW+JPEG).

    NEX-7 . Touit 2.8/12 . Sonnar T* E 1.8/24 . Mitakon 0.95/35 . Touit 2.8/50M
    500px . Flickr . 1x . Tumblr


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    I see your points. Especially about the portrait orientation. I haven't given that any though
    Good point about cropping

    I think I'll try 3:2 (sorry, I said 4:3) for a while

    Thanks guys.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts



    Always best to with the standard and then adjust in software later. The 3:2 always looks fine on my 16:9 computer screen.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Links on this page may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Latest Member Ads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0