4:3, 3:2 or 16:9?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Florida Nature Photographer
Contributing MemberPosts: 890
Like?
Re: 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9?
In reply to MustangJoe, 5 months ago

MustangJoe wrote:

I did an experiment where I took 4 photos in each of the aspect ratios supported by the LX7 to compare the size of each image. Here they are:


16:9 3968 x 2232 8,856,576

3:2 3776 x 2520 9,515,520

4:3 3648 x 2736 9,980,928

1:1 2736 x 2736 7,485,696


If you shoot 4:3 then crop to 16:9 here's what you get:

3648 x 2052 7,485,696

If you know in advance which aspect ratio you want for your image then it's best to shoot that ratio. Changing ratios in post processing will always give you an image with less pixels than if it had been shot in that ratio originally.

This is good info MustandJoe. You took your experiment farther and I took mine. Probably a stupid question but what is the easiest way to get the width, height, and pixel counts?

I am wondering whether you would see a reduction in pixel count if you crop from 3:2 to 16:9 vs shooting in 16:9 since you are only cutting off the top and bottom.

--
Florida

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow