3:2 and 4:3 equivalent how?

Started 4 months ago | Discussion thread
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 13,003
Like?
Re: 3:2 and 4:3 equivalent how ?
In reply to Rens, 4 months ago

Rens wrote:

My examples above seem to show more difference than you suggest.

Detail Man wrote:

ExifTool reports the image-width and image-height of an E-M5 ORF RAW image-file recorded with 4:3 aspect-ratio as 4640x3472 - representing only a 0.694% increase in width and a 0.463% increase in height (relative to 4608x3456).

The corresponding diagonal pixel-dimension is only 0.579% larger in value as a result.

Using the 3.73 Micron pixel-pitch that published DxOMark information lists for the Olympus OM-D E-M5, the (diagonally-referenced) Focal Lengths are the following proportions (as compared to the 43.267mm diagonal of a 36mm x 24mm 35mm film frame-size divided by a Crop Factor of 2.0).

1.009248 times Focal Length for 4608x3456

1.003118 times Focal Length for 4640x3472

Perhaps so. Those are the numbers reported in the ORF RAW image-file meta-data. I believe that I did the calculations correctly.

It is also notable that the E-M5 image-file meta-data is reporting "Image Width" and "Image Height" in it's tag-values only.

GH2 RW2 4:3 AR RAW image-file meta-data reports "Sensor Width" = 4760 and "Sensor Height" = 3472 (considerably wider in pixel-width, representing an extra 3.3%), which DxO Optics Pro is able to access (more similar to what you display with your Capture One).

There may exist some normally masked-off photosites within such extra (horizontal) dimensions intended for the purpose of reporting black-level offsets which are not necessarily usable photo-sites.

Edited 4 months ago by Detail Man
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