Picking the ideal aspect ratios and other questions related to aspect ratios

Started Jan 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sgt_Strider
Senior MemberPosts: 2,079
Like?
Re: Picking the ideal aspect ratios and other questions related to aspect ratios
In reply to AlbertInFrance, Jan 28, 2013

AlbertInFrance wrote:

Sgt_Strider wrote:

ajscullard wrote:

Gee whiz man, calm down and stop being so defensive!.

I am agreeing with you that cropping of pixels doesn't really matter with modern sensors, OK? Let me say that again, I agree with you.

I was simply trying to say that for the purposes of visualizing your final image mentally, it is at least helpful to have some way that your camera could show the aspect ratio that you are visualizing.

<why would anyone in 2013 still tell someone to shoot at native aspect ratio and crop later?>

None of us is telling you that you have to shoot and crop, it's basic physics: any physical sensor will have a physical shape, be it 3:2, 4:3 1:1 3:1 or even round. It does not deform in place to change to a different shape so it is simply a physical fact that if you don't want to use that shape in your final print you will have to discard some pixels. And as agreed before, this is no big deal. Are we in agreement on this?

On the other hand what you may not have realised is that (I believe) there are some cameras which allow you to pre-determine a non-native aspect ratio and, by using the camera-makers software the printed output will automatically be your chosen aspect ratio and not the native aspect ratio. If that is what you are after then I believe that it exists. Go search out and buy one.

I think your post above perfectly demonstrated the issue of being defensive...

You're missing the point with your second paragraph. Actually, it's been said many time to crop after the fact. My question is why isn't anyone advocating the notion of getting it right in the camera in the first place especially if the camera have the particular aspect ratio available for the user to select (even if it crops away the pixels). I think you'll ultimately end up with a higher resolution image if you get it right in the camera than later on during the post-processing process because one may not know how much is being cropped away.

If you're referring to multi-aspect ratio sensors, I've already acknowledged that they exist and I even cited an example of one.

Actually, I'd say that you are being excessively aggressive, rather than defensive.

You're the one who came up with an imaginary 'multi-aspect ratio sensor', which is something that is unlikely ever to exist. The sensor in a Panasonic GH2 is the same size and shape as any other Micro Four Thirds camera: 17.3 x 13.0 mm. All that changing the format setting does is alter the v/f and the JPEG processing.

Anyone who has shot lots of slides, or worked with movie or video cameras (I've done both)will be fully aware of the need to get shots right in the camera. Using digital (or neg/pos silver) just gives you extra options for cropping and suchlike.

If, for whatever reason, you decide that you want a square final image then you can do it in a lot of ways. Cropping in post is not exactly a major effort, either way.

I'm outta here.

-- hide signature --

Albert
Every photograph is an abstraction from reality.

Wow, I'm quite shocked that someone like you would post something as ignorant as that. I would highly advise against making any further asinine statements unless you really know what you're talking about. Furthermore, what's with the open hostility?

If you think I'm making things up, then perhaps Dpreview's own review of the Panasonic GH2 will enlighten you. :rolleyes:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2

If you have nothing more positive to contribute to this thread, then it's good that you're outta here.

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