Your seem to be making the same mistake I did when I first got into digital photography - that is resizing images to fit your current screen pixel dimension. I'm now having to go through all my original files again, it's a slow massive task because I'm not just resizing them to 3840 x 2160 (4k future) I'm also having to completely re-post process the images.
When you set the image aspect ratio to 16:9 in the camera, it just crops the top and bottom off the image. Where does the 10% more encoding bits-per-pixel come into it?
Yes I like the look of 16:9 too and yes it is the aspect ratio of the high definition future but you aren't preparing for the 4k HD future (and present for a lot of people) by resizing your images to 1920 x 1080. You say 4:3 is the past but 1920 x 1080 will shortly be the past too.
Very bad choice of words in this day and age of Fat Shaming, Elliott :-(
Monitor 'Shortcuts' Folder
I keep my icons/shortcuts down to 1 vertical side line, one of which is a folder named Shortcuts. All the many other shortcuts I frequently use are in there, one click away. So, I can see my current desktop image with nothing but 1 vertical row covering it (nothing covering it if not a full 16:9 image). When viewing in a photo viewer or editor, I can size my window to let my 1 vertical line show, having access to all my shortcuts available.
Disappearing Bottom Taskbar, larger viewing window/image.
You can have your Taskbar dissapear, and reappear when you hover your mouse near the bottom edge. This gives you a larger viewing window most of the time, and just hover, taskbar pops up, do whatever, move mouse, it disappears again.
right click the taskbar, click the gear/settings icon, you get this:
Right click, settings, turn auto hide off, back to normal. You van also have the taskbar show on any of the 4 edges, see the bottom choice.
--
Elliott
short and wide.Very bad choice of words in this day and age of Fat Shaming, Elliott :-(
--Monitor 'Shortcuts' Folder
I keep my icons/shortcuts down to 1 vertical side line, one of which is a folder named Shortcuts. All the many other shortcuts I frequently use are in there, one click away. So, I can see my current desktop image with nothing but 1 vertical row covering it (nothing covering it if not a full 16:9 image). When viewing in a photo viewer or editor, I can size my window to let my 1 vertical line show, having access to all my shortcuts available.
Disappearing Bottom Taskbar, larger viewing window/image.
You can have your Taskbar dissapear, and reappear when you hover your mouse near the bottom edge. This gives you a larger viewing window most of the time, and just hover, taskbar pops up, do whatever, move mouse, it disappears again.
right click the taskbar, click the gear/settings icon, you get this:
Right click, settings, turn auto hide off, back to normal. You van also have the taskbar show on any of the 4 edges, see the bottom choice.
--
Elliott
"Life's Too Short to Worry about the BS!"
So I Choose my Battles
Click for Wild Man's Photos
Exactly.
It's a quirk of the HX400V. I prefer to fit the framing to the composition, and in post, which means shooting a bit wide.
My god, actually shot everything at 1024x768!! I only resized them to that. At least I had the foresight to shoot everything at the maximum resolution allowable with every camera I've ever owned.
Is it? Very strange! A new one on me - you live and learn.
Yes, I shoot everything at the native aspect ratio of of the senor (3:2) then crop to suit the composition if need be. I really don't like 4:3 aspect ratio though and is why I would never buy a micro four thirds camera. I would feel robbed of pixels because I'd definitely set it to 3:2.
That was max resolution, in fact it was excessive since you could only fit roughly a dozen pictures that size on a floppy disk..
This thread is about the Sony HX400V, which has a "1/2.3-inch" sensor, with an active area of only .27-inch, measured diagonally. All your listed cameras have "1-inch" sensors, with .57-inch active areas or the larger APS-C. The "1-inch" sensors have 4 times the area of the "1/2.3" size.
I agree.
Totally wrong in my opinion. Your images will look exactly the same on a 1920 x 1080 monitor if you saved them at 3840 x 2160. This is an absolute fact that cannot be argued with. Only when you zoom in to actual size will pictures from this smaller senor look any worse than a 1" sensor zoomed up to the same amount. At least you will have the ability to zoom if you save them at 3840 x 2160 to see the image at that higher resolution. Saved at 1920 x 1080 that ability is not available. You will see no more detail if you zoom a 1920 x 1080 image on a monitor of that size as the pixels will just increase in size making the images look very poor.
Nobody is limited! If the resolution of an image is greater than the resolution of a monitor, phone or TV, you are liberated not limited. The image will just fit the screen automatically and look every bit as good. My 3840 x 2160 (4k) images look fantastic on my 2560 x 1440 monitor and my 1920 x 1080 phone and TV and I have the ability to zoom to full resolution to see more detail. Also we live in era of of broadband. Are you actually implying we should all be saving our images at low resolutions so people in less prosperous countries can access them in a reasonable time on dial up?
Where does the difficulty come in? The majority of folk haven't got a clue in their entire bodies about resolution and pixels and it doesn't cause them any problems. Take folk who just shoot with smartphones for instance, they take a snap look at it on their phones and it looks great even though the image resolution is probably 3 or 4 times greater than the resolution of their phone screen. Are these people the affluent elite? Don't forget most smartphone screens are now a minimum of 1920 X 1080 yet the camera phones are 14mp or more - does that not tell you something? These same 'large' images are sent through the ether millions of times a day to other smart phones, it's called sharing. The size of an image is generally not a problem at all in this day and age.
Well that's great. I'm exactly the opposite I delete more pictures than I save. But that's just me. I'm old school here and remember relatives and friends boring me to death with holiday snaps with their thumbs over the lens or massively underexposed or over exposed prints and awful faces with vampire-like red eyes - they keep the whole lot and when asked why they have kept certain hopeless images they look at you as if you have two heads!! The thing is they just don't keep this dross they show it off to other people!
Except for the fact that you feel the need to downsize the images to 1920 x 1080 due to the poor quality when viewing them at full resolution with these tiny sensors. Get yourself a 1" sensor camera, anything smaller on a camera (as opposed to phone) belongs to the past like 4:3 monitors.
You say all this about encoding bits and other technical stuff then downsize the images to standard HD - doesn't make sense to me.
No not yet.
Not sure what you are saying here.
Ah, I see the problem now, you've just gone and bought yourself an old fashioned 1920 x 1080 monitor and will never. ever admit you might have made a little mistake.
This is a DPReview thing, having your thread hijacked by anxious fellows who will then fill the next 130 posts arguing about technical minutiae that doesn't really have anything to do with the original thread. You can click "Stop Receiving Notifications" on your notify list, continue posting and enjoying your photography :-D
You know what I think. Steve. You have two identical images but the resolution of one is four times that of the other. Both look identical when viewed on a 1920 x 1080 screen and both look absolutely great. When you finally get a 4k screen the bigger image will fill it and look fantastic, the smaller image will then be transferred to your recycle bin.The first version is in 1,920 X 1,080, full HD resolution and the second, at 3,840 X 2160, 4K resolution. Make your own judgement about them. It would be interesting to know how many people who post here, have 4K monitors? When a camera that shoots 4K and is suitable for me is available, I'll likely get a 4K monitor to go with it.
Be sure to click the Original Size photos one more time, to bring up the full size, then scroll to move around the 4K size, to see it all.
--
Steve McDonald
Apparently, you didn't make note that I indicated that I save all my keepers at both full size and reduced size, on several HDDs and everything I shoot is saved on the camera card. So, I'm ready at any time, to issue larger frame-sizes when there's a need for them. But there will continue to be many people in other parts of the world, with slower ISPs, so I won't be tossing the smaller versions.You know what I think. Steve. You have two identical images but the resolution of one is four times that of the other. Both look identical when viewed on a 1920 x 1080 screen and both look absolutely great. When you finally get a 4k screen the bigger image will fill it and look fantastic, the smaller image will then be transferred to your recycle bin.The first version is in 1,920 X 1,080, full HD resolution and the second, at 3,840 X 2160, 4K resolution. Make your own judgement about them. It would be interesting to know how many people who post here, have 4K monitors? When a camera that shoots 4K and is suitable for me is available, I'll likely get a 4K monitor to go with it.
Be sure to click the Original Size photos one more time, to bring up the full size, then scroll to move around the 4K size, to see it all ( unless you have a 4K monitor, of course).
--
Steve McDonald
I hope I've been some help in my ramblings and I sincerely hope you now make the sensible choice and start resizing to a more future proof size. No, you don't have to thank me.
David
Yes I did realise that but what I didn't possibly realise at the time of my earlier posts is that you don't do any post processing of your pictures - am I right? If that's the case the time it takes to resize an image some time in the future is not much of an issue but if you've thousands to do that might be different. But even that can be overcome my batch resizing with suitable software.Apparently, you didn't make note that I indicated that I save all my keepers at both full size and reduced size, on several HDDs and everything I shoot is saved on the camera card. So, I'm ready at any time, to issue larger frame-sizes when there's a need for them. But there will continue to be many people in other parts of the world, with slower ISPs, so I won't be tossing the smaller versions.You know what I think. Steve. You have two identical images but the resolution of one is four times that of the other. Both look identical when viewed on a 1920 x 1080 screen and both look absolutely great. When you finally get a 4k screen the bigger image will fill it and look fantastic, the smaller image will then be transferred to your recycle bin.The first version is in 1,920 X 1,080, full HD resolution and the second, at 3,840 X 2160, 4K resolution. Make your own judgement about them. It would be interesting to know how many people who post here, have 4K monitors? When a camera that shoots 4K and is suitable for me is available, I'll likely get a 4K monitor to go with it.
Be sure to click the Original Size photos one more time, to bring up the full size, then scroll to move around the 4K size, to see it all ( unless you have a 4K monitor, of course).
--
Steve McDonald
I hope I've been some help in my ramblings and I sincerely hope you now make the sensible choice and start resizing to a more future proof size. No, you don't have to thank me.
David
Well, I think I've achieved something in that case and you don't think too badly of me for trying to point you in the right direction.
Susan - I unreservedly apologise if you think I've hijacked your thread. These things happen in threads - nobody means any harm - we just get carried away.
