Reading mode: Light Dark

the pixels I lose with 16:9

Go to last post
R

reach0775

Active member
Messages
55
Reaction score
11
Location
AT
I guess this is an FAQ here, but I haven't found a good thread...

I want to switch from FF to either a Pana G81, or GX9 or something from the Fuji lineup.

I'd prefer the Panasonics for various reasons, but it's really bothering me how many pixels I lose when I shoot 16:9 (which I usually do).

The GX9 gives me only 15.1 of it's 20MPx and the G81 only 11.9 from it's 16. And even when it's not 16:9 the MFT aspect ratio appears kind of weird to me. In times where everything gets wider, they produce a sensor with this aspect ratio AND they give it a rather low pixel count. I just have the feeling that I pay for something where 25% always remain unused.

Is there anything helpful (except "pixelcount isn't that important") you can tell me to get over it?
 
LOL - get over it ... :-D

I compose to the format, not the other way around ...

5:4, 3:2, 4:3, 1:1, whatever ... Been doing it this way for about 60 years. Works for me.
 
It sounds like m43 is not for you.
 
Well, I don't think this will calm you down, but I shot with a 12MP Panasonic GF1, and when I am in the mood, I put my 14mm + GWC1 to get wide angle, and switch to 16:9, and call it a day. I don't care whether it is 10MP or even less. I care the pictures I shot. They could be better (and not by adding more details).

--
------------------------------------------------
http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos
 
Last edited:
JaKing said:
LOL - get over it ... :-D

I compose to the format, not the other way around ...
Click to expand...
I frame for the composition, not the other way around...

1. Find the perspective

2. Find the field of view

3. Find the time

4. Take the shot.
 
this is for sure perfectly legit for your kind of photography.

I'm doing "travel documentation" = not creative (because I'm not), just catch what I saw on the sensor and view it some time later on screen or TV, both 16:9.
 
reach0775 said:
I guess this is an FAQ here, but I haven't found a good thread...

I want to switch from FF to either a Pana G81, or GX9 or something from the Fuji lineup.

I'd prefer the Panasonics for various reasons, but it's really bothering me how many pixels I lose when I shoot 16:9 (which I usually do).

The GX9 gives me only 15.1 of it's 20MPx and the G81 only 11.9 from it's 16. And even when it's not 16:9 the MFT aspect ratio appears kind of weird to me. In times where everything gets wider, they produce a sensor with this aspect ratio AND they give it a rather low pixel count. I just have the feeling that I pay for something where 25% always remain unused.

Is there anything helpful (except "pixelcount isn't that important") you can tell me to get over it?
Click to expand...
If you are not doing any post processing (i.e. straightening and cropping) then you are stuck. I use 4:3 ratio to ensure the maximum pixels (16mp) these days, and if my shot requires a 16:9 ratio (or any other) then I have some flexibility in trimming top or bottom.

All the 16:9 ratio does for you is to force you further away from your subject (or zoom out) to make sure you get everything in!

(Yes, I do understand - I spent 50 years shooting slide film on a 3:2 ratio 35mm camera!)

Oh - and some of us sometimes use the camera in portrait orientation (I do wish the screen producers would realise that not everyone views the world through letterboxes!)

Mike
 
Fair enough. But even big monitors/TVs only display a portion of the available image resolution ...
 
Until we get 8K TV and monitors, you still have plenty of surplus pixels. 4K is only 8MP.
 
reach0775 said:
this is for sure perfectly legit for your kind of photography.

I'm doing "travel documentation" = not creative (because I'm not), just catch what I saw on the sensor and view it some time later on screen or TV, both 16:9.
Click to expand...
A 4K TV or screen has 8.3 megapixels. Perhaps you can do a test how much you can crop your images before you get a visible quality loss on your screens.

Personally for my travel photography I often want an aspect ratio even longer than 16:9. A double-page spread in the photo albums I print after each vacation period is 56 x 21 cm i.e. an aspect ratio of 16:6. We therefore often take a few frames side-by-side and stitch them together in software.
 
I always use 16:9 as a format for my travel and landscape photos and this works wonderfully with MFT.
Resolution is never a problem, because whenever I want a higher resolution, i can get it by stitching 2 or more shots. This is not always necessary, usually 12MP is sufficient. But when you need it, it's available and it's really very easy to do with LR.




8k 16:9 example



--
My flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/156093343@N02/
 

Attachments

  • 3791973.jpg
    3791973.jpg
    12.2 MB · Views: 0
Mark Thornton said:
Until we get 8K TV and monitors, you still have plenty of surplus pixels. 4K is only 8MP.
Click to expand...
That's not my worry. I export my RAWs to FullHD only! I'm only worried about the cropping in Lightroom. With my DSLR I can make up missing zoom range with cropping thanks to pixelcount and pixel crispness.

I'm afraid of losing this.
 
For travel, I find 300mm equivalent (150mm in m4/3) to be more than adequate, and it is both small and light. I have no need to leave the lens behind, so no cropping needed to make up for 'missing' zoom.

Mark
 
The pixel dimensions of a 4K monitor / TV are 3,840 wide by 2,160 high. Even on a 16 megapixel camera, you're leaving a lot of pixels behind. In other words, your demands are not that great, and you'll have nothing to worry about.

I'm regularly viewing pictures on both 4K monitors and TV displays. It works really well. I go from the 4:3 aspect ratio to 16:9 aspect ratio by cropping in Lightroom (I shoot raw only).
 
reach0775 said:
I guess this is an FAQ here, but I haven't found a good thread...

I want to switch from FF
Click to expand...
What camera/pixel count?
reach0775 said:
to either a Pana G81, or GX9
Click to expand...
M4/3
reach0775 said:
or something from the Fuji lineup.
Click to expand...
APS-C: same aspect ratio as FF and available in 24MP.
reach0775 said:
I'd prefer the Panasonics for various reasons,
Click to expand...
What reasons, out of interest?
reach0775 said:
but it's really bothering me how many pixels I lose when I shoot 16:9 (which I usually do).
Click to expand...
Why is it bothering you? Really?
reach0775 said:
The GX9 gives me only 15.1 of it's 20MPx and the G81 only 11.9 from it's 16. And even when it's not 16:9 the MFT aspect ratio appears kind of weird to me.
Click to expand...
I get the impression you don't shoot many portraits. 16:9 vertical is really weird!
reach0775 said:
In times where everything gets wider, they produce
Click to expand...
Introduced 15 years ago. When most TVs were 4:3 still.
reach0775 said:
a sensor with this aspect ratio AND they give it a rather low pixel count. I just have the feeling that I pay for something where 25% always remain unused.
Click to expand...
Funny, I 'see' in 4:3 although I use a 3:2 camera. I find myself cropping the ends off most of my shots.
reach0775 said:
Is there anything helpful (except "pixelcount isn't that important") you can tell me to get over it?
Click to expand...
Not really. Either get over it or buy a different format. Can't see many other options.
 
Some older Panasonic models crop the RAW file - my GX1 does this.
 
reach0775 said:
Mark Thornton said:
Until we get 8K TV and monitors, you still have plenty of surplus pixels. 4K is only 8MP.
Click to expand...
That's not my worry. I export my RAWs to FullHD only! I'm only worried about the cropping in Lightroom. With my DSLR I can make up missing zoom range with cropping thanks to pixelcount and pixel crispness.

I'm afraid of losing this.
Click to expand...
If you're exporting at FullHD, which is to say 1920x1080, you can crop in quite a bit while still getting 1:1 pixels. Here is a visualization of the difference at 16MP:

cfc53732b8c54dcd8751a013a324f607.jpg

Personally, I find 3:2 cameras to be a bit of a no-man's land. I tend to crop for the type of photo I'm shooting. Portraits, especially tall format portraits tend to look more natural at 4:3. For landscapes and city scapes, I often crop to 16:9. Sure, you drop more pixels for a 4:3 sensor than a 3:2 sensor if you only ever shoot in 16:9, so you might want to consider a different camera.

If cropping/telephoto reach is the concern, M43 still may be a good choice as there are a lot of very small telephoto lenses in the system, which is ideal for travel. Going to a larger sensor 3:2 format will mean bigger telephoto lenses. No free lunch here.
 
Last edited:
reach0775 said:
I guess this is an FAQ here, but I haven't found a good thread...

I want to switch from FF to either a Pana G81, or GX9 or something from the Fuji lineup.

I'd prefer the Panasonics for various reasons, but it's really bothering me how many pixels I lose when I shoot 16:9 (which I usually do).

The GX9 gives me only 15.1 of it's 20MPx and the G81 only 11.9 from it's 16. And even when it's not 16:9 the MFT aspect ratio appears kind of weird to me. In times where everything gets wider, they produce a sensor with this aspect ratio AND they give it a rather low pixel count. I just have the feeling that I pay for something where 25% always remain unused.

Is there anything helpful (except "pixelcount isn't that important") you can tell me to get over it?
Click to expand...
I have a OMD 10 II myself and sometimes played with the E-M5 II on those long backpacking trips with friend and I don't feel like carrying the D850 or even the A7R II with bag full of lenses, coming from FF I also hate the 4:3 aspect ratio, yeah, like you said, always throwing away pixel every time, because I always like my picture displayed at wide aspect ratio, on monitor and print, my work around is to do panorama stitch, it gives me much more resolution and wider aspect ratio. with modern software it's really easy and quick process, by the way, I always use tripod. I have more challenge on DR and shadow noise in this system than the resolution. I normally need to do a lot more bracketing with my OMD comparing to my other systems.

With that being said, I was able to make some decent 24 inch long print from some pano shots I got with mine. you didn't mention which FF you came from but you definitely don't get the D850/5DsR level of details but viewing from " normal distance" I think it is still OK. I sold quite a few of those prints at local Art show ( not any of those shown below, those just few samples I have online to share with friends).

37434960062_25b84f77e2_b.jpg


23594136548_fbba8753e8_b.jpg


23594135348_1b9821f6a3_b.jpg


38632768864_cc58d3de32_b.jpg


25490472188_64da6c6713_b.jpg


39938339414_3351330f55_b.jpg


39232076031_e6c7d689d4_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top