Landscape vs Portrait

[andrewclark71]

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this question. I searched the forums first and did not find anything related to my question so I thought this might be the best place.

A well known photographer (Scott Kelby) once stated in a photography course he was teaching, that images taken in landscape orientation have a higher resolution than images taken in portrait orientation.

I believe he is correct in this statement. I have noticed that images I have taken in portrait orientation also have a lower overall resolution or even image size (in MB) than images I took in landscape orientation.

He went on to say that if he wants to take a photo in portrait orientation, he physically backs up to recompose and takes the shot in landscape orientation, then crops it to portrait orientation in post - resulting in a higher resolution image than if he would've taken it in portrait orientation in-camera.

My question is, why is this the case?

 

[D Cox]

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this question. I searched the forums first and did not find anything related to my question so I thought this might be the best place.

A well known photographer (Scott Kelby) once stated in a photography course he was teaching, that images taken in landscape orientation have a higher resolution than images taken in portrait orientation.

The only possible cause of this might be that the camera is more difficult to hold steady in portrait orientation, so there is blur from camera shake.

 

[mister sunshine]

If you were shooting jpeg and the camera's compression scheme used a non square subsampling method, at a very low quality setting, you might be able to realize some small difference in IQ associated with vertical or horizontal orientation, but it seems unlikely that this would be the reasoning offered in a photo class.

My guess is that either the student or the teacher didn't understand what the teacher was talking about.

 

[JimKasson]

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this question. I searched the forums first and did not find anything related to my question so I thought this might be the best place.

A well known photographer (Scott Kelby) once stated in a photography course he was teaching, that images taken in landscape orientation have a higher resolution than images taken in portrait orientation.

I believe he is correct in this statement. I have noticed that images I have taken in portrait orientation also have a lower overall resolution or even image size (in MB) than images I took in landscape orientation.

He went on to say that if he wants to take a photo in portrait orientation, he physically backs up to recompose and takes the shot in landscape orientation, then crops it to portrait orientation in post - resulting in a higher resolution image than if he would've taken it in portrait orientation in-camera.

My question is, why is this the case?

Tripod/head assemblies are usually stiffer for up and down motions than side to side ones. Most FP shutters move up and down in landscape orientation. Most mirrors swing up and down in landscape mode. Therefore, images can be sharper if the camera is oriented so that the direction that most of the vibration takes place in is the direction in which the mounting arrangement is stiffest.

This doesn't apply to between the lens shutters if the mirror is locked up or doesn't exist.

This has little effect if electronic first curtain shutter is used.

This has no effect if all electronic shutters are used.

Sony a7R, a7RII shutter shock with 280/4 - the last word

I put the Leica 280mm f/4 Apo-Telyt-R on both the a7R and a7RII, mounted the lens collar to an Arca Swiss C1 head on a set of RRS TVC-43 legs, set the whole thing on a vinyl tile over 6 inch concrete floor, and made some slanted edge photographs at various shutter speeds. With the

blog.kasson.com

Loading…

blog.kasson.com

Nikon D810 EFCS vibration w/ 50mm lens in portrait orientation - the last word

[This post, like the previous one, was extensively revised on 7/28/2014, and for the same reason.] I repeated the tests of the previous post with the camera in portrait orientation. This is a more severe test, since the shutter moves in the left/right direction when the camera is oriented with...

blog.kasson.com

Jim

 

[mister sunshine]

"analyze for horizontal edge (that’s the edge perpendicular to the way the shutter travels) for the landscape shots, and vertical edge (that’s the edge perpendicular to the way the shutter travels)for the portrait shots."

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11219

Hi Jim,

These ideas seem very interesting. Thank you.

Did you happen to test the edges parallel to the shutter and mirror travel as a control for both camera orientations?

Does rotating the camera make some things worse, everything worse, some things worse and some things better, or is the amount of vertical and horizontal shake similar regardless of the alignment of the shutter and mirror travel relative to portrait or landscape camera positioning?

Is the direction of shutter travel directly related to the relative sharpness of both the vertical and horizontal edges or do tripod mounted cameras have a general tendency to provide sharper horizontal edges than vertical edges?

Additionally, can you help interpret some of the info on your A7R and A7RII graphs, in particular the instance of the A7R at 1/10th second shutter speed? It seems as if the portrait mode is only 2/3rds as sharp as the landscape mode. The graphs shows approximately 400 cycles/picture height and approximately 600 cycles/picture height with the respective orientations. Is it correct to think that in either case the picture height shown in your graphs describes the "2" from a 3:2 or 2:3 ratio image.

At first glance this seems to correlate with the idea that one can rotate from a 2:3 portrait orientation to a 3:2 landscape orientation and end up with similar sharpness, but when I consider the idea posed in the O.P. (original post) it occurs to me that one would want to compare the picture height sharpness of a 2:3 display made from a full frame 2:3 portrait with the picture height sharpness of 2:3 crop sourced from a full frame 3:2 landscape to see if the the idea that a image cropped out of a shot made in landscape mode can be sharper than a comparable image made in portrait mode. In other words, if the unit is picture height and the end goal is an image displayed in portrait orientation, and the actual display height is matched, for example; let us say 12" high, than it seems as if this would need to be a consideration if attempting to answer the question posed in the O.P.

Would it be applicable to compare the picture height sharpness of the vertical edges of an image made in landscape orientation to the picture height sharpness of the vertical edges of an image made in portrait mode to address the original question? And then compare the horizontal edges as well?

Can you suggest how to best apply the data you have shared to the question posed in the O.P.?

I have edited these questions a few times, and now my head is spinning... I keep thinking I may understand and then I think I must be entirely mistaken. :-S

Thank you!

 

[Simon Garrett]

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this question. I searched the forums first and did not find anything related to my question so I thought this might be the best place.

A well known photographer (Scott Kelby) once stated in a photography course he was teaching, that images taken in landscape orientation have a higher resolution than images taken in portrait orientation.

I believe he is correct in this statement. I have noticed that images I have taken in portrait orientation also have a lower overall resolution or even image size (in MB) than images I took in landscape orientation.

He went on to say that if he wants to take a photo in portrait orientation, he physically backs up to recompose and takes the shot in landscape orientation, then crops it to portrait orientation in post - resulting in a higher resolution image than if he would've taken it in portrait orientation in-camera.

My question is, why is this the case?

As others have said, I don't think this is generally true.

One case when it obviously is true is if you shoot landscape format and then take a portrait crop.

Another is when you are looking at an image full-screen on a monitor. Most monitors are arranged to be landscape, so a portrait image gets downsized more to display on a landscape monitor (or projector).

 

[JimKasson]

"analyze for horizontal edge (that’s the edge perpendicular to the way the shutter travels) for the landscape shots, and vertical edge (that’s the edge perpendicular to the way the shutter travels)for the portrait shots."

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11219

Hi Jim,

These ideas seem very interesting. Thank you.

Did you happen to test the edges parallel to the shutter and mirror travel as a control for both camera orientations?

For many of the tests, yes.

Does rotating the camera make some things worse, everything worse, some things worse and some things better, or is the amount of vertical and horizontal shake similar regardless of the alignment of the shutter and mirror travel relative to portrait or landscape camera positioning?

With cameras, with FP shutters and no EFCS, especially if those shutters are wound immediately before the exposure a la the a7R, rotating the camera makes a big difference at the difficult shutter speeds. You don't want the shutter motion in the horizontal plance if you can help it.

Is the direction of shutter travel directly related to the relative sharpness of both the vertical and horizontal edges or do tripod mounted cameras have a general tendency to provide sharper horizontal edges than vertical edges?

There is that general tendency, but direction of shutter travel makes a difference, too. The head assembly can convert vertical or horizontal motion to rotation.

Additionally, can you help interpret some of the info on your A7R and A7RII graphs, in particular the instance of the A7R at 1/10th second shutter speed? It seems as if the portrait mode is only 2/3rds as sharp as the landscape mode. The graphs shows approximately 400 cycles/picture height and approximately 600 cycles/picture height with the respective orientations. Is it correct to think that in either case the picture height shown in your graphs describes the "2" from a 3:2 or 2:3 ratio image.

Yes. The "height" is the short dimension of the sensor.

At first glance this seems to correlate with the idea that one can rotate from a 2:3 portrait orientation to a 3:2 landscape orientation and end up with similar sharpness, but when I consider the idea posed in the O.P. (original post) it occurs to me that one would want to compare the picture height sharpness of a 2:3 display made from a full frame 2:3 portrait with the picture height sharpness of 2:3 crop sourced from a full frame 3:2 landscape to see if the the idea that a image cropped out of a shot made in landscape mode can be sharper than a comparable image made in portrait mode. In other words, if the unit is picture height and the end goal is an image displayed in portrait orientation, and the actual display height is matched, for example; let us say 12" high, than it seems as if this would need to be a consideration if attempting to answer the question posed in the O.P.

Yes.

Would it be applicable to compare the picture height sharpness of the vertical edges of an image made in landscape orientation to the picture height sharpness of the vertical edges of an image made in portrait mode to address the original question? And then compare the horizontal edges as well?

Yes, if you're careful with your definitions of vertical and horizontal.

Can you suggest how to best apply the data you have shared to the question posed in the O.P.?

First off, remember that this difference doesn't occur with leaf shutters or with EFCS cameras.

Also, it gets worse, and affects lower shutter speeds, as the lenses get longer. Put a short enough lens on the camera, and there's nothing to worry about.

It's not a problem at very high or very low shutter speeds.

There's a lot of shot-to-shot statistical variation. Sometimes the answer is to take a bunch of pix and pick the best one.

If shutter shock is a problem for you, I think the solution is to get a camera with a leaf shutter or EFCS and use it, rather than twist the camera and crop.

BTW, if you search my site for "shutter shock" you'll get a huge number of my attempts to measure it, mostly with the a7R.

Jim

 

[MarcoNex]

Some cameras have a anisotropic (directional) AA filter.

Can this be of any relevance in this discussion ?

Marco

 

[JimKasson]

Some cameras have a anisotropic (directional) AA filter.

Can this be of any relevance in this discussion ?

Sure. Consider the Sony a7:

Loading…

blog.kasson.com

Jim

 

[mister sunshine]

Thank you Jim,
I was primarily curious because I had originally dismissed the idea introduced by the O.P. and then you provided some data that changed my thoughts on the subject.

I do happen to work with telephotos and tripods frequently and I use all the tricks of the trade to get a few sharp shots to bring home. I was far more curious than concerned about these ideas and I thank you for taking the time to share your data and explanations.

 

[MarcoNex]

Some cameras have a anisotropic (directional) AA filter.

Can this be of any relevance in this discussion ?

Sure. Consider the Sony a7:

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5073

Jim

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Tripod/head assemblies are usually stiffer for up and down motions than side to side ones. Most FP shutters move up and down in landscape orientation. Most mirrors swing up and down in landscape mode. Therefore, images can be sharper if the camera is oriented so that the direction that most of the vibration takes place in is the direction in which the mounting arrangement is stiffest.

Interesting!

Up and down motions are definitely controlled better when looking at my ball heads. Also, in portrait orientation the camera is off-balance.

This must have an effect when working with a light tripod like my Gitzo Traveller.

 

[JimKasson]

Tripod/head assemblies are usually stiffer for up and down motions than side to side ones. Most FP shutters move up and down in landscape orientation. Most mirrors swing up and down in landscape mode. Therefore, images can be sharper if the camera is oriented so that the direction that most of the vibration takes place in is the direction in which the mounting arrangement is stiffest.

Interesting!

Up and down motions are definitely controlled better when looking at my ball heads. Also, in portrait orientation the camera is off-balance.

This must have an effect when working with a light tripod like my Gitzo Traveller.

With the a7R and the right (wrong?) lens, it has an effect even when working with the largest RRS CF tripods.

Try this simple test for stiffness. With your favorite tripod and head, make a fist and hit the place where the plate clips in with your hand coming straight down. Then hit the side of the head just as hard, with your hand swinging horizontally. Be prepared to catch the tripod as it falls over.

Jim

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

Tripod/head assemblies are usually stiffer for up and down motions than side to side ones. Most FP shutters move up and down in landscape orientation. Most mirrors swing up and down in landscape mode. Therefore, images can be sharper if the camera is oriented so that the direction that most of the vibration takes place in is the direction in which the mounting arrangement is stiffest.

Interesting!

Up and down motions are definitely controlled better when looking at my ball heads. Also, in portrait orientation the camera is off-balance.

This must have an effect when working with a light tripod like my Gitzo Traveller.

With the a7R and the right (wrong?) lens, it has an effect even when working with the largest RRS CF tripods.

Try this simple test for stiffness. With your favorite tripod and head, make a fist and hit the place where the plate clips in with your hand coming straight down. Then hit the side of the head just as hard, with your hand swinging horizontally. Be prepared to catch the tripod as it falls over.

Jim

Ok, got it in time ;-)

Even the slightest swinging motion will have an effect at the pixel level and more.

I always try to avoid shooting in the portrait direction, but that is because I've once seen (in fact heard) a camera (not mine) fall off. Of course that is not a good reason but you become more careful, even with a lightweight lens.