What if FF and APS-C also switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

[HDRI]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

 

[Funny Valentine]

Please no.

3:2 looks much better on 16:9 screens. 3:2 also makes wide lenses to look wider. 3:2 is much better suited for landscape shots.

4:3 looks a lot more outdated. Sometimes it gives an oldschool look to portrait, which is cool. My olympus em1.3 is natively at 4:3 and I always take the canon R6 when I know I know will be shooting landscapes.

 

[tkbslc]

The question should be, "Why are there still 4:3 aspect ratio sensors when digital displays have *not been 4:3 for over a decade now".

*except for iPads

 

[HDRI]

The question should be, "Why are there still 4:3 aspect ratio sensors when digital displays have *not been 4:3 for over a decade now".

*except for iPads

Displays would be in various aspect rations (ipads , hdtvs etc)

But I thought sensor being 4:3 will allow any wider aspect ratio by cropping just top and bottom instead of sides with "lesser" loss in image (though any crop is possible from any aspect ratio) . Would love to hear experiences from experts here

 

[NickZ2016]

4x3 sensors are wasteful for video. DCI is 2x1 and many like 2.35 which is even wider. Even 1.85 would mean tossing a fair bit.

4x3 was abandoned by Hollywood almost 70 years ago. Full plate was likely the last stills format that was truly 4x3. Most smaller formats were intended to be enlarged and cropped.

 

[PicPocket]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Any reasons we should switch? Neither is superior to other. The only sensible upward move would be to build circular sensors and allow any crop from within it. It would be taxing on sensor and lens manufacturing though

Few reasons why I think we should not switch to 4:3

• Where will you see the photos? Most screens are closer to 3:2 than 4:3 today (including smartphones). 4:3 will show a larger crop on most available displays
• 3:2 is closer to golden ratio than 4:3
• Wide angle lenses would suffer. I see more demand for sideways panoramas rather than vertical ones
• Stills and video aspect ratios are closer with 3:2. You can minimize crop waste for dual use sensors

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

Resistance - yes. Technical hurdle, mostly no except for some compatibility across existing workflows

We can flip the question - why don't smartphones switch to 3:2 like all the professional cameras? It would instantly make better use of their whole screens rather than crop out the sides. They even have the sensor, so why do they crop away (either for photos or videos)

 

[Zxx]

Any reasons we should switch?

More pixels. 4:3 rectangle inscribed in a circle (circle - our image projection by a lens) would have more megapixels than 3:2 inscribed in the same diameter.

Actually, for photography I would even prefer square sensor, like in medium format film cameras (6x6). It maximizes the pixel count for the same optics AND gets rid of vertical grips. No need to rotate camera for vertical shots anymore.

 

[Mark B.]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

Many cameras have an option to shoot in different formats. So the 3:2 AR currently in use can remain. Keep in mind, too, that smartphones are typically 16:9 and the 4:3 ratio is cropped.

 

[Zxx]

But I thought sensor being 4:3 will allow any wider aspect ratio by cropping just top and bottom instead of sides with "lesser" loss in image (though any crop is possible from any aspect ratio) . Would love to hear experiences from experts here

BTW, read about Panasonic GH5S. It have oversized sensor that allows crops to many aspect ratios without sacrificing resolution.

 

[Mark B.]

The question should be, "Why are there still 4:3 aspect ratio sensors when digital displays have *not been 4:3 for over a decade now".

*except for iPads

Displays would be in various aspect rations (ipads , hdtvs etc)

But I thought sensor being 4:3 will allow any wider aspect ratio by cropping just top and bottom instead of sides with "lesser" loss in image (though any crop is possible from any aspect ratio) . Would love to hear experiences from experts here

iPads are one of the few exceptions to the rule with 4:3. Go and try to find a home 4k/8k display that's 4:3, or a desktop computer display.

 

[Zxx]

iPads are one of the few exceptions to the rule with 4:3. Go and try to find a home 4k/8k display that's 4:3, or a desktop computer display.

That's right for video but rarely we look at our photos in fullscreen on PC, so it's really not a problem.

 

[Sittatunga]

iPads are one of the few exceptions to the rule with 4:3. Go and try to find a home 4k/8k display that's 4:3, or a desktop computer display.

That's right for video but rarely we look at our photos in fullscreen on PC, so it's really not a problem.

Surely that's the point of looking at photos, framed the way the photographer intended us to see them rather than burrowing down to 1:1 to see the tiny details or the flaws in the lens.

A square sensor would mean no tipping the camera on end for portrait format and we could use just a tilt screen. If it were 57mm square I could indulge my youthful Hasselblad fantasies.

Seriously though, 3:2 is fine for screens with a narrower aspect ratio than that or for printing. It would be too expensive to change the aspect ratios of four-thirds, 135, APS-C or "medium format" now.

 

[PicPocket]

Any reasons we should switch?

More pixels. 4:3 rectangle inscribed in a circle (circle - our image projection by a lens) would have more megapixels than 3:2 inscribed in the same diameter.

So we need 1:1 not 4:3 right

Which is why I mentioned circular sensor with custom crop. What good are more pixels if your display is not same size. You will end up cropping them or not using part of the display or not utilizing the widest part of your lens

Still don't see an argument for 4:3 here, when nothing else is a 4:3 medium

Actually, for photography I would even prefer square sensor, like in medium format film cameras (6x6). It maximizes the pixel count for the same optics AND gets rid of vertical grips. No need to rotate camera for vertical shots anymore.

Circular, with custom crop (can be even done later in RAW). As I already mentioned, the challenge is going to be adapting to manufacture - not just the sensors but lenses too for end to end sharpness everywhere

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashishpandey.com

 

[Mark B.]

iPads are one of the few exceptions to the rule with 4:3. Go and try to find a home 4k/8k display that's 4:3, or a desktop computer display.

That's right for video but rarely we look at our photos in fullscreen on PC, so it's really not a problem.

I for sure edit them in the original AR. Sometimes cropped to a different AR, sometimes not. Desktop screens are certainly not 4:3 anymore, so it wouldn't make sense to have 4:3 be a default even for this.

 

[tkbslc]

Any reasons we should switch?

More pixels. 4:3 rectangle inscribed in a circle (circle - our image projection by a lens) would have more megapixels than 3:2 inscribed in the same diameter.

Actually, for photography I would even prefer square sensor, like in medium format film cameras (6x6). It maximizes the pixel count for the same optics AND gets rid of vertical grips. No need to rotate camera for vertical shots anymore.

Square gets you more total pixels by area, but the least possible pixels by length. Whether that’s a good thing depends on the subject. For landscapes, square means a whole lot of sky to crop and less width. For portraits, it means a lot of open area on each side of the subject vs a portrait oriented rectangle. You may have to use a wider lens to fit the same subject in.

 

[JimKasson]

We can flip the question - why don't smartphones switch to 3:2 like all the professional cameras?

All the professional cameras? What about Phase One, Hassy, Fuji GFX.

It would instantly make better use of their whole screens rather than crop out the sides. They even have the sensor, so why do they crop away (either for photos or videos)

 

[tkbslc]

iPads are one of the few exceptions to the rule with 4:3. Go and try to find a home 4k/8k display that's 4:3, or a desktop computer display.

That's right for video but rarely we look at our photos in fullscreen on PC, so it's really not a problem.

Huh? I always view full screen. Why else would I buy a large monitor. No I don’t crop to 16:9, though.



one thing not mentioned is that while 4:3 pictures look smaller on a 16:9 monitor than 3:2, 3:4 pictures look larger than 2:3. So, I guess it depends which orientation you shoot most often.

 

[Zxx]

I mean that's how we watch photos usually. Even when we watch it in fullscreen it needs passepartout so it isn't covering the whole screen.

Do you know anyone who shoot stills in 16:9 because of PC screen? Photo's AR doesn't have anything to do with screen.

 

[JimKasson]

Any reasons we should switch?

More pixels. 4:3 rectangle inscribed in a circle (circle - our image projection by a lens) would have more megapixels than 3:2 inscribed in the same diameter.

So we need 1:1 not 4:3 right

Which is why I mentioned circular sensor with custom crop.

A circular sensor would throw away a lot of silicon on the wafer. Circles don't tile.

Jim

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Run a Kickstarter campaign and see if you can raise the funds for this. If lots of people agree with you, then you’ll have more than enough money to deliver. Assuming that you know how to design and manufacture a high-end camera.

I think square format would be more appealing, although still quite niche.