Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?  (Read 15201 times)

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 454
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2014, 12:36:20 pm »

4:3. Most pixels and the aspect ratio is the same as 8x6, which is nice for making contact prints.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
GH2: are raw films cropped (and lenses often give "oversized" image circles)
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2014, 12:40:03 pm »

If you could get the whole sensor, what you would wind up with would be a few more pixels but serious vignetting (no data) in the corners since you would be extending the frame too far.
With some lenses at least, but on the other hand, many lenses produce an image circle significantly larger than the format that they are design for. In particular
- normal to telephoto lens optical designs often produce an image circle of diameter similar to their focal length (until the image is "cropped" by in-lens baffles and such), so longer-than-normal lenses often produce an oversized image circle.

- zooming often functions by enlarging the entire image, so that zoom lenses often produce an "oversized" image circle when at focal lengths longer than their minimum. (One quick way to see this is to put a Nikon DX zoom lens on an FX body and see what happens as you zoom: for example, the 12-24 DX coves the full FX image circle when at 19-24mm.)


What pixel counts do you see in the raw files?
To be concrete, the GH2 sensor has maximum JPEG pixel counts ranging from 4608 x 3456 in 4:3 to 4976 x 2800 in 16:9, so at some stage the sensor outputs at least 4976 x 3456: does the raw file record the whole 4976 x 3456 or just the selected shape crop?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2014, 01:18:01 pm »

I find that if I hope to crop in post, the initial photo format may not have been framed where I can crop effectively.  For example, if I shoot people in 4:3 and then crop for 16:9 for display on my HDTV, I can wind up cropping off heads and feet.  Often elements that make a pleasing composition cannot be held if you change the format when cropping.  Also, by focusing on the framing in camera, I get better overall composition, angles, etc.  that just would be lost by not paying attention when shooting.  You're taking a chance if not framing to the camera's format when shooting.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
How important is it for crops to completely fill the screen (computer or TV)?
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2014, 01:32:48 pm »

For example, if I shoot people in 4:3 and then crop for 16:9 for display on my HDTV, I can wind up cropping off heads and feet.
Why not crop for the way you want the image to be (in this case, include the heads and feet, and so make the shape a bit higher than 16:9), and let it be displayed with a bit of blank space at the sides or at top and bottom?

Maybe tastes differ, but I find it strange to mess with my compositional choice of what is in the final image and what is not for the sake of completely filling, top-to-bottom and side-to-side, the Procrustean bed of my computer screen or TV, or the sheet of printing paper I am using. (I was happy to leave various amounts of white space around my dark-room prints, and if necessary cut mats to fit.)
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2014, 03:44:52 pm »

Why not crop for the way you want the image to be (in this case, include the heads and feet, and so make the shape a bit higher than 16:9), and let it be displayed with a bit of blank space at the sides or at top and bottom?

Maybe tastes differ, but I find it strange to mess with my compositional choice of what is in the final image and what is not for the sake of completely filling, top-to-bottom and side-to-side, the Procrustean bed of my computer screen or TV, or the sheet of printing paper I am using. (I was happy to leave various amounts of white space around my dark-room prints, and if necessary cut mats to fit.)

+1
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686

Why not crop for the way you want the image to be (in this case, include the heads and feet, and so make the shape a bit higher than 16:9), and let it be displayed with a bit of blank space at the sides or at top and bottom?

I agree with this. At the same time, though, I've taken up the option of shooting in 16:9 (mainly with the Sony A7r) and am really enjoying it. When I first started scanning 35mm film I found many landscape-orientation pics worked well with 7:4 crops, which is close to 16:9. I find keeping the same aspect ratio when mixing video with still images to be helpful composition-wise too.

-Dave-
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2014, 05:10:32 pm »

Good point Dave.  In order to keep them the same size, I even shoot video in 4:3 to match my 4:3 stills.  No HD though.

GLJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60


To be concrete, the GH2 sensor has maximum JPEG pixel counts ranging from 4608 x 3456 in 4:3 to 4976 x 2800 in 16:9, so at some stage the sensor outputs at least 4976 x 3456: does the raw file record the whole 4976 x 3456 or just the selected shape crop?

While I would not bet a very large amount of money on it, simply because I haven't personally verified it, I currently believe that for the Gh2, the raw file will only contain the selected shape crop, and thus it doesn't output the whole 18MP of the oversized sensor. I've never been able to 'reset' it out of whatever the recorded aspect ratio is, and I've never read about anyone using any other raw converters that allowed it either.

I've no idea why they stopped making this type of oversized sensor. I'm sure the cost would be a bit higher due to lower volume, but I'd have thought that it would be an attractive USP for their higher end cameras. Its one of the reasons I still use a GH2 for wide angle shots!
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2014, 08:46:08 pm »

While I would not bet a very large amount of money on it, simply because I haven't personally verified it, I currently believe that for the Gh2, the raw file will only contain the selected shape crop, and thus it doesn't output the whole 18MP of the oversized sensor. I've never been able to 'reset' it out of whatever the recorded aspect ratio is, and I've never read about anyone using any other raw converters that allowed it either.
Try using the Adobe recover edges plugin I linked to a few posts back and see if that finds the missing pixels.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

xpatUSA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 390
    • Blog

While I would not bet a very large amount of money on it, simply because I haven't personally verified it, I currently believe that for the Gh2, the raw file will only contain the selected shape crop, and thus it doesn't output the whole 18MP of the oversized sensor. I've never been able to 'reset' it out of whatever the recorded aspect ratio is, and I've never read about anyone using any other raw converters that allowed it either.

On my GH1, the raw file comes out sized to the selected aspect ratio.

Quote
I've no idea why they stopped making this type of over-sized sensor.

I have a feeling that most users just didn't get it (the constant diagonal thing and it's advantages).

Personally I love it :-)

cheers,
Logged
best regards,

Ted

GLJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2014, 09:42:32 am »

Try using the Adobe recover edges plugin I linked to a few posts back and see if that finds the missing pixels.

From the Adobe RE notes:
"(*) This does not work with Nikon and Panasonic models, since cameras from
these vendors crop the raw data itself to the chosen aspect ratio.   "
Logged

DanLehman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2014, 02:38:07 am »

I recall that BCooter said that he found the 4:3 aspect
good for portraits (not seeing him replying, above).

For myself, using the LX3 which allows a choice by
sliding tab of 4:3, 3:2, or 16:9 (1:1 got via menu;
this came in a firmware upgrade --moved to tab
for LX5 & -7), I found 3:2 least used, 4:3 most;
16:9 is a natural one where e.g. landscape width
or some vertical length is wanted --and widest
angle (~= 22mm equiv FoV).  For many things
that caught my eye, 4:3 fit.

Quote
To date, the multi-aspect sensor is common only to the Panasonic GH1[5] and its successor the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2.[6]

It was & still is common in the LX3/5/7, but
was lost to the GH3.

--dl*
====
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2014, 01:23:37 pm »

From the Adobe RE notes:
"(*) This does not work with Nikon and Panasonic models, since cameras from
these vendors crop the raw data itself to the chosen aspect ratio.   "

That's a bit mean!  >:(
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2014, 04:21:10 am »

The Gh3's I mostly use for video so the format is usually 16x9.  

The stills from the gh3 can be set at 16x9, 23, 43, 1:1, but the panasonic crops the raw image to whatever format you set (go figure).

For 43 stills I use the olympus em1 and em5 and they do not crop the raw images regardless of the format you set in the camera (for stills).

The em-1 has a slight line in it if you set it for 4:3 that defines the 2:3 crop which is great for horizontals.

I wish they'd all just shoot the full 43 resolution and give you access in the camera with the slight lines for horizontal 23 and vertical 43.

It really doesn't matter because the Olympus shoots a much superior still, the gh3's great video.

IMO

BC

P.S.  One thing.   The Olympus is a beautiful and well built camera and I love it, though it's not the most intuitive in the world.

The gh3 and soon the gh4 are very intuitive and have an easy menu, just the right amount of actually switches and buttons and do great autofocus.

I wish the gh3/4 had a little more style to it as the olympus which is a beautiful machine.    

The panasonics, as good as they are (which is very, very good) look like they were designed by the guy that does tupperware and the plastic trash bins outside your house.

Still combining the two systems makes sense and is easy since they use the same format lenses.

Logged

G*

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2014, 08:05:32 am »

I whish camera makers would take in-camera composition more seriously. I talked to a Sony guy recently and asked him why the a7r does not support 1:1. He looked at me like I was asking him what an "au-to-mo-bile" does. His reply was "Well, you buy photoshop, you make a square selection, you erase what’s around it." I told him that he should not expect me to hand over the money for an a7r.
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2014, 02:53:43 pm »

I whish camera makers would take in-camera composition more seriously.

Obviously Mirrorless is very price aware and I think is worried about breaking into higher priced dslr territory.

I'd love to see a professional mirrorless camera, that stopped worrying about addning another $700 to $1000 on the retail price.

Take the em1.  It's a great camera, maybe overall the best camera I've used, (for stills).   The menu is complicated because it doesn't return back to where you finished (which makes no sense) but overall the camera is jewel like and offers a lot of quality in image and shooting.

Olympus makes a vf-4 add on viewfinder.   for the em-1 it moves your nose off the rear screen, it adds waist level functionality, but it takes up the hot shoe slot, with no thought about adding another flash or something like a pocket wizard.   At least they put an old fashion pc plug in it (which they didn't do on the em-5) but you have to find a place to mount a flash or a slave and it is just a base oversight that they didn't embed a hotshoe on the vf-4.      

Same with tethering.  Sony kind of does it, olympus, fuji, panasonic and olympus just don't, and honestly what does that take, a firmware update?

I think it's just an oversight that they think that only an advanced amateur will work with their cameras and all professionals use 10 year old designed dslrs and only medium format.

I guess I could understand it if the camera companies were selling everything they made and their sales were going up, but the reverse is happening and they are

It's funny, after using the m43 cameras which gives you wysiwyg, I just bought a Leica S2 (the first version) and the first thing I noticed looking through an ovf for the first time in 3 months, was when I moved the knobs nothing happened in the viewfinder.   At first I thought, wow something is wrong.

Crazy, because 6 months ago I felt the opposite and evf.      

Mirrorless has the ability to really change how we all work, but we really, really need a professional version of one of these cameras, without any missed functions, especially easy ones like tethering.

IMO

BC



Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2014, 03:51:56 pm »

I have to say when I looked through the X-T1's viewfinder and started playing around with film looks and getting as you describe a wysiwig view, it felt this is exactly how digital cameras with viewfinders should work. I've often using a pocket camera that way with the rear screen.
And also unlike using OVFs you will get to see the actual true DoF when using a wide aperture lens. Using an f1.4 lens with Canon's groundglass which reduces DoF to an apparent F2.8 makes for difficult focusing and also tricky composing as the DoF is so very different.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

iau

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2014, 02:42:59 am »

I use 3:2 because I prefer that aspect ratio. With 4:3 I get either too much sky or too much foreground. Maybe 16:9 would be more appealing for landscapes, but I have never really tried that.
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2014, 05:47:55 am »

From the Adobe RE notes:
"(*) This does not work with Nikon and Panasonic models, since cameras from
these vendors crop the raw data itself to the chosen aspect ratio.   "
I guess there might be sensible arguments for reading out only parts of the sensor. I.e. heat, energy consumption, framerates etc.

From a simplistic "lenses are expensive and hard to make" viewpoint, it sure sounds reasonable to try to capture as much as possible of the image circle.

I do remember the transition from 4:3 to 16:9 where family & friends were constantly trying to keep their new shiny 16:9 tv filled with content that tended to be 4:3. I occasionally see tv programmes that seems to have been 16:9 letterboxed into 4:3 letterboxed into 16:9 letterboxed into.... It seems safe to say that the content delivery to those channels is not overseen by many competent, caring people.

-h
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up