Should I shoot digital photos in 16:9?

[Graham Profile Private message]

I've just bought a new digital camera, a Sony DSX-HX5V, and it can shoot digital photos in either standard 4:3, or 16:9. Which mode should I use? I am going to Europe on holidays in less than a week and I don't want to use the wrong mode. I always make slideshows out of my holiday photos. I have always previously had just a "normal" digital camera, and always have just used the normal settings on Proshow gold and am therefore used to black bars either side of the images when playing back my slideshows on my widescreen tv. Presumably shooting photos in widescreen is going to fill the screen, without the need of altering the aspect ratio on my tv from widescreen to 4:3. But are there any downsides to shooting in 16:9? Do the images look odd? I still like to print some photos as well, and this is where I see some problems in that the photos will be of a different size to standard photos and may look odd to the eye. Does shooting in 16:9 also lose part of the picture? What does anybody who has shot in 16:9 think? Or should I stick to 4:3?

[debngar Profile Private message]

-snip- But are there any downsides to shooting in 16:9? Do the images look odd? I still like to print some photos as well, and this is where I see some problems in that the photos will be of a different size to standard photos and may look odd to the eye. Does shooting in 16:9 also lose part of the picture? What does anybody who has shot in 16:9 think? Or should I stick to 4:3?

In addition to my expensive 5dMII camera, I have a consumer grade Canon PowerShot SX1xIS that does 16:9 video and also stills in that ratio. BUT when the 16:9 ratio is used for stills, it's at a lower resolution. If your camera is anything like mine, you may not like the still shots in 16:9. If I shoot video, it automatically stays in the 16:9 mode and must be changed back to 4:3 for stills. I sometimes forget to change it back when I start snapping photo still shots. UGH.

I can't say what you should do for your Sony DSX-HX5V. Review your instruction manual. You don't want to take a ton of pictures only to find out the resolution isn't as fine as you'd like!

[MG - Admin]

BUT when the 16:9 ratio is used for stills, it's at a lower resolution.

Is that really happening? The camera should just be cropping the top and bottom enough to get the aspect ratio without affecting the width. Yes, the numbers are smaller, but only the height. For all intensive purposes you should still have the same quality resolution just at the different aspect ratio. If not, that definitely is an older/inferior model camera.

Mike

[debngar Profile Private message]

BUT when the 16:9 ratio is used for stills, it's at a lower resolution.

Is that really happening? The camera should just be cropping the top and bottom enough to get the aspect ratio without affecting the width. Yes, the numbers are smaller, but only the height. For all intensive purposes you should still have the same quality resolution just at the different aspect ratio. If not, that definitely is an older/inferior model camera.

Mike

You're right, to a point. Checking the screen in both modes, this is what it says:

4:3 mode - Still shot quality (jpg) is 10M 3648 x 2736
16:9 mode - Still shot quality (jpg) is 8M 3840 x 2160

One is 10M and the other is 8M. Apparently there are more pixels in width in the 16:9 ratio and less in the height.

The video review of my P&S by the senior editor at CNET talks about that issue - pointing out that the 4:3 aspect ratio is a higher quality image.

You can see it HERE at the 60 to 1:25 point : http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras ... ncol;lst;1

I bought the PowerShot SX1 IS not that long ago - maybe a year and a half ago, right before the G series came out with both RAW capability and the swivel LCD. It probably has been replaced by something new by now as technology is always getting better and at a very fast pace. I don't use the camera all that much, just when I don't want to lug my 5DMII around with the heavy lenses.

If technology has gotten to the point where there's no difference in quality 4:3/16:9 still shots, then great. The cnet review of the Sony DSX-HX5V doesn't mention that issue. But IMO it's good to check to make sure rather than to be sorry afterwards. Take two text shots on a tri-pod, using the different modes and see if there is any noticeable difference. I would say there is but maybe other people can't tell the difference?

[MG - Admin]

I don't remember which model Canon pocket camera my wife has, but when she selects the 16:9 ratio the width remains the same. I think the camera is just cropping the image in-camera leaving out a little at the top and bottom. Looking at the images full size I don't see any difference in quality.

Mike

[debngar Profile Private message]

When I first got that camera, I thought, oh cool, I can take wide photos. But it wasn't until months later I found out they were lesser quality than if I'd taken those shots in 4:3 mode. I wasn't that happy with the quality of pictures I was getting from that camera up until I found that out and changed it back! Of course it's hard to get use to P&S quality after using a DSLR with an "L" lens most of the time. LOL

[debngar Profile Private message]

Mike,

One more thing... the LCD on my Canon P&S camera is actually a WIDE screen LCD. When it's set in 4:3 mode, the image doesn't cover the entire width of the LCD screen. Only when it's in wide screen mode does the image in the LCD screen fill the entire back of the screen, top to bottom, side to side.

Other cameras may have a 4:3 screen but will do 16:9 and that would explain your reasoning that the top and bottom would only be smaller.

If you take a look at the Sony DSX-HX5V, it has a 4:3 screen..... I still wouldn't know if the resolution is better in one aspect or not without looking at the manual or the screen after changing back and forth though.

Found a website that states this about the resolution in the different aspect ratios:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/HX5V/HX5VA.HTM

The Sony HX5V can capture 4:3 aspect ratio images at up to 3,648 x 2,736 pixel resolution, 16:9 aspect ratio images at up to 3,648 x 2,056 pixels,

This follows your reasoning Mike.

[Graham Profile Private message]

Thanks guys for your replies. I'm still concerned about how the photos will look in more general terms as well in each mode. Once I've taken them, I can't retake them so I'm a bit worried and want to get it right - with little time for trial and error beforehand as I'm leaving next week on holidays. The photographs will mainly be viewed as slideshows created with Proshow Gold and played back on widescreen tvs. Can't say the black bars have ever worried me in the past, but it does require changing the aspect ratio on my tv to 4:3 each time so that the image isn't automatically distorted by the tv to fill the screen. That's the only real downside other than the black bars. 16:9 fills the screen, which sounds good, but is it better to stay with 4:3 because to me you appear to obviously get much more height in each photograph in the traditional 4:3, which is cut off in the 16:9 format. As a "lay" photographer, are my pictures for example of people in my holiday photos going to also look a bit funny in 16:9 because I'm not used to it, and am instead used to seeing photos of people typically in the 4:3 format - as obviously there is going to be more image either side of my subjects. Or am I worrying needlessly? Printing photos sounds a bit of a bother as well if I shoot in 16:9. Obviously I have to crop every photo to make it a normal photo size and to fit a normal photo frame. What is your expereience in the different formats, and do both work with Proshow Gold?

[briancbb Profile Private message]

Well I am used to shooting in 4:3, as that is all my camera manages, but I produce my shows in 16:9.

In Proshow I zoom in on a 4:3 picture until it fills the screen, it is quite quick to find a zoom value that does this and apply it to appropriate slides. The only thing to remember when shooting is that you will lose the top and bottom of the picture. This does not matter with scenic views, which can usually be easily cropped top and bottom, and in many cases enhances the width seen to nearer what the eye sees. There is a need to be careful with close ups and people shots so that you don't lose heads and feet

Making a show in 16:9 also allows room to put two portrait pictures side by side on the screen.

[tdew Profile Private message]

Why not take a bunch of picture today - it doesn't matter much what they are of, then use the wizard to put together a slide show and see how you feel about it. It doesn't have to take a lot of time and you'll know before your trip whether you want to use the new setting or not.

[debngar Profile Private message]

Both Brian and Tdew have really great points.

Obviously I have to crop every photo to make it a normal photo size and to fit a normal photo frame.

To complicate matters, not all cameras shoot stills in 4:3. My 5dMII is a full frame camera which shoots in 3:2.

Here's something else you may want to think about - might be a bit off topic so I apologize.

"Normal" print size is simply a mindset. Don't get hung up over that. Aaron Brothers, a neighborhood frame shop here, carries at least 12 sizes of frames in stock. Pictures can be made in all sorts of sizes and still be considered "standard" if you're worried about ready made frame sizes. Cropping must be done for small 5x7 or 8x10 sizes anyways. No big deal. Either you'll be doing it on your own computer, or when you order prints online or at your neighborhood printer kiosk.

Some day try a 16x20, or 16x24 or 20x24 of your most favorite image and put it on your wall over your sofa compared to an 8x10. Compared to larger prints, an 8x10 on a wall is the size of a postage stamp. You'll never go back to putting 8x10s on your walls any more because proportionately it looks better on a desk. "Normal" will go right out of your mind and out the window!

I used to crop in camera too. But I don't do that anymore. These days I try to give myself more room around my subject and crop later. This provides more variety potential for crop sizes than if I had cropped it in camera. Also it can make it more useful for 16:9 slide shows.

Shoot with some space around your subject for the most variety you can get out of a scene and crop later for to whatever size prints you want!

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Well, my $0.02 (or less) thoughts - I shoot full resolution of my camera all the time, however I do keep in mind the possible uses of the pictures I am shooting and mostly shoot horizontal (I hate trying to make a calendar picture out of a tightly cropped picture of one of the kids that is vertically oriented -- even "content aware fill" doesn't help ). Anyway, I shoot full resolution of the camera with the idea that I need to not crop too tight on the image so that there is room to work in however I want to use the image (if you get too close on the cropping, you end up with stuff that doesn't fit the screen or gets cropped). The summary of that is that I shoot in the best my camera can do with the idea of how I will use the images later so I leave a bit of room around the edges.

mikey

[MG - Admin]

As Mikey stated above, it's best to leave some extra room around your subjects to allow for better flexibility when it comes time to crop for printing or inserting into your shows. With the high megapixel count being offered in today's cameras you can afford to waste a few pixels by planning ahead for future applications.

Mike

[visimp Profile Private message]

I bought a new pocket camera, not the same brand as yours, 2 days before going to San Francisco. I shot in the wide mode, the only problem I had was with street scenes, the houses on the far edges were obviously out of perspective but with the exception of a couple of them I was able to correct it in my photoeditor without losing too much off the picture. I didn't see a problem with the scenery, people or animals. I am with the others, do a quick show if you can but include buildings if you tend to take street scenes.
Visimp

[DickK Profile Private messageWebsite]

Warning: long post. Boring if you're not a camera geek like many of us here

Okay, you all got me going. I just spent two hours of my life researching this stuff, so despite the risk of confusing things or beating the deceased equine, I’m going drop my $.02 in here so I can justify the time

Resolution, pixel dimensions and aspect ratios are all terms that get widely misused and confused—and the manufacturers often aren’t helpful. The resolution of your camera or the image really shouldn't be expressed as xxx by xxx pixels or in Megapixels. The xxx by yyy is a set of dimensions of an image. Resolution is pixels/distance, like pixels per inch. Aspect ratio is easy—just divide the two dimension measurements.

Asking “which aspect ratio is better?” really should only be answered “for what?”

Most recent digitals are set up to capture images of varying dimensions and aspect ratios. The most common (but not only) ratios are the ones mentioned: 3:2 (that one matches the old 35mm film ratio and not coincidently 4x6 prints), 4:3 (matches the old TV), and 16:9 (approximates a widescreen TV).

What happens when you change that setting is simply that the camera's processing firmware changes which parts of the information captured by the sensor it uses when it stores the pixels you will see. The sensor is a fixed set of dimensions and, in general, all of it gets light on it no matter what the aspect ratio settings is. But the camera does some pretty complex “stuff” (technical term, Mikey can explain ) with all the sensor data and it routinely throws a lot of that away for various reasons--unless you shoot RAW--including making the resulting image fit the aspect ratio you selected.

Let’s use my Fuji9100 camera as an example:

Mode_________Dimensions__________Pixels stored_____Aspect Ratio
Normal JPG......3488x2616................9,124,608............4:3
3:2 JPG..........3696x2464................9,106,944.............3:2

If you look at those I think it means that the actual sensor must really be at least 3696x2616 (max values each way) and some pixels get processed out to get the aspect ratio correct either way. For my camera, the actual number of pixels in the result as stored changes very little. I looked up the specs on the actual sensor and it works out to be neither aspect ratio, though it’s pretty close to 3:2 which matches what I’d expect based on the fact that RAW is always 3:2.

Deb’s comment about the LCD shouldn’t get lost here. Another job the camera has to do is process all those pixels down for view finder and/or LCD and hopefully it does that job in a way that lets you see exactly what will be captured and stored. That display has an aspect ratio too and some choices you make won't fit it without the black bars.

Bottom line is that you can choose whatever aspect ratio ends up with the most pixels, best fit for the LCD or you can choose the one that matches best how the images will be used (where best means least cropping).

And that my friends, is how I get “best for what?” as the answer.

Not satisfied with the (very) long answer? Okay, if you pick 3:2 you’ll fit the most common print size and crop the least to go to the other two ratios.

Yeah, and personally I always shoot 4:3 and I have no good justification for that at all!

Okay, I've done enough damage for one post. Corrections and further beating of the equine are fine with me
Dick