>>2757191 So I'm a fucking noob, what's the difference between cropping in post and selecting a 3:2 mode in the camera settings? I mean I suppose I would lose less information but are there any cons? I always thought digital photographers would shoot in 16:9 or similar and then crop in post.
>>2757356 Why would you not know what you're going for? Do you shoot randomly hoping to maybe find a photo in the file afterwards? Envisioning your photo before you take it is one of the very very basic steps to creating successful images... though NOT doing that would explain why there are so many completely empty images around here... Shooting a photo now hoping that you can make something interesting out of it later?
Things move, dipshit. Some of the most famous photos are cropped and some aren't. You usually can't tell, so it doesn't matter. It's totally possible that a picture you thought would look good in 4:3 looks better wider.
If your camera has a native aspect ratio and everything else is a crop from that, I would say it's definitely advantageous to shoot in the native ratio as you can just do the same crop later.
>>2757371 >It's totally possible that a picture you thought would look good in 4:3 looks better wider. If that was the case, what would be stopping you from seeing that on the scene?
Also, if you're planning to crop, and you frame accordingly, sure it doesn't really matter whether you crop in camera or in post, but to frame intelligently and correctly, I personally find it easier to frame for the correct ratio if the camera is set to it already. When you're looking through a 1 to 1 viewfinder, you arrange things differently in your scene than you do if you're looking through a normal 4:3 and thinking "Well, maybe I'll try to crop to save it later..."
>>2757406 With digital cameras you can in theory use liveview and overlay a x:x frame on the display while still shooting natively. I used to do it all the time while shooting videos with 2.35:1 in mind
LX cameras have had this quite some time. The crop settings use different parts of the sensor for each aspect ratio. In this camera, it does actually matter which ratio you choose since 16:9 is not just a crop of 4:3 but uses a different portion of the sensor, so they have a switch for it.
If your camera doesn't do this though, it makes sense to just crop in post.
>>2757255 >new movies and series now bwing shot in 16:9 >soon the only available versions of classics will be "remasters" cropped to 16:9 >overly narrow 16:9 is now the dominant ratio for computer monitors because that's the panel the factories were making for TVs for the last 10 years >16:9 isn't even a good aspect ratio for moving pictures. it was just adopted as a compromise between the 4:3 of TV and the widescreen cinema modes
16:9 is cancer in every single way it could possibly be
I think 3:2 looks fine but not in portrait, it's way too narrow that way. I'm always a bit surprised because it seems horizontally narrower to me than a landscape oriented 3:2 pic is vertically narrow.
>>2757442 That is really fucking gay. Why does 4:3 on the LX100 not cover the full 4/3 sensor size but instead crops in? The red rectangle is a standard 4:3 sensor, but LX100 never uses all of it.
"Multiple aspect ratio" is pretty much cropping the shit out of everything. I'm sure Panny could have kept full res 4:3 as the red rectangle, but chose not to so they can say that their multiple aspect ratio doesn't crop.
>>2757722 I'm fairly certain the pic is wrong and overstates the amount of unused space (I know the 1:1 setting uses more vertical space on the sensor than 4:3).
That said, it is a bit weird. It does allow the camera and lens to be a bit smaller. It also allows for the same angle of view in all aspect ratios.
I will say this, it's actually kind of nice. You can shoot in any aspect ratio and get similar pixel counts for all of them. I think it gives you some creative flexibility from your shots without forcing you to pic one aspect ratio just because it gives you the max resolution. It's not for everyone, but I have an LX3 and Panny has been doing this on the LX cameras since then and I do enjoy it.
You give up a few megapixles, but if megapixels your main priority, you would probably just buy a Sony.
>>2757752 > Max photo res at any aspect ratio is 12.8MP with 4:3. Picture isn't wrong.
That doesn't mean the picture isn't wrong though. I know it's a 16MP sensor which gives 12.8 at 4:3, but all the other diagrams I've seen have 1:1 using more vertical space in order to maintain roughly the same amount of pixles as 4:3. This shows 1:1 as a simple crop of 4:3, which I don't think it actually is in the LX100.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.