Get ready for beta!

Halo Wars 2 Blitz: Game modes, beginner's tips, and more

One Windows

Microsoft is building a new Windows 10 Shell for PC, Mobile and Xbox

On the Inside

Everything you need to know about the Xbox Insider Program

Beautiful compromises

Surface Studio review: you'll want one, even if you don't need one

3-in-1

Is this the Surface Phone? Microsoft awarded patents for foldable devices

Windows Central Offers

MCSE Certification bundle is just $39

Even more improvements

All the changes found in Windows 10 build 15007!

Games as a Service

What does the cancellation of Scalebound mean for future Xbox exclusives?

Windows Central Offers

Save $90 on these FRESHeBUDS Pro Magnetic Bluetooth Earbuds

Returning for 2017

We're back with an new episode of #AskDanWindows

Lifetime Subscription

VPNSecure is currently 91% off

Our favorite things

The Best of CES 2017 Awards

Infinity Edge in your hand

The XPS 13 2-in-1 is the Dell convertible we've always wanted

Project Valerie

Razer just made a laptop with three — THREE! — 17-inch 4K displays. 😱

Great design from Palo Alto

HP's CES 2017 releases are truly gorgeous PCs

Intel and Google's big day

CES 2017 Day Two: New laptops, new phones, and old ideas made new

Take five is better than ever

The updated Lenovo ThinkPad X1 packs Kaby Lake chips and zero bloatware

Everything we know about the next Xbox: Project Scorpio

UWPowered

'Game Mode' for Windows 10 will power Xbox One and Scorpio games too

Buyer's guide

Best accessories for Microsoft Surface Book

< >
Welcome to the Windows Central Forums Create Your Account or Ask a Question Answers in 5 minutes - no registration required!
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By Saint Michael
  • 1 Post By vincent2167
  1. johnnyrussoa3's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    73 Posts
       #1  
    Do you guys take pictures in 16X9 or 4X3 and why? I have been using strictly 16X9, but I see that some people say the pictures come out sharper in 4X3. Is that true?
  2. #2  
    4:3 matches the size of the sensor so you're probably going to get a tad sharper image.
    16:9 fills the screen but stretches things just enough to cause a little softness at times.
    Sometimes it's noticeable, sometimes not.
  3. Gamely Lounges's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    113 Posts
    Global Posts
    118 Global Posts
    #3  
    Its not likely that cropping your image file to contain less data would give you a better image.
  4. Jealy666's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    206 Posts
    Global Posts
    207 Global Posts
    #4  
    16x9 because this is the 21st century.

    Do some tests though between and see which is better.
  5. Gamely Lounges's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    113 Posts
    Global Posts
    118 Global Posts
    #5  
    I'm not sure of the true/native size of the sensor, but this link on Nokia.com says sensor is 16:9

    Click on the camera link to get to the camera specifications

    http://www.nokia.com/us-en/products/...pecifications/

    -sam
  6. Saint Michael's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    95 Posts
    Global Posts
    99 Global Posts
    #6  
    Nokia made the 920's sensor 8.7 to make it workable to shoot 16:9. Without just cropping, you use more of the sensors' horizontal size then the 4:3. But the 4:3 gives more of the vertical side of the sensor, resulting in true 8mp. (where as your shoots in 16:9 are 7.1mp).

    But the resolution difference ain't that bad. I shoot 16:9 because most displays are widescreen in my life, which makes for a better fitt. But always use 4:3 for profile shots..
    vlad0 and Subin Abraham1 like this.
  7. vlad0's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,070 Posts
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by George Ponder View Post
    4:3 matches the size of the sensor so you're probably going to get a tad sharper image.
    I am not sure what you meant by that, but neither of the two formats "match" the size of the sensor... and I don't see a reason for why you would get a sharper image. The issue in 16:9 might come from the optics, not the sensor..

    http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/18242...review-820.pdf

  8. #8  
    My mistake. I was under the impression that the 920 had a 1/3" sensor that, as I understand it, matches up better with the 4:3 aspect.

    Basically it's a crop of the sensor... or does it use the entire sensor then re-sizes the image?

    I swear one of these days I'll wrap my head around this digital stuff. The taking of the pictures is the easy part... all the science going on behind the scenes sometimes makes me miss the old days of film when all you worried about is mixing the chemicals and getting the processing times right.
  9. vlad0's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,070 Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by George Ponder View Post
    The taking of the pictures is the easy part... all the science going on behind the scenes sometimes makes me miss the old days of film when all you worried about is mixing the chemicals and getting the processing times right.
    I know eh... it felt like there is so much more to it.. and you had "dodge/burn" ... really cool :)

    And I don't know.. I guess its a crop. Nokia are the only ones that do this.. the 920/808/N8 all have custom (wider) sensors to accommodate for the 16:9 aspect ratio. You can really tell when you compare it to something like the iPhone 5... much narrower field of view..
  10. usstuscon12's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    21 Posts
    #10  
    I have taken pictures in both and have not noticed any difference in quality, so I just leave it at 16:9 to enjoy the wider angle field of view.
  11. Squatting Hen's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    878 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,011 Global Posts
    #11  
    16x9 is nice for display/viewing. 4x3 imo is better if you plan on printing the picture.
  12. devize's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    236 Posts
    Global Posts
    242 Global Posts
    #12  
    I love what Nokia has done with their 16:9 images to keep the image quality so good compared to other phones which simply crop out a 4:3 image. They've done a great job with this camera.

    Anyway, I prefer the wider view of the 16:9 images and I use that. I also can't be bothered changing it in the settings every time to 4:3 either.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails pureview.png  
  13. Jaripi's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    639 Posts
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatting Hen View Post
    16x9 is nice for display/viewing. 4x3 imo is better if you plan on printing the picture.
    I disagree ... 16x9 is always better :) ... except to get a such pic of maximum size for standard papers FOR PORTRAIT printing (A4, letter, legal) ...
  14. Squatting Hen's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    878 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,011 Global Posts
    #14  
    I did a lot of research on this when I bought our last camera. Everything I read from photo enthusiasts websites said to shoot in 4x3. Its a personal preference though. I started shooting everything in 16x9 initially because I thought it was better. I started having issues when I tried to print out 4x6 and 5x10 photos. You lose a lot of the image.
  15. vlad0's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,070 Posts
    #15  
    It depends on your composition... 4:3 works better for some situations, 16:9 for others.
  16. HeyCori's Avatar
    Mod Emeritus

    Posts
    6,075 Posts
    Global Posts
    6,122 Global Posts
    #16  
    I prefer 16:9.

    Always good for turning a picture into a desktop background. :)
  17. LeviMonteverde's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    3 Posts
    #17  
    I'm a 620 user and would like to chime in. I've also been using 16x9 until recently, when I tried 4x3, and realized that the 16x9 version was merely a cropped 4x3! In other words, 16x9 does NOT maximize the horizontal resolution - it has the same horizontal res. as 4x3, but the top and bottom were cropped off to make it 16x9.

    16x9, original resolution = 2592x1456, orig. size = 3.774 Megapixels. Notice that it captured the same parts of the landscape horizontally (left to right) as the 4x3 image, when it should have captured more.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	temporary-3.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	173.4 KB 
ID:	41766

    4x3, orig. res. = 2592x1936, orig. size = 5.018 Megapixels. It contains all of the 16x9 image, plus more at the top/bottom.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	temporary-4.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	258.0 KB 
ID:	41767

    Has anyone made a similar comparison shot with the 920 (or other Lumia device)? I'd be very interested to know. Edit: based on this http://www.windowscentral.com/can-ch...sharpen-images, it seems that the 920 does use the horizontal resolution properly for 16x9.

    Edit 2: 4x3 orig resolution = 2592x1936. Also corrected "MB" - should be "Megapixels"
    Last edited by LeviMonteverde; 08-31-2013 at 01:24 AM.
  18. vincent2167's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    12 Posts
    #18  
    @ LeviMonteverde
    Here is a comparison done with my 920. I confirm that you get more horizontal field of view with the 16:9 set up.

    4:3
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WP_20130825_13_15_40_Pro.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	495.2 KB 
ID:	41813

    16:9
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2013_08_25_13_16_20_ProShot.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	499.4 KB 
ID:	41814
    LeviMonteverde likes this.
  19. LeviMonteverde's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    3 Posts
    #19  
    Thanks Vincent2617. That confirms it. It's probably a firmware issue.

Posting Permissions