16X9 or 4X3

[johnnyrussoa3]

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?

 

[George Ponder]

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.

 

[Gamely Lounges]

Its not likely that cropping your image file to contain less data would give you a better image.

 

[Jealy666]

16x9 because this is the 21st century.

Do some tests though between and see which is better.

 

[Gamely Lounges]

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/phone/lumia920/specifications/

-sam

 

[Saint Michael]

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]

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/-/1824212/data/2/-/Download-pureview-820.pdf

 

[George Ponder]

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.

 

[vlad0]

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..

 

[usstuscon12]

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.

 

[Squatting Hen]

16x9 is nice for display/viewing. 4x3 imo is better if you plan on printing the picture.

 

[devize]

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.

 

[Jaripi]

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) ...

 

[Squatting Hen]

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.

 

[vlad0]

It depends on your composition... 4:3 works better for some situations, 16:9 for others.

 

[HeyCori]

I prefer 16:9.

Always good for turning a picture into a desktop background.

 

[LeviMonteverde]

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.


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


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-changing-aspect-ratio-nokia-lumia-920-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"

 

[vincent2167]

@ 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


16:9

 

[LeviMonteverde]

Thanks Vincent2617. That confirms it. It's probably a firmware issue.