why is 4/3 cropped 4:3
- Thread starter msbarnes
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 28
- Views 4K
maitani
Well-known
i strongly prefer 3:2, although I have had many olympus cameras in the past.
that's why I love the GH-1 and GH-2 bodys from panasonic, they do native 3:2 without cropping, as they have a slightly oversized sensor
that's why I love the GH-1 and GH-2 bodys from panasonic, they do native 3:2 without cropping, as they have a slightly oversized sensor
mh2000
Well-known
I have to say that I approached this aspect ratio with skepticism. Mostly because 35mm was what seemed standard to me and which I shot the most. Sure, I shot everything from LF down to Minox subminiature with various aspect ratios, but 35mm had been king as the versatile serious format pretty much since I was born.
With my first non-2:3 digitals I always shot to crop down to 2:3, but instead of setting the format in the camera, I just shot in 3:4 so I had some final cropping adjustments and after viewing more an more of these full frame 3:4 images started deciding that I prefered it in many cases to 2:3 crops. When I bought into m43 I just held my nose and jumped in deciding I should just "go native" with the format.
Now I like it!
Also, with the print thing, damned nice! When I have to put prints together for a local show or something, it's nice to be able to just buy precut cheap 11x14" matts and 16x20" frames!
I guess a personal weirdness is that around the time that I bought into m43, I made the conscious decision to shoot everything in landscape mode -- defying a lifetime of training to rotate the camera whenever I thought it would make a better composition. But working with constraints can be very good -- just like some of the old timers who refuse to crop -- full frame or nothing. Anyway, this was born out of the thought that everything I shoot is some type of a landscape and for consistency of my work as a cohesive group was strengthened by sticking to this constraint... and a 3:4 aspect ratio makes this an easier constraint to work with.
probably TMI, but my thoughts on the subject.
🙂
With my first non-2:3 digitals I always shot to crop down to 2:3, but instead of setting the format in the camera, I just shot in 3:4 so I had some final cropping adjustments and after viewing more an more of these full frame 3:4 images started deciding that I prefered it in many cases to 2:3 crops. When I bought into m43 I just held my nose and jumped in deciding I should just "go native" with the format.
Now I like it!
Also, with the print thing, damned nice! When I have to put prints together for a local show or something, it's nice to be able to just buy precut cheap 11x14" matts and 16x20" frames!
I guess a personal weirdness is that around the time that I bought into m43, I made the conscious decision to shoot everything in landscape mode -- defying a lifetime of training to rotate the camera whenever I thought it would make a better composition. But working with constraints can be very good -- just like some of the old timers who refuse to crop -- full frame or nothing. Anyway, this was born out of the thought that everything I shoot is some type of a landscape and for consistency of my work as a cohesive group was strengthened by sticking to this constraint... and a 3:4 aspect ratio makes this an easier constraint to work with.
probably TMI, but my thoughts on the subject.
🙂
Archiver
Veteran
The thing that bugs me about almost every camera is cropping to achieve different aspect ratios in camera. The Panasonic LX compacts and GH1 and GH2 were the only cameras I know of with the multi-aspect ratio sensor, with a sensor bigger than the imaging circle and able to accommodate a full 16:9 aspect ratio change.
All other cameras just crop the image to fit the desired ratio. This means that cameras like the LX3, LX5 and LX7 go from 24mm 4:3 aspect ratio to almost 21mm 16:9 ratio, with no loss of top or bottom from the 4:3 image. It just gets wider. But with the OM-D and a 24mm eq. lens, if you change the aspect ratio, you get something less. It looks wider but only because the top and bottom are cropped.
I've been meaning to do some FoV tests between full frame 3:2, aps-c 3:2 and m43 to see just how much loss of image there is. Must get around to that one day.
All other cameras just crop the image to fit the desired ratio. This means that cameras like the LX3, LX5 and LX7 go from 24mm 4:3 aspect ratio to almost 21mm 16:9 ratio, with no loss of top or bottom from the 4:3 image. It just gets wider. But with the OM-D and a 24mm eq. lens, if you change the aspect ratio, you get something less. It looks wider but only because the top and bottom are cropped.
I've been meaning to do some FoV tests between full frame 3:2, aps-c 3:2 and m43 to see just how much loss of image there is. Must get around to that one day.
Rodchenko
Olympian
I like 4:3 best of all ratios. 3:2 looks a bit too long to me, and a lot of photos in that format seem to lose interest before the image reaches the edge. I used to read about the old Nikon rangefinders with a 24x32 gate, and sigh. When I picked up on 645, it felt very natural, and the Fuji GS645s was my daily carry for everything.
OK, those days are gone, not least because 220 film seems to be almost impossible to source, but I can now have 4:3 in a sensor. And I do. 🙂
OK, those days are gone, not least because 220 film seems to be almost impossible to source, but I can now have 4:3 in a sensor. And I do. 🙂
rwintle
Scientist by day
I'd always assumed it had something to do with the N. American 4:3 television picture ratio... ditto for all the p&s pocket digicams out there over the last however many years. But that was really just a guess.
I'd also assumed 16 x 9 widescreen was simply the square of both dimensions of 4 x 3, but that is *really* a guess. I need to go and read more I think. 😉
I'd also assumed 16 x 9 widescreen was simply the square of both dimensions of 4 x 3, but that is *really* a guess. I need to go and read more I think. 😉
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
When you print in the darkroom, the standard paper sizes are close to 4:3 ratio. So I have to crop my 3:2 negatives or settle with a smaller image.
Digital photo paper is the same way except 13x9 and those on a roll obviously.
Digital photo paper is the same way except 13x9 and those on a roll obviously.
Rodchenko
Olympian
Close to, but not on. Cropping from a 35mm neg to a 10x8 print is a very frustrating process. Only slightly less so for a 4:3.
DougK
This space left blank
On filmmakeriq.com, there's a couple of great videos on the history of aspect ratios and composing for widescreen aspect ratios: http://filmmakeriq.com/courses/everything-you-need-to-know-about-aspect-ratio/.
They talk about the subject from a motion picture point-of-view, but I found them to be pretty helpful for understanding the various ratios.
They talk about the subject from a motion picture point-of-view, but I found them to be pretty helpful for understanding the various ratios.
Similar threads
