The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
GH1 has square mode!
- Thread starter phobus
- Start date
A
azul123
Guest
My eyes could only focus on 15million yen and 24April.
Odd and pretty much meaningless. Well, maybe it isn't meaningless for anyone setting the camera to put out JPG images. For raw shooters it seems to be a better idea to crop in PP. Why not 3000x3000 btw?
If a FF camera uses 24x24mm when making a 1.1 image, and the 4/3 sensor uses an area of 13x13mm the crop factor would be 1.85 (I guess). Now that is for a traditional 4/3 sensor. I don't know what happens with the GH1 and the floating sensor limits I heard about somewhere, but I guess it is the same.
Hehe it seems like cheating to me to crop to 1:1 afterwards. I think being able to compose with a 1:1 view would also be quite nice
Ha! That sounds like cheating to me.
N
nei1
Guest
Terry ,you should be a politician(maybe you are),good answer .This sensor is bigger than the G1 ?or is it just that the G1 is mathmatically challenged.
Good point! Anyways, its another item on the list of improvements from the G1 to the GH1 that I like
Good point! Anyways, its another item on the list of improvements from the G1 to the GH1 that I like
Pretty much meaningless. Do you really believe that removing 1/8 of the image to the left and the right will have an impact on the metering? Are you all into matrix auto don't know what the camera does metering?
When shooting JPGs, something I heard about but don't understand, and setting the camera to digital zoom (yuk), you get better light metering than if you would crop in PP. But not for the 1:1.33 vs 1:1.00 ratios.
There are several improvements done I guess. Anything else would be strange. I can't see the 1:1 mode as a biggie though. It's a good thing, but it won't mean anything revolutionary...
my inflated cents, Cheers, /Jonas
P
photoworkplace
Guest
Hey folks
New here but have been following the goings on for a while
Been waiting for the GH1
Here's my perspective on Square
I have squared every single camera I have owned for close to 30 years now
We are talking film and digital
half frame to 8x10
SLR and Rangefinder
Including every point and shoot film and digital!
So seeing that the GH1 had square I new it was for me
That along with all the other commendable features
On metering yes it makes a difference along with the Histogram view
Also number of images per card
Not to mention workflow
As it is now I have to run every image through a Photoshop Action or Crop when using Apples Aperture
I have always found the Square to be a better ratio for my vision
Lastly a square means that you can operate the camera in a single orientation
To that end I have also modified my cameras to be held in the vertical orientation with a flash mount above the vertical access
This all allows me to hold the bulk of the camera to my right so as not to hide my face from the people I'm photographing
Also I keep both eyes open while photographing
Well hope this was not over the top but Square is very close to my heart
New here but have been following the goings on for a while
Been waiting for the GH1
Here's my perspective on Square
I have squared every single camera I have owned for close to 30 years now
We are talking film and digital
half frame to 8x10
SLR and Rangefinder
Including every point and shoot film and digital!
So seeing that the GH1 had square I new it was for me
That along with all the other commendable features
On metering yes it makes a difference along with the Histogram view
Also number of images per card
Not to mention workflow
As it is now I have to run every image through a Photoshop Action or Crop when using Apples Aperture
I have always found the Square to be a better ratio for my vision
Lastly a square means that you can operate the camera in a single orientation
To that end I have also modified my cameras to be held in the vertical orientation with a flash mount above the vertical access
This all allows me to hold the bulk of the camera to my right so as not to hide my face from the people I'm photographing
Also I keep both eyes open while photographing
Well hope this was not over the top but Square is very close to my heart
Last edited:
R
Ranger 9
Guest
I'll tell you why it's good in general to be able to shoot roughly the same way you intend for the final image to look: shape, color/grayscale, etc. It's because of other people -- specifically, other people who might need to look at the image on the camera LCD or otherwise before it goes through post-production. That might be the subject, the customer, the art director, or whomever.
If you can't show the image roughly as it will look in its final form, you will get into conversations like the following, which is very similar to conversations I've had many times:
PHOTOGRAPHER: Now, the camera shoots this picture as a rectangle, but afterward we'll crop it down so it will be square like you want. Understand?
OTHER PERSON: Sure.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Great. Just repeat it back to me so I'll know you've got it.
OTHER PERSON: The camera shoots the picture as a rectangle, and we'll make it square later.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Right. So you understand that we'll be shooting a rectangle and later we'll make it square.
O.P.: Of course. I'm not dense, you know. Shoot rectangle, make square later. Fine.
P: Terrific. Here's a sworn statement saying you understand that we'll shoot the picture as a rectangle and make it square later. Would you just prick your finger and sign it in blood, please?
O.P.: Uhhhh.... well, okay, if that's what you want.
[Statement gets signed. Photographer sets up and starts to make pictures. Click, click, click...]
O.P.: How do they look? Can I see them?
P: Sure, let me just punch them up on the display... there! How's that? Looks great, doesn't it?
O.P.: Well, yeah, but... I need this picture to be square.
P
photoworkplace
Guest
Been there done that
OK OK OK.
Being able to put the camera to 1:1 is great, or even fantastic.
I admit I never thought about showing images for dense customers as I don't have any customers. I also never had any troubles with the histogram or exposure as I guess the centerweighted and the spot (my mode) meter works as fine in both modes (4:3 or 1:1). But I respect your input as you are talking about aspects I haven't thought of. The few times I have taken portraits for clients it was with film and the reviewing and histogram and such was no problem...
But how does it work? The info I have read comes from the DPR preview and they say it works pretty much the same way as the LX3. Looking at the LX3 image sizes it seems to me as this is a JPG thing only?
Setting the GH1 to 1:1 ratio - does one get a square 2992x2992 raw format file out of it? If not, how interesting is it then?
©Jonas B 2006, 2009, Not square. I'm just almost there.
Cheers, /Jonas
Hi photoworkplace,
Please see my reply above as well, and understand I'm not seeing this as a holy war. You and ranger made me think about aspects on the matter that has no bearing to me but obviously to you and your situation.
I have always been happy to crop. Many of my images end up square or close to square and in another forum I asked for a 24x24mm sensor years ago.
Your comment on the histogram differences made me curious. I admit I have some problems seeing the dramatic difference between 4:3 and 1:1 with regards to exposure and histogram. I have never run into any exposure problems with the G1 (unlike with my Pentax camera, the E-series cameras and the 5D I owned before going with the G1 only).
Have you run into any big differences reading a histogram from a camera shooting 4:3 and 1:1 when switching between the formats and shooting your typical images?
You have done very well with the samples you posted. I like the B&W versions and exposure seem to have worked.
regards, /Jonas
P
photoworkplace
Guest
Jonas
First your questions!
The Histogram is just about useless when you are intentionally cropping
The representation of the graph has no relation to the actual area you are keeping in your final photograph
I tend to rely on the Highlight warning overlay
At least with this I can see how it relates to the area I'm intending to keep
And yes as far as metering spot is usually the best way to go when taking the crop into account
About Raw
When they go through and mask dead Pixels on a sensor this is maintained in the Raw Header
As far as I understand
So I see no reason why the image area would not be saved in the Raw file
Now as far as a Holy War ?
Never thought you were going down that road
You want a Holy War sit down across the table from a bunch of Lecia Engineers with a couple of Leica Ms that you made square and old S1s that you squared, pulled out the prism and reoriented the film advance lever turning it into a waist level 35mm square SLR
That was a Holy War
No offense ever taken when a question is involved
First your questions!
The Histogram is just about useless when you are intentionally cropping
The representation of the graph has no relation to the actual area you are keeping in your final photograph
I tend to rely on the Highlight warning overlay
At least with this I can see how it relates to the area I'm intending to keep
And yes as far as metering spot is usually the best way to go when taking the crop into account
About Raw
When they go through and mask dead Pixels on a sensor this is maintained in the Raw Header
As far as I understand
So I see no reason why the image area would not be saved in the Raw file
Now as far as a Holy War ?
Never thought you were going down that road
You want a Holy War sit down across the table from a bunch of Lecia Engineers with a couple of Leica Ms that you made square and old S1s that you squared, pulled out the prism and reoriented the film advance lever turning it into a waist level 35mm square SLR
That was a Holy War
No offense ever taken when a question is involved
Jonas
First your questions!
The Histogram is just about useless
(...)
That was a Holy War
No offense ever taken when a question is involved
photoworkplace (?),
What the histogram shows us (after having checked what color temp I have to use to get the channels correctly related to the fill factors on sensor before applying any conversion to JPG stuff in camera) is naturalmente the light intensity of entire image. I understand that... My question really is more about how wrong it goes in for your typical shooting. Now that is depending on the subject and I admit I was thinking of portraits where I don't think I would be unable to interprete the histogram good enough also for an image I'm intended to crop.
Anyway, spot metering and blinking highlights saves the day. One should also remember the G1 meters the light better than I have experienced with any SLR camera.
So the metering point is more or less moot. I think. At the same time it is an advantage to get the histogram based on the 1:1 crop only, I admit that. But then again, I usually crop all my images somewhat... I have never learned to aim and frame exactly.
I still wonder about the raw format. On the LX3 it seems to me, by reading the specs, that you get raw only when setting the camera to 4/3. Here we'll have to wait and see if not somebody with deeper knowledge can tell us how it works.
If the GH1 deliver raw format files with everything saved to cover all the different formats it would be great! It wouldn't save space on the card... but it would be great. Then we would deal with a somewhat bigger sensor and have 14MP to play with. Too good to be true?
And watch out...! I have used Leica cameras and still have a couple of lenses, lol. But... I don't see somebody's choice of camera as a religious thing.
Cheers, /Jonas
P
photoworkplace
Guest
Jonas
As for an example (Histogram)
Quite often I will have a light source out of my cropped frame behind a person who is in the shadow
Similar to your photograph posted
So in that situation the Histogram goes out the window
And as far as being a camera zealot
Not me, I curse at all cameras equally
And I've been through most every format and manufacturer
Joseph
As for an example (Histogram)
Quite often I will have a light source out of my cropped frame behind a person who is in the shadow
Similar to your photograph posted
So in that situation the Histogram goes out the window
And as far as being a camera zealot
Not me, I curse at all cameras equally
And I've been through most every format and manufacturer
Joseph
apicius9
New member
Hi,
this may be a totally naive question, but here it is: I would assume that with a 1:1 format the center of the sensor would be used? Wouldn't that also mean that the vignetting we see with the wide angles in the c-mount cine lenses would disappear or at least be minimized?
So much to learn, thanks,
Stefan
this may be a totally naive question, but here it is: I would assume that with a 1:1 format the center of the sensor would be used? Wouldn't that also mean that the vignetting we see with the wide angles in the c-mount cine lenses would disappear or at least be minimized?
So much to learn, thanks,
Stefan
Riley
New member
i think that *if* something like this has one advantage it is this, that you see what you shoot, its already edited to the frame size intended and the EVF/LCD displays that.
Rather like shooting in B&W mode, there is no denying that there is some advantage in '''seeing in B&W''', of course it also means that you can never go back, and cannot offer a colour example, same same for square mode....
Oh and Stefan,.....yes
Rather like shooting in B&W mode, there is no denying that there is some advantage in '''seeing in B&W''', of course it also means that you can never go back, and cannot offer a colour example, same same for square mode....
Oh and Stefan,.....yes
Last edited:
R
Ranger 9
Guest
If you're shooting in raw format, the color is still there even when you've got the camera set to B&W mode. You get to view B&W in the camera to check for tonal mergers etc. -- but if you later decide a color image would have been better, you can re-process the raw file as color instead.
(Adobe Lightroom, which is what I use for managing raw files, doesn't even recognize the G1's B&W-mode flag -- it displays the images as color unless you explicitly change them to grayscale.)
Another advantage to raw format for B&W shooting is that you can post-apply the same kinds of effects you'd normally get with a filter over the lens: If you want green foliage to look brighter, you can boost the greens, or cut back the blue to make clouds stand out more (same as using a yellow filter) etc. I've recently discovered that this technique also can be used to make high-ISO B&W images appear less noisy; by tweaking the individual color controls, you often can find an optimum setting that minimizes overall noise.