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!

the trending aspect ratio

Knorp

Well-known member
According to the Olympus visionaries 16:9 is the way to go, or so I read somewhere ... :rolleyes:
So I thought let's give it a try; dialed MSF+RAW [better safe than sorry], selected Monochrom and set Aspect Ratio to 16:9 (1536x864).
Then I went out for a bit of 'landscaping'.

 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I find the 16:9 format very interesting, and when the GH1/2 were my main cameras, I mainly used that. With those two cameras, due to their oversized sensors, one could use 16:9 without losing too much resolution, 4976 x 2800 (16:9) vs. 4608 x 3456 (4:3), so 14 vs. 16 MP with the GH2.

With 16:9 it's easier to tell a developing story on the horizontal plane without having half the image filled with emptiness. Portrait format is more of a challenge of course, but there is potential that way too. Remember that there were (still are) people running around with Hasselblad Xpan cameras and a 65:24 aspect ratio, and I've seen many creative uses of that format horisontally.

With 16:9 being the standard video aspect ratio, I think it's only a question of time before we see a hybrid video/photo camera with a 16:9 sensor. Video resolution seem to be catching up with that of photography, and an 8K sensor would give 33 MP stills, more than most people need.

Edit: Google Xpan vertical, and there are quite a few interesting shots, although a huge majority is horizontal.
 

Petrochemist

New member
I've not felt the need to be constrained by sensor ratios since I stopped sending films to be printed.
When printing at home it tended to be the paper format that determined the final image A4 being between my DSLRs 3:2 & my MFT's 4:3 favored ratios - one gets the top/bottom cropped the other the sides to fit 1.417:1.

It's such a simple matter these days to crop an image to the ratio that suits it best when using it on-line.

Panoramic stitching is off course always an option too used in these alternate views of Oban harbour (top view normal B&W lower version IR).
merged oban view bw small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Thank you, Jørgen.
But while we're at it, why not 21:10 or 21:9 ?
If we are maintaining a pixel count of around 20MP and pixel density not much tighter than that of a current 20 MP m4/3 camera, the sensor would be very large (and expensive), as will the lenses.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I've not felt the need to be constrained by sensor ratios since I stopped sending films to be printed.
When printing at home it tended to be the paper format that determined the final image A4 being between my DSLRs 3:2 & my MFT's 4:3 favored ratios - one gets the top/bottom cropped the other the sides to fit 1.417:1.

It's such a simple matter these days to crop an image to the ratio that suits it best when using it on-line.

Panoramic stitching is off course always an option too used in these alternate views of Oban harbour (top view normal B&W lower version IR).
Some of us still print larger than A4 :)

When it comes to stitching, that works fine for some motives, but when it comes to catching that "decisive moment", only one shot as seen through the viewfinder will do. In my experience, that goes for cropping in post processing as well. Although it can often be done successfully (as a graphic designer, I do it all the time), nothing beats seeing the composition in its final iteration through the viewfinder.
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
I prefer 3:4 since it's native to most digital backs but also like stitched panoramas in 1:3 and 1:2 aspect. I don't see the point of applying a video aspect ratio to a photograph

I'm building two 30" x 60" quarter sawn white oak frames now. These big frames are a lot of work. 30" x 40" is also a good size. I've made quite a few 36" x 48" frames and they get hard to schlep around
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
......... and 16x9 in 'Portrait' format ? :D
Actually, why not? With the XPan (66x24 mm), filling the frame with an interesting sequence of events horizontally is hard, vertically is really hard, but it is fun to try. Here's one my son snapped a few years ago.



HP-5 developed in Kodak T-Max, I think. It looks better reduced a bit.

scott
 

Elderly

Well-known member
Thanks for playing along, Ian.
Well, I'm certainly not convinced 16:9 Portait mode is a good idea.
How do you like this ?
My monitor is not high/tall/deep enough to be able to view the whole image without scrolling :facesmack::ROTFL:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Aha! But did you try putting your monitor in portrait mode yet ?

:chug:
There are actually monitors available that can do that, or at least was. At home, I have an excellent Samsung with adjustable height that can be turned 90 degrees. Unfortunately, there's something wrong with mine, and tilting it every time a vertical panorama occurs might not be practical :rolleyes:
 

Elderly

Well-known member
Aha! But did you try putting your monitor in portrait mode yet ?

:chug:
It's funny you should say that .....


..... just last month I bought a new larger monitor with a stand that enables easy swivelling into portrait mode :thumbup: .....


..... however, because it's larger than my last monitor it has to be set further away from me on my desk .....


.... and that positions it under a set of built in shelves that will not allow me to put the monitor into portrait mode :banghead::mad::eek::cussing:.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Scrolling Bart's tree and path from bottom up to the top seems a fine way to view the image. At home I have a monitor that can be rotated, but this doesn't work well on my laptop. The other trick is to narrow the browser window, but there seems to be a minimum size to which each image will shrink.

scott
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Sometimes the subject determines the aspect ratio :)

This is almost xpan - *slightly* squarer... and I'm only posting it 422 pixels wide to spare you all the scrolling.



(2 panel stitch - the original is 4722x11463)

--Matt
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I've got a better example. Almost exactly the same aspect ratio as my last post, but by a better photographer ;) Count the number of broken composition rules in this masterpiece! (I'm sure an advanced course in composition would explain it well, but I never took one.)



--Matt
 
Top