16:9 vs 4:3 vs3:2 format question

I never thought much about changing the default format on a p&s camera. My new Panasonic LX3 has 3 options 16:9 vs 4:3 vs 3:2.

Other than the wide format of the 16:9 which is obvious, how does changing the format effect the image? IOW, does using the 16:9 actually make the image wider than 24mm which is the width of this specific lens. If so, does it also effect the actual image? How does 4:3 differ from 3:2 - same question?

This is probably a really dumb question, but I don't quite "get it."

Thanks for an explanation for dummies!

Liz

Hi Liz,

Most camera's that offer different aspect ratio's just crop the in camera image to whatever aspect ratio you have selected, which results in lost pixels and loss in angle of view.

However, Panasonic does it a little differently. They actually use different area's of the imaging sensor for each aspect ratio, so that the angle of view stays the same no matter what aspect ratio you are using. Also because it's not just a crop, you don't lose as many pixels from the image since pixels are being added to sides depending on what aspect ratio you have selected.

Here's what my FZ7K does:

4:3 aspect ratio: Full sensor area is employed, unless you lower the resolution to - 4m, then only the center of the sensor is used. This provides the so-called "extended optical zoom", which in reality is also just a crop. Using EZ at 3-megapixels makes for an 35-mm equivalent zoom of 36-594mm.

3:2 aspect ratio: The top/bottom of the frame is automatically cropped, thus giving a maximum resolution of only 5m. By lowering it to 2.5m, the center area of the sensor is further cropped - "extended optical zoom".

16:9 aspect ratio: Here, the highest resolution obtainable is 4.5 megapixels, since severe cropping is needed to achieve this aspect ratio. EZ works at 2 megapixels.

By "cropped" I mean that the edges of the sensor are not used, and only the center ones are. Resolution is lost as well as top/bottom framing area.

All it does is crop. The sensor is 4:3, everything else just crops down from that to meet whatever setting you choose.

NOT on the LX3!! It's not just a crop!! You gain pixels on the long side so it keeps the angle of view!!

This is unique to Panasonic right now, only found in the TZ5 and LX3.

Yes, it is just a crop, but the LX3 has a 3:2 sensor, so the 4:3 and 16:9 are crops, with the 3:2 being native.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Yes, it is just a crop, but the LX3 has a 3:2 sensor, so the 4:3 and 16:9 are crops, with the 3:2 being native.

---

Correct.

A few pixels are added to the edges for 4:3 and 16:9 - but there is still some amount of cropping.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/

No, they are not just crops. It uses different areas of the imaging sensor for each aspect ratio, which is how it keeps the angle of view for each aspect ratio. I believe over at cameralabs.com they have an explanation and examples in their review and video.

Here's a diagram I found comparing how the LX2 handled different aspect ratio's vs how the LX3 does it. Even though the LX2 had a 16:9 sensor, it is similar to other cams in the fact that different AR's were just nothing more than crops resulting in different angles of view.

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/pa...ges/asp/AR.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canuck935

It uses different areas of the imaging sensor for each aspect ratio, which is how it keeps the angle of view for each aspect ratio.

---

In some circles, using different sub-areas of a fixed area is called cropping.

I hate linking to this (forgive me John) but scroll down to the "Multi-aspect ratio" section.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/

NEVER MIND, Alex beat me to the punch.

Ok, seriously, bad etiquette of hot-linking another site's graphic aside, I really don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

One crops and changes angles of view.

The other one crops and retains the angle of view.

Explain to me, please, what world you live in where cutting a smaller square out of a big square does not equate a crop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastian

In some circles, using different sub-areas of a fixed area is called cropping.

---

Well sure I'll have to agree with you there. With the LX3, none of it's aspect ratio's use the entire sensor though, so every aspect ratio it uses is a crop. You achieve maximun pixel count with the 4:3 format since it's so much taller than the other formats. What sets apart the TZ5 and LX3 from other camera's is the fact that it keeps the angle of view for any given focal length for any of it's aspect ratio's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canuck935

What sets apart the TZ5 and LX3 from other camera's is the fact that it keeps the angle of view for any given focal length for any of it's aspect ratio's.

---

Well right, no one's been arguing that.

Still, any chance you could remove the hotlinked graphic? It's really not cool to be using a site's bandwidth without giving them the resulting ad revenue.

EDIT: Thanks!

Yeah, I've turned it into a standard link. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canuck935

Yeah, I've turned it into a standard link. :thumbsup:

---

Thanks! All these sites are in competition, but I know that the ad dollars don't come pouring in so I encourage people to be respectful of their bandwidth. :)

Thanks everyone. Okay, I get it!

Just one more comment/question/assumption. Excuse my technically challenged thinking process. :rolleyes: I'm assuming any affect on IQ would be negligible - although 4:3 uses most of the sensor. Am I correct?



Liz

Image quality can't possibly be affected by different crops of an image, just like an image doesn't get better or worse when you crop it in post.

It's true that the 4:3 gets you the most used pixels, but I'd take the wider FOV of the other two ratios instead. On 4:3 that lovely 24mm lens just doesn't get quite as wide a coverage.

4:3 Aspect Ratio:
• 3648 x 2736 pixels = 9,980,928 pixels

3:2 Aspect Ratio:
• 3776 x 2520 pixels = 9,515,520 pixels

16:9 Aspect Ratio:
• 3968 x 2232 pixels = 8,856,576 pixels

In the end, to get the widest shots from any one spot you would use 16:9, followed by 3:2 and then 4:3. Honestly, the 1 megapixel lost is irrelevant, shoot whatever suits the image.

Thanks Seb,

I really appreciate you're taking the time to share your knowledge (I noticed the quote at the bottom of your post).

It's all quite clear now - and I have no more questions. :thumbsup:

Liz

I'm just glad I could help. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastian

shoot whatever suits the image.

---

I agree! :thumbsup:

Personally, I really like the "new" look of 16:9 (a new format to me, that's all). It's a different way to look at the world. Not better, but if it makes you see differently then maybe you'll wind up with a shot or two that you might not have seen before.

I love the 16:9 as well, mostly because I love how movies are framed. Having that as a default format with appropriate mask in the VF/screen makes it that much easier to get a shot.