Screen iew

[dannybgoode]

Shooting 16:9 just to fill the phone screen is a bit perverse really.

Most sensors are a native 3:2 so when you shoot at that you are utilising the whole sensor - it just doesn’t match a phone screen’s resolution.

The main class of sensors which are not 3:2 are micro4/3 which are err... a native 4:3.

To shoot at 16:9 means a great deal of the sensor isn’t used, as others have said, and this is the same whether you shoot in jpeg or dng.

Personally I don’t see the point if chucking away a whole load of potential data just so the image fits nice and kentucky on my device.

As a point of related interest gave you noticed that iPads have remained stubbornly 4:3. Makes viewing web sites and documents much nicer and even 3:2 photos use a good deal of the screen .

 

[WithTheBirds]

Shooting 16:9 just to fill the phone screen is a bit perverse really.

Most sensors are a native 3:2 so when you shoot at that you are utilising the whole sensor - it just doesn’t match a phone screen’s resolution.

The main class of sensors which are not 3:2 are micro4/3 which are err... a native 4:3.

To shoot at 16:9 means a great deal of the sensor isn’t used, as others have said, and this is the same whether you shoot in jpeg or dng.

Personally I don’t see the point if chucking away a whole load of potential data just so the image fits nice and kentucky on my device.

As a point of related interest gave you noticed that iPads have remained stubbornly 4:3. Makes viewing web sites and documents much nicer and even 3:2 photos use a good deal of the screen .

Fun fact- micro 4/3 isn’t so named because it happens to be 4:3 aspect ratio- it dates back to the external diameter of a vacuum tube imaging device, the same as the 1” sensor in the M2P and the popular 1/2.3” sensors.

 

[ff22]

You probably know that shooting in 16:9 you aren’t using the full sensor. Why not leave yourself the option of cropping in post?

I recall a long discussion of this in a photo discussion of shooting with a cell phone. That shooting in 4:3 gave more pixels and the ability to crop the 16:9 after the fact and select which portion of the image you wanted. FastStone Image viewer has a preset where you can move the 16:9 rectangle around the 4:3 image and quickly crop. The only issue for some of us is that when composing the shot in the first place, seeing the 16:9 in real time allows use to move the frame and select the "best" composition. Whereas, shooting the larger 4:3 requires mental gymnastics to figure out what the final will look like. I still go back and forth - 16:9 just seems easier to deal with sometimes.

Oh, and yes, 16:9 allows photos to better integrate/match into a video that you may want to watch on a larger screen.