Aspect Ratio 4:3 crop to 3:2

[Dale D]

This discussion makes me realize how vastly different member base this forum comprises.
To me, a seasoned professional photographer of over 25 years some of the topics or questions presented bring a little giggle to my dial. Not trying to be disrespectful here but as with many things in life the level of knowledge or expertise varies greatly among people. Someone can be a MD, an expert in his field but could have no idea about photography, cameras, sensor aspect ratios etc. Like I know a lot about everything related to photography but I know little about viruses, bacterias, blood cells, bone structure etc.
So I could be asking a trivial questions on a medical forum and might be ridiculed for looking stupid in eyes of knowledgable people in their field of expertise.
So, where I am heading with this is to remind everyone here, myself including to be respectful and kind with our responses and not to be too guick judging others through optics of our own level of knowledge.

I read this one over several times- not sure if it was supportive or negative. I think it was positive.

In this forum, questions are asked because the writer needs an answer that is not understood by him (her), and not a snarky response. I was so taken aback, I wrote to the moderator. There is no place for sarcasm and haughty criticism here. I am appreciative for the apology in post #19.

 

[JeffreyS]

I read this one over several times- not sure if it was supportive or negative. I think it was positive.

In this forum, questions are asked because the writer needs an answer that is not understood by him (her), and not a snarky response. I was so taken aback, I wrote to the moderator. There is no place for sarcasm and haughty criticism here. I am appreciative for the apology in post #19.

I found that response to be spot on, very truthful and not snarky at all. Sadly, so many people that communicate on forums are open wounds, terribly sensitive to the slightest thing that doesn't tell them how special they are. Even kindly stated and helpful constructive criticism is taken like a stake to their hearts. So, of course, in the name of political correctness, that type of behavior establishes the norm, and truth and honest assistance is in the back seat. Such a sad element of our society.

 

[jephoto]

I started shooting with an SLR in 1969 and along the way have had occasion to teach many classes on Photoshop,darkroom technique, Fina Cut, composition and such. I shot professionally for about 12 years and I understand exactly what you’re saying and I generally agree with your point. However, as I tried to say, I'm just not real bright so I often found my self composing a nice image in a 4:3 ratio filling the frame so I do -not- have to crop later and then when I wanted to insert it into a video I was forced to fit it into a 16:9 frame, leaving black sides left and right. I am not adverse to cropping at all and do it often even when shooting 16:9 if it makes the compositon better. Were I smart I would give myself room to do that cropping from a 4:3 but all too often I revert to my long standing methods and that doesn't involve keeping in mind the final image will end up in a 16:9. If you shoot 4:3 and fill your frame with the subject it ends up with unsightly (to me) borders when placed in a 16:9 video. So now I shoot in a 16:9 frame and make that the final image. I shoot much more video footage than still images and the stills I do are invariable meant to be part of the video story.

If you’ve been shooting that long, which is actually a few years longer than me, and you’ve shot professionally, than you probably remember people creating acetate templates for the back of a ground glass .
Take a piece of clear acetate, cut it to the size of your transmitter screen whether it be a tablet, phone or built-in, R C, and draw 16 x 9 crop lines on the acetate. Tape to screen.
Then you have your 16 x 9 guide to know if you’re keeping the important parts of the scene within that crop, but you don’t have to crop your image to give you flexibility in post.

 

[akdrone]

If you’ve been shooting that long, which is actually a few years longer than me, and you’ve shot professionally, than you probably remember people creating acetate templates for the back of a ground glass .
Take a piece of clear acetate, cut it to the size of your transmitter screen whether it be a tablet, phone or built-in, R C, and draw 16 x 9 crop lines on the acetate. Tape to screen.
Then you have your 16 x 9 guide to know if you’re keeping the important parts of the scene within that crop, but you don’t have to crop your image to give you flexibility in post.

A creative solution.

 

[Filmarik]

A creative solution.

I have screen protector glass on my RCPro controller and crop lines on it! With a 0.5mm permanent texter I drew 16:9 and 3:2 crop lines on the day one. I can errase them anytime with IPA if I want to.
This reminds me of GO4 when I was flying Inspire 2 until recently. GO4 has had an option in the Menu to put crop marks on the screen of numerous ratios 16:9, 4:3, 3:2 including a custom ratio you could create. I miss this feature in FlyAp. Hope one day DJI will make it available with press of one of the programable buttons. Press it ones 16:9 comes up, press again 3:2 comes up, press again and the lines disappear. Wouldn't that be nice!!

 

[kanesimages]

why is this so difficult. first off nobody considers a Border to be part of the image...He's talking about cropping a scene smaller and maximizing a 3:2 from a 4:3.
He asked if you lose resolution cropping down from 4:3 to 3:2. The answer is Yes. You lose resolution. That cropped native 3:2 file will be smaller in pixels.

 

[Filmarik]

why is this so difficult. first off nobody considers a Border to be part of the image...He's talking about cropping a scene smaller and maximizing a 3:2 from a 4:3.
He asked if you lose resolution cropping down from 4:3 to 3:2. The answer is Yes. You lose resolution. That cropped native 3:2 file will be smaller in pixels.

You are asking why it is this so difficult and then you say that he will loose resolution. That is not actually correct. The pixel resolution/density will be exactly the same on the cropped 3:2 image as it is on the full frame 4:3 image. The 3:2 will be exactly the same width just less tall.

 

[Meta4]

That is not actually correct. The pixel resolution/density will be exactly the same on the cropped 3:2 image as it is on the full frame 4:3 image.

When people talk about the resolution of a picture, they usually mean the picture dimensions in pixels rather than pixel density.
The number of pixels/inch isn't really relevant.
Of course you end up with a lower resolution image when you crop.

 

[Filmarik]

When people talk about the resolution of a picture, they usually mean the picture dimensions in pixels rather than pixel density.
The number of pixels/inch isn't really relevant.
Of course you end up with a lower resolution image when you crop.

Well, I would have to respectfully disagree. Resolution to me at least means resolving power and that is directly related to pixel density. That does not change with cropping top and bottom of that image. If you make a print 40x30" and then 40x26.6" (which is 3:2 ratio) the amount of detail in both prints will be exactly the same. That to me at least means that you do not end up with a photo with lower resolution. There will be naturally less total number of pixels in the cropped image but number of pixels per square inch will be the same in both prints hence the resolution will be the same.

 

[Meta4]

Well, I would have to respectfully disagree. Resolution to me at least means resolving power and that is directly related to pixel density. That does not change with cropping top and bottom of that image. If you make a print 40x30" and then 40x26.6" (which is 3:2 ratio) the amount of detail in both prints will be exactly the same. That to me at least means that you do not end up with a photo with lower resolution. There will be naturally less total number of pixels in the cropped image but number of pixels per square inch will be the same in both prints hence the resolution will be the same.

Since pixel density stays the same unless you change it, it's irrelevant unless you are talking about printing.

 

[Filmarik]

Well, I would have to respectfully disagree. Resolution to me at least means resolving power and that is directly related to pixel density. That does not change with cropping top and bottom of that image. If you make a print 40x30" and then 40x26.6" (which is 3:2 ratio) the amount of detail in both prints will be exactly the same. That to me at least means that you do not end up with a photo with lower resolution. There will be naturally less total number of pixels in the cropped image but number of pixels per square inch will be the same in both prints hence the resolution will be the same.

Since pixel density stays the same unless you change it, it's irrelevant unless you are talking about printing.

I think we both understand the principle, so I see no reason to keep arguing about it. Important is that those who asked the question understand what the end result of croping means to the resolution, amount of details resolved.
To sum it up, by cropping full 4:3 image to 3:2 there will be no loss of details in the final photo. The amount of detail (resolution to me) will remain the same. I hope this makes sense and answers the question for those who asked.

 

[akdrone]

Agreed with Filmarik and Kanesimages. Typically the definition of resolution is, in fact, pixels per inch. When you cut off a section of an image to fit it within a different ratio, the resolution does not change. You just dont get to see all of the pixels. On that note have a fantastic day. I won’t as I sit taking drugs for a torn ligament in my knee. Sigh. I am, however waiting on a Mac Studio to connect to my two new Apple Displays. Get hurt, buy something to compensate. ;0) Two more 4TB NVME for a geek dessert will help me smile.

 

[Meta4]

Agreed with Filmarik and Kanesimages. Typically the definition of resolution is, in fact, pixels per inch. When you cut off a section of an image to fit it within a different ratio, the resolution does not change. You just dont get to see all of the pixels. On that note have a fantastic day. I won’t as I sit taking drugs for a torn ligament in my knee. Sigh. I am, however waiting on a Mac Studio to connect to my two new Apple Displays. Get hurt, buy something to compensate. ;0) Two more 4TB NVME for a geek dessert will help me smile.

Photographers almost never change the pixel density of images, because pixel density is almost irrelevant.
But photographers do care about the number of pixels in an image.
You hear them talk about high resolution images - images with a large number of pixels
and low resolution images .. small images with a small number of pixels.
Buyers want a camera with high resolution, so makers pull tricks with quad beyer sensors to give their cameras higher resolution.

We seem to have found a couple of people who don't agree, but that doesn't mean that photographers in general disagree.
This explains what image resolution means to photographers.

What Is Image Resolution? Everything You Need to Know

Not sure what's meant by image resolution? We explain what it is, why it matters and what to do to make images in the best possible quality.

smartframe.io

 

[akdrone]

But the starting number of pixels is not is not at all what this discussion is about. Things do tend to stray and Engish is an imprecise languate. The OP was not about how many pixels are needed to fill an image it was about how an already created image would be affected by changing the proportion from 4:3 to 3:2. The quality of the image remaining is unchanged. It’s true that we would say an 8K camera can make a higher resolution image than a HD camera because we are anticipating comparing them in prints or screen sizes that are similar. An 8k image blown up to 100 feet by 400 feet would not be.a very high resolution image. An HD image on a HD screen that was 3 inches wide would appear as quite a high res image and we might say “all you need on this screen for a nice high resolution is HD”. And back to the OP’s question, if he take that 4:3 and lays it over a 3:2 area and cuts off the excess, the remaining area would be considered my most folks to be at the same resolution. The number of pixels is, of course part of the term resolution because we anticipate the use of more pixels in an image will make it sharper to the eye - more resolution to be sure. But once we establish an image with a given resolution per the OP, we do not change it’s resolution by simply cutting it in half. We have two halves with the same resolution or in the OP’s case, a new image with some part of it cut off. The link above is all well and good but it is in regard to how the number of pixels needed to create a high resolution image. That is not the issue here. This page is perhaps more to the point and discusses resolution more from the perspective of the OP’s question and correctly states that resolution is, for an existing image, a question of pixels per inch. You need more pixels to create a high res image within a given size screen but once having done so nothing is lost if you just show part of that image . If you hold a sheet of paper over part of the screen (like cropping….) the rest of the image is unchanged and we would not say that resolution has been lost. Research Guides: All About Images: What is Resolution?

 

[JeffreyS]

Come on now, people, stick to the science and the mathematical facts. This is not politics! Resolution and image size (measured in pixels) are two distinctly different things. Arguing is futile. Some people use some terms erroneously because they either are incapable of understanding, or the difference between terms does not affect their particular use for the image file. It is poor practice for folks here (especially the leaders) to approve of misinformation. Maybe not everyone is here to actually learn anything new or increase their knowledge , but to encourage ignorance is just plain wrong.

 

[akdrone]

Come on now, people, stick to the science and the mathematical facts. This is not politics! Resolution and image size (measured in pixels) are two distinctly different things. Arguing is futile. Some people use some terms erroneously because they either are incapable of understanding, or the difference between terms does not affect their particular use for the image file. It is poor practice for folks here (especially the leaders) to approve of misinformation. Maybe not everyone is here to actually learn anything new or increase their knowledge , but to encourage ignorance is just plain wrong.

Instead of calling people ignorant it would be more productive to explain where somebody’s explantation goes wrong. I won’t see it as I have now set you to ignore.

 

[Filmarik]

Photographers almost never change the pixel density of images, because pixel density is almost irrelevant.
But photographers do care about the number of pixels in an image.
You hear them talk about high resolution images - images with a large number of pixels
and low resolution images .. small images with a small number of pixels.
Buyers want a camera with high resolution, so makers pull tricks with quad beyer sensors to give their cameras higher resolution.

We seem to have found a couple of people who don't agree, but that doesn't mean that photographers in general disagree.
This explains what image resolution means to photographers.

What Is Image Resolution? Everything You Need to Know

Not sure what's meant by image resolution? We explain what it is, why it matters and what to do to make images in the best possible quality.

smartframe.io

Again, I understand where you are coming from but for the purpose of answering the OP's question, I reckon that you are unnecessarilly complicate and confuse the situation.
I would suggest to the OP that the best way to look at this is to imagine to print a full frame 4:3 ratio photo from the entire sensor of the Mavic 3 camera and then cover with a paper strips top and bottom of that photo to get a 3:2 ratio photo. The IQ or how much detail is resolved in that photo WILL of course NOT change by covering part of it with two paper strips! What will change is the total number of pixels left in the new 3:2 cropped photo because the top and bottom pixels you cover with paper strips get "deducted". If you want to call the new photo with less total number of pixels a lower resolution photo that's fine by me but this cropping will not have a detrimental effect on the IQ of your photo if that's what you wanted to know by asking the question

 

[kanesimages]

Instead of calling people ignorant it would be more productive to explain where somebody’s explantation goes wrong. I won’t see it as I have now set you to ignore.

Come on now, people, stick to the science and the mathematical facts. This is not politics! Resolution and image size (measured in pixels) are two distinctly different things. Arguing is futile. Some people use some terms erroneously because they either are incapable of understanding, or the difference between terms does not affect their particular use for the image file. It is poor practice for folks here (especially the leaders) to approve of misinformation. Maybe not everyone is here to actually learn anything new or increase their knowledge , but to encourage ignorance is just plain wrong.

You come across a a person that has trouble reading a room, pushing forward your own self centered narrative that has little room for the “ incapable of understanding. “.

 

[JeffreyS]

You come across a a person that has trouble reading a room, pushing forward your own self centered narrative that has little room for the “ incapable of understanding. “.

Sorry that the truth hurts. I have no narrative at all. Just observation. Different people think with a variety of abilities. Some of them can see the differences. Others can't. That's life.

 

[akdrone]

You come across a a person that has trouble reading a room, pushing forward your own self centered narrative that has little room for the “ incapable of understanding. “.

I was irritated to even see jeffies post till I realized I had not signed in and therefore the forum didn't realize I had set him to ignore. I thought I was done with this thread but since the mods have not seen it fit to close a thread with such insults I'll try to throw in one (hopefully) last comment. Resolution is one of the many English words that is not narrowly defined. The link below give us some perspective on how it can be used in different ways and why, for the purposes of explaining the OP's question, referencing image resolution to PPI makes more sense and results in describing resolution as not changing when you cut off a section of an image as I have tried to explain. In the future I will try to log on before I read this forum so as to not be subjected to the entirely unnecessary rudeness of forum members in general. The key here is to search for the meaning of "image resolution" which is what we are talking about here from the OP's perspective. Research Guides: All About Images: What is Resolution?