Mavic Air Photo Resolution

[Curtismqt]

I went out the other day and took some photos with my Mavic Air. I had it set to shoot 16:9 and in raw. When I got home I was suprised to see the file was at 18mb but the resolution was 960x544. Why is it that low of a resolution? When I shoot in 16:9 JPG mode I get a smaller file size ( around 3mb) but my resolution is 4056x2280. Can anyone explain this to me?

Thanks,
Curtis

 

[WithTheBirds]

You are looking at the preview jpg file embedded in the raw. Try opening the DNG file in a capable editing program.

 

[Unknown Pilot]

I went out the other day and took some photos with my Mavic Air. I had it set to shoot 16:9 and in raw. When I got home I was suprised to see the file was at 18mb but the resolution was 960x544. Why is it that low of a resolution? When I shoot in 16:9 JPG mode I get a smaller file size ( around 3mb) but my resolution is 4056x2280. Can anyone explain this to me?

Thanks,
Curtis

Why would you shoot 16:9 photos? You're throwing away pixels.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Why would you shoot 16:9 photos? You're throwing away pixels.

That’s a good point but probably not relevant when shooting DNG. Is it simply a case of the image being masked for preview or is part of the sensor discarded? It might be the case that the full image is recoverable in post processing.

 

[Unknown Pilot]

That’s a good point but probably not relevant when shooting DNG. Is it simply a case of the image being masked for preview or is part of the sensor discarded? It might be the case that the full image is recoverable in post processing.

Probably not. I don't think I've ever shot a camera at less than its native resolution. Maybe I'll give it a shot in the morning.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Probably not. I don't think I've ever shot a camera at less than its native resolution. Maybe I'll give it a shot in the morning.

You are probably wrong.

When I have tried it the observation was the full sensor area was available for processing in RAW conversion, the suggested crop was that selected in the camera for image area.

If you have a particular final aspect presentation in mind it can be handy to set it in the camera, often assists greatly with composition.

Let us know how you go with your experiment.

 

[Unknown Pilot]

You are probably wrong.

I was agreeing with you.

EDIT: It turns out we were both wrong. Shooting in 16:9 gives you a raw file in 16:9 and not a masked native resolution file. I took the same photo in both formats as JPG+raw and the 16:9 yielded a file that was significantly smaller.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

That 960x544 resolution isn't making any sense to me. The MA's still images have resolutions of 4056×3040 in 4:3 and 4056×2280 in 16:9.

 

[WithTheBirds]

That 960x544 resolution isn't making any sense to me. The MA's still images have resolutions of 4056×3040 in 4:3 and 4056×2280 in 16:9.

For 16:9 you would expect 960*540 to maintain the aspect ratio in the thumbnail?

 

[Deleted member 94047]

For 16:9 you would expect 960*540 to maintain the aspect ratio in the thumbnail?

So OP is likely seeing the jpg thumbnail embedded in the raw file? That makes sense.

 

[Unknown Pilot]

The embedded jpg do seem to be 960 × 544 (16:9) and 960 × 720 (4:3)

 

[G Randy Brown]

Why would you shoot 16:9 photos? You're throwing away pixels.

If you were going to put them into a video (with video footage) I would think you would always choose 16:9, no?

 

[Unknown Pilot]

If you were going to put them into a video (with video footage) I would think you would always choose 16:9, no?

Yeah, but you can always crop a 4:3 to 16:9 and you get to choose what part of the frame you want.

 

[G Randy Brown]

Yeah, but you can always crop a 4:3 to 16:9 and you get to choose what part of the frame you want.

I'll take your word for it ...since I'm a video guy that was tickled to move from 4:3 to 16:9 I just assumed when shooting stills for video one would not to have black stripes on the side but if the resolution is higher I guess it would make since to crop in post...thanks!

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I'll take your word for it ...since I'm a video guy that was tickled to move from 4:3 to 16:9 I just assumed when shooting stills for video one would not to have black stripes on the side but if the resolution is higher I guess it would make since to crop in post...thanks!

The resolution is the same it’s not higher. The pixels on the sensor are the same density i.e. resolution regardless of the cropping you set.

There’s a darn good reason to shoot 16:9 if that’s what you need do you wanna have to go through and crop every single one of them?
There’s no difference between letting the camera do the cropping or you do the cropping.
Also you’ll get a better feel for the composition looking at it at the crop you need

 

[G Randy Brown]

The resolution is the same it’s not higher. The pixels on the sensor are the same density i.e. resolution regardless of the cropping you set.

There’s a darn good reason to shoot 16:9 if that’s what you need do you wanna have to go through and crop every single one of them?

No I don't want to crop them especially if it's the same resolution with just a different aspect...that said, if it is the same resolution and I cropped it to fill a 16:9 screen I would actually lose resolution because it would have to be zoomed (I wouldn't want black bars on top and bottom).
Thank you for your response Done!

 

[Deleted member 114292]

No I don't want to crop them especially if it's the same resolution with just a different aspect...that said, if it is the same resolution and I cropped it to fill a 16:9 screen I would actually lose resolution because it would have to be zoomed (I wouldn't want black bars on top and bottom).
Thank you for your response Done!

I thought you said you wanted 16:9 To go with your video.

 

[Unknown Pilot]

There’s no difference between letting the camera do the cropping or you do the cropping.

There is absolutely a difference. What happens if you decide that the sweet spot of the image you wanted was not in the camera cropped image?



What if you decide, for whatever reason, that you want a little less sky and a little more land?



The more pixels you have at your disposal the better. Especially when batch changing images to whatever aspect ratio you want, and keep in mind you may wish to use that image in a completely different context at a later stage, is trivial.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

There is absolutely a difference. What happens if you decide that the sweet spot of the image you wanted was not in the camera cropped image?

View attachment 97090

What if you decide, for whatever reason, that you want a little less sky and a little more land?

View attachment 97091

The more pixels you have at your disposal the better. Especially when batch changing images to whatever aspect ratio you want, and keep in mind you may wish to use that image in a completely different context at a later stage, is trivial.

I maintain that seeing the crop you will get on Screen gives you a better idea of how to frame the shot.
Still it’ll be the same amount of pixels at the same resolution Just as I said.
It’s not about pixels it’s seeing the shot

 

[G Randy Brown]

I thought you said you wanted 16:9 To go with your video.

I do, I was agreeing with you