Which is the correct Aspect Ratio to use?

[@jaseh4381]

Great tip I didn’t know you could change the aspect ratio using lightroom with a raw file

[@TCizauskas]

Informative film, Brian. Thank you. (You, Huw Alban, and Alister Benn all posted aspect ratio videos to KZbin in the last few days. Great minds think alike!)

[@devroombagchus7460]

Thanks. Very well explained.The ratio simply depends on what composition you want. I often go for 4/3, and crop later if necessary. It's rare that I have to worry about pixel loss.

[@jeffslade1892]

A 4/3 16Mp sensor output can be printed at A0 or even larger with little loss of definition. It depends on viewing distance as the printer dpi decreases. But then do we often print photos these days or display them on a screen? Rule of thumb stuff - An enprint 4x6, 5x7 card, for viewing at reading distance A large framed photo, 10x8, A4 home printer, sideboard, wall etc, for viewing at over arm's length A small poster 11x17 roughly A3 for viewing at 5-ft. A medium poster 18x24 roughly A2 for viewing at 15-ft A large poster 24x36 roughly A1 for viewing at 30-ft A movie poster (one sheet) fits on A0 27x40 for viewing at 50-ft A movie poster (standard) 40x60 for advertising on bus stops, shop, subway, for viewing at over 50-ft

[@thegreatvanziniphotos5976]

Wow! Almost 5000 subs. Great job.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

It’s slowly getting there my friend.

[@lorenschwiderski]

4:3 is just fine for most photography, including street shooting. I can crop down to fit the need. At time a nice free crop is great to do. It all works. Take care, Loren

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

I must admit, 4:3 is my favourite default ratio with 1:1 a close second

[@lorenschwiderski]

@@ThatMicro43Guy Yesterday there was a free concert ( The Soleffect Band ) at Atascadero Sunken Gardens which I shot. I used all sorts of crops to fit the images. Take a look. Just use a search of my full name and I pop-up :). When I say pop-up, I think of the Jack In the Box clown -- yea, that be me! Loren Schwiderski

[@MrCDM]

Brilliant explanation thanks you.

[@joeltunnah]

Even after years of shooting 35mm 3:2 format, I greatly prefer 4:3. It gives the compositions more breathing room, especially in vertical.

[@gamingwithstand6886]

I know wedding photographers really don't like 3:2 because when you print a 8x10 the sides are more cropped. 4:3 only a little bit is cropped when making a 8x10. 3:2 was never made for pros to sell prints. 3:2 35mm was made for personal use and news papers and magazines really. Even some full frame photographers still set up their cameras with 4:3 crop in the viewfinder. I'm not saying 4:3 is the best all the time, but for print work its better. 3:2 35mm I feel is better for making wide screen content.

[@linjicakonikon7666]

You seem unnecessarily restrained by print size. Besides, why are you offering prints when you can offer your clients books in which case 2:3 and 1:1 are much more dynamic than the rather stifling and boring 4:3

[@jeffslade1892]

Aspect - is what you get if you bend down in the hen run. Sorry, couldn't resist - it's an old one. I think we got used to getting enprints back from the chemist printed on 6x4 inch postcard. So that was the size we got used to seeing. Then we got 5x7 super snaps. I guess professionals might have been more used to seeing contact prints but the automatic develop and print machines used photo cards which showed the whole negative. But if you had enlargements made they would crop and print any size you liked, typical 10x8. You do not have to use the whole image, you can crop frame and "print" to what looks best. The frame was a sliding thing you put over the photo paper under the enlarger to form the borders. Have we lost sight of what comes out of the camera is not the final aspect ratio?

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Well observed Jeff, I totally agree. And I’ll stay out of the chicken shed from now on.

[@williamstatt8651]

Here is the rub for me. I am learning. I am told to carefully check the edges and use a tripod so you can exactly frame a clean image. That worked for a while. But then I decided to try printing. Holy Cow! Now I have to crop the image I so carefully crafted. So is it really so necessary to carefully frame an image if you are going to have to crop it so it can be printed and mounted and framed?. But photography has been around for many decades, etc. To me, the bigger picture is why haven't photo paper manufactures and mat manufactures made "standard" mats and frames in the ratio's that cameras use instead of forcing us to crop our images and spend more money than would be necessary?

[@ddsdss256]

Of course, there is no "perfect" aspect ratio (as they're arbitrary). What's important is what looks good to you. It all depends on the scene and quite often, trying to squeeze a composition to fit any specific format is problematic, which is why cropping in post (but never for a "digital zoom" effect) can achieve the desired effect when you can't find a way to frame the scene that supports your artistic vision. Also, one tends to adjust according to the system used and composes based on what's seen in the viewfinder. I don't agree with the pixel-wasting "strategy" of leaving a "cropping allowance" except when there's no way to get the composition you want in camera (or anticipating keystone correction, as you mention). When I shot film, it was primarily 135 format, so 3:2, but I also shot square. When I shifted to MFT, 4:3 became the default, and once I got use to it, I came to prefer it, especially as I often shoot in "portrait" mode (although I rarely shoot portraits). As always, YMMV.

[@tizio54]

Would a circular sensor be the perfect choice? It would maximise the use of the lens' image circle, and allow any aspect ratio and even choose afterwards for landscape or portrait orientation. Interesting cropping options and lossless rotation of the image.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

When was the last time you saw a circular magazine? Or a circular tv screen or monitor? Even our eyes see a wide rectangular(ish) field of view. It probably wouldn’t sell and would also have massive vignetting around the picture

[@tizio54]

@@ThatMicro43Guy I don't mean that the end result has to be circular, I'm talking about the freedom to crop any rectangular cross-section out of a circle, and not having to worry about landscape or portrait mode (i.e. not holding the camera in an uncomfortable way for those that don't have vertical grips). Same lenses can be used, unlike when switching to a larger format, so vignetting is not worse than before, because it's all in the same image circle. Now that you mention it, I have used circular CRT's a long time ago, as in oscilloscope.

[@jeffslade1892]

The was almost done with the GH3 multi-aspect sensor which was 18Mp but produced 16Mp images in 4:3, 3:2, and 1:1 The Lumix G5 got the same sensor without the multi-aspect function. Fwiw it's a great sensor that produces images far better than you can see on its monitor or EVF. I believe the LX100 II offers a multi aspect sensor 17Mp 4/3 But hang on, a UHD screen is only 8Mp, meaning you can crop half of a 16Mp shot away for artistic effect and still have full definition. So a multi-aspect sensor is a bit of a gimmick. If you are looking at a typical digital photo on a 4K UHD screen, it's pixel dumping, you are not seeing all of it.

[@juanfigueroa4305]

A novel in 4:3 from 2001 will be appreciated in good quality? 🤔

[@MstrRo1]

When you note, "shooting raw", are you referring to MFT video or photo or both?

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Photo

[@musicdreamerish]

Since you can change to any aspect ratio in post, why worry about it until you get to post, then just use the aspect ratio that fits your specific photo?

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

You can change to most common ones in camera too but it’s always a subtractive process. You get a 4:3 ratio from a 3:2 sensor by reducing the width you get a 3:2 ratio from a 4:3 sensor by cutting off the height. In all instances you are reducing the resolution of the sensor and therefore the image. So an em1 mk2 sensor is 5184x3888 pixels or 20,155,392 pixels. To make a 3:2 image from that either in camera or post would be 5184x3456 or 17,915,904 pixels for a 1:1 photo it would be 3888x3888 or 15,116,544 pixels . So getting the desired aspect ratio at source, I.e. sensor size & shape, is the least loss.

[@barryslaymaker5237]

Just to check if you shoot in raw is it all ways 4-3 even if you put the camera 1-1

[@joeltunnah]

Yes. Raw doesn’t care what ratio you set in the camera.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Correct

[@joeytide3298]

Maybe I didn't glean it from your video, but what is the raw aspect ratio? And since lenses are circular why aren't sensors round? And if I shoot 1:1 (square) am I getting all the light coming through the lens?

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

The raw aspect ratio is the one quoted in the camera format I.e M43 have 4:3 sensors, FF & APS-C have 3:2 sensors. In theory they could make a circular sensor bet we have always cropped square/rectangular a section out of that circle of light to produce our photos. We’re a square sensor to be used by the manufacturers then, yes, we would have square output, most do not though. Should you choose 1:1 on a format which produces rectangular output then all you would be doing is discarding information from either side. So you would get less rather than more of the available image.

[@Anna-gv7vo]

Sorry if I'm being dumb, but is 4:3 the same as 4:5 proportionally? Thank you for your vídeo?

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

No, switch the 4:5 around to put the long side on the same side of the equation so you are effectively asking if 4:3 is the same as 5:4.. to check that we need to find the first number where 5 and 4 (the long sides of both) can be equally divided into and that is 20. 4 goes into 20 5 times so we multiply the right hand number by 5 so 3x5 = 15 so the ratio is 20:15. Now if we take the second number, 20 is divisible by 5 four times, multiply the right hand number (4) by four and you get 16 So the equivalent aspect ratios are 20:15 and 20:16 so the latter is wider for the same height. I hope that makes sense

[@Anna-gv7vo]

@@ThatMicro43Guy thank you so much, it makes perfect sense! I was asking because, for instance Instagram allows 4:5 but my camera doesn't! I wish it did, it's my favorite ratio for portraits! Thanks again for your answer and patience!

[@linjicakonikon7666]

After 50 years of photography, I've found that 2:3 (35mm and 6x9), 1:1(6x6), and 3:1 (6x17) are by far the most satisfying visual formats. The rest bore me.

[@andrewhillphotosvideos2909]

but there is a right and wrong when printing and size of print thats what I need to Know but thank you anyway

[@humbertopool8836]

Hi brian, i'm Humberto Pool, I live in Chile. I appreciate yours opinions and advice on different cameras and objetives and you have very entretaines stories in your channel but....you speak so fast that in sometimes is difficult follow your speech. Please i would appreciate if you may speak slower, and can assure you that more people would be thanks with you.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Where I come from in the North East of England I am considered to be a slow talker lol. I shall try to slow down a bit.

[@humbertopool8836]

@@ThatMicro43Guy Thanks