Which size is it best to shoot at? I just got my HDMI cable (cost only $5 after instant rebate) and played with the camera connected to my TV and the videos showed in crystal clear quality on my HD TV and they took up the full screen estate, while the photos did not because they were shot in 4:3. My videos are set to the lowest res and no I am not gonna set them any higher because I like having lots of disk space available. I wont do anything with the videos but play them back and they play back really clear in HD. Camera can shoot in 4K however.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
4:3, or 16:9?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
16:9 is simply a cropped version of the 4:3. I am guessing the reason that 4:3 is not displaying well is that it is being displayed at maybe 33% of the full image, whereas the 16:9 is perhaps being displayed at 50% of the image size.
Look at a known good image in Preview and set it at something other than 25, 50 or 100% of full image size and it will not look as crisp as some pixels are being spilled but it is impossible to do it evenly. Once images are imported it's always possible to resize copies so those they will display properly.
Look at a known good image in Preview and set it at something other than 25, 50 or 100% of full image size and it will not look as crisp as some pixels are being spilled but it is impossible to do it evenly. Once images are imported it's always possible to resize copies so those they will display properly.
This should explain things.
petapixel.com
The Problem of Viewing Photos on Digital Displays
In the good old days of analog photography, print aspect ratio was ultimately determined by the paper size. In other words, if you printed an 8x10-inch,
I’m not sure I totally understand your question. Are you talking about photos?
In general for photos, the ideal shooting aspect ratio is the aspect ratio of the sensor. Other aspect ratios are cutting off part of what the sensor is able to see. Having more image data available in the original file gives you more control over cropping in post. It’s always easy to throw out image data in post, it’s not possible to get it back if the sensor never recorded it.
From your other threads and posts, you don’t seem to be in a place with your photography where you want to do a lot of editing in post. Which is fine. That might come later or it might never be something that interests you. Again, fine.
But even the most basic file viewing software on a Mac (Preview) allows cropping of a JPG and saving the cropped image (ideally using Save As rather than Save so you still have the original to work with if you don’t like your crop).
The Photos app (also free on a Mac) gives you even more editing tools which may be useful to really bring out the best in the images you are creating with your new camera.
The general rule for most photographers is to capture the most data possible at the time you press the shutter button. This gives you the most options to “fix” or adjust an image in post.
You seem to be really excited about using a “real” camera as opposed to most people just using a phone camera (a comment from your zoo thread). I understand that file size and storage are concerns for you.
You will have to decide where your happy medium lies. I only shoot in RAW on a full frame sensor and would never capture a pic with any in-camera cropping. But I don’t care about file sizes and I expect to spend some amount of time in post to get my images to look just how I want them to. While that’s right for me, it may not be right for you. Which is fine.
You should keep in mind that this is a photography sub-forum. Most regulars are passionate about photography and care about image quality. Most regulars are willing to put at least some time/effort into editing potential “keepers” in post. This is going to potentially influence some of the replies you receive to your threads/posts.
Last edited:
Yes I am referring to displaying photos on my HD TV which appear in 4:3 and do not take up the entire display of the TV. Should I shoot rather in 16:9? I have no idea how to answer technical questions about sensors and the like since I am not a pro photographer.
Yes file size and storage are important to me so I like to shoot in a lower res.
A suggestion. Take some images at both aspect ratios, 4:3 and 16:9 of the same subject and with all other settings the same. Display them on your TV. Decide which you prefer.
In general, one of the best ways to learn is to try things, experiment with the settings. Well have different needs and tastes, what looks good to you may not to me. And vice versa.
Good luck and have fun.
In general, one of the best ways to learn is to try things, experiment with the settings. Well have different needs and tastes, what looks good to you may not to me. And vice versa.
Good luck and have fun.
Note that all TVs will usually have a lot less pixels than a typical modern digital photo. Even 4K UHD is only 8.3Megapixel. 1080p is basically just 2.1Megapixel. So your photos will generally don't look so great when viewed on TVs. Then there's the aspect ratio issue, where 16:9 is not the typical aspect ratio for photos.
Instead of showing photos directly on TVs, imo it's better to create a slideshow of them first using software like iMovie.
Instead of showing photos directly on TVs, imo it's better to create a slideshow of them first using software like iMovie.
I can say I have never looked at my photos on a TV. Never seen a need or point to it.
Last year, a friend of mine passed away. And the family asked for photographs. At the funeral home there was a large screen TV mounted on the wall, which displayed the photos on a loop. It was very well done and had the added benefit in Covid times of not requiring people to crowd around a table top display of the photos.
Just because you can't think of a reason to do something or don't have the need doesn't mean it isn't a valid use case.
Sharing images on a TV, in a room where multiple people can view them at the same time, rather than crowding around a very likely much smaller computer display, is a very valid use case.
True. At the end, what's the purpose of showing the photos for. If it's for the memories, then the pixels don't matter, what matters are the right photos to trigger the emotion. They can be blurry or pixelated, but the right photos will still trigger emotions. I have seen plenty of times where photos are displayed in various events that are improperly resized due to the aspect ratio (so the photo was either too thin or too wide). Most people don't care because the memories are the important thing. Of course, I was annoyed to hell because I'm just that nerd....
Yeah the HDMI cable only cost me $5 after rebate. So I figured why not play on my TV?
So I am not hurting myself by shooting at 4.4MP. It printed great at 8x10 and photo size is small so I think 4.4MP is perfect for my needs since I value disk space. I only have a 32GB SD card and I will be using camera foe videos as well as photos.
A 32GB card can hold about 4700 20MP photos. So I don't see why you need to be concerned about disk space, unless you keep all your photos in the SD card. Not a good idea..
Do not keep all your photos in your SD card. SD cards can fail. Don't let thousands of your photos go poof.
